In a surprising turn of events, New York Times columnist and longtime Trump critic Bret Stephens has admitted that President Donald Trump’s administration has enjoyed more success than he originally expected.
Known for his "Never Trump" stance, Stephens has spent much of his career criticizing the former president’s policies and leadership style.
However, in a candid column published on Tuesday, Stephens expressed a shift in perspective, acknowledging that Trump’s presidency has delivered successes that are undeniable and, in some cases, more substantial than he had anticipated.
Stephens, who has often been a thorn in Trump’s side, particularly in the realm of foreign policy and domestic governance, was forced to reckon with the reality that Trump's presidency has progressed in ways that defy many of the predictions made by his most ardent critics.
In his column, Stephens admitted that, after a rocky start, Trump has managed to achieve a series of political victories that could reshape how his presidency is viewed in the long run.
"Egads! After a disastrous first 100 days, Donald Trump is starting to have a much more successful presidency.
This is not what we, his foam-at-the-mouth critics, had planned or perhaps secretly hoped for," Stephens wrote, expressing his surprise at the turn of events.
His remarks reflect an honest assessment of the current political landscape, one where Trump has defied expectations and, according to Stephens, secured significant victories that are impossible to ignore.
One of the first areas where Stephens acknowledged Trump's surprising success was in his handling of NATO.
For years, Trump was criticized for his confrontational approach to the alliance, with many analysts and foreign policy experts predicting that his presidency would weaken NATO and damage relationships with key allies.
However, according to Stephens, Trump managed to achieve the opposite: he successfully pressured NATO member countries to increase their defense spending, a policy that Trump touted as crucial for strengthening the alliance.
"Far from destroying the Atlantic alliance, as his critics feared, Trump may wind up being remembered for reviving and rebalancing it, to the advantage of both sides," Stephens wrote.
This unexpected outcome underscores one of the most striking contradictions of Trump’s presidency: while his rhetoric often alienated foreign leaders, his policies in some cases achieved meaningful results, particularly in terms of military and defense policy.
Trump's ability to get NATO countries to increase defense spending not only bolstered the alliance but also demonstrated his unorthodox approach to diplomacy, which was more transactional than his predecessors.
For Stephens, this was a clear victory for Trump, one that many had predicted would be a failure, but which ultimately led to a stronger, more balanced NATO.
Another area where Stephens was forced to acknowledge Trump’s success was in his handling of the Middle East, particularly his controversial decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The airstrike, which took place last month, was a bold move that sparked intense debate, with critics fearing it would lead to a wider Middle Eastern conflict. However, according to Stephens, Trump’s actions ultimately helped bring a swift end to tensions between Israel and Iran.
"Joining Israel in its strikes on Iran, which Trump carried out in the teeth of political resistance from parts of his own base, did not lead us into a calamitous Middle East war, though Tehran may yet seek retaliation.
Instead, it helped bring the war between Israel and Iran to a swift end," Stephens wrote, offering praise for what he described as a "courageous policy" that paid off.
Stephens noted that, despite the political backlash, Trump’s decision did not result in the catastrophic consequences many had predicted.
While the possibility of Iranian retaliation still looms, the airstrikes marked a significant shift in U.S. policy toward Iran and showcased Trump's willingness to take risks in pursuit of what he saw as U.S. interests.
In addition to his success in the Middle East, Stephens also praised Trump for his evolving stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In the early stages of the war, Trump’s approach to Russia was criticized for being too lenient, with many believing that his actions emboldened Vladimir Putin. However, as the war progressed, Trump shifted his policy, speeding up the delivery of military aid to Ukraine.
"Speeding the delivery of arms to Ukraine, after Trump’s disastrous initial pressure campaign on Ukraine backfired by emboldening Vladimir Putin, is the only way to end the war," Stephens wrote.
This shift, Stephens pointed out, was a necessary recalibration, one that aligned more closely with the broader Western response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
For critics of Trump, this reversal might be seen as a necessary correction to a policy that was initially too focused on personal relations with Putin.
For Stephens, however, it is a recognition that Trump’s ability to adapt his policies in response to changing global dynamics has been a key factor in his political success.
Another area where Stephens expressed mixed feelings about Trump’s success was in his immigration policy.
While Stephens acknowledged that Trump’s policies on border control and illegal immigration were effective in many ways, he also noted that the enforcement aspect of these policies often went too far.
The family separation policy, in particular, sparked widespread outrage and led to protests across the country.
"Good policy that’s gone too far," Stephens described Trump’s approach to immigration enforcement. While Trump succeeded in securing the southern border and curbing illegal immigration, the means by which he carried out these policies have been criticized as overly harsh.
Despite this, Stephens admitted that Trump’s immigration policies did deliver on the president’s promise to secure the border and reduce the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.
Trump’s approach to trade, especially his "America First" stance, also garnered mixed reviews from Stephens.
On one hand, Trump’s trade wars with China and his attempts to renegotiate trade deals were met with skepticism, but on the other hand, the new deals with the European Union and Japan did not lead to the disastrous economic outcomes that some had feared.
"I am relieved that the trade deals Trump recently secured with the European Union and Japan did not lead to worse outcomes than they did," Stephens wrote.
While Trump's approach to trade may have created some initial uncertainty, it ultimately resulted in deals that benefited U.S. interests, particularly in the realm of tariffs and market access.
This, for Stephens, was another example of Trump achieving unexpected success in areas that many of his critics had predicted would end in failure.
Stephens also acknowledged the political significance of Trump’s $3.3 trillion spending package, which was passed in early July.
While he criticized many aspects of the package, calling it "unbeautiful," he admitted that it represented a necessary political victory for Trump, especially in light of his challenges with Congress.
"Many unbeautiful parts" of the package, Stephens noted, but it was nonetheless a "needed" political victory.
The package, which included funding for various domestic programs and initiatives, was a significant achievement for Trump, particularly given the difficulty he had in securing bipartisan support for his policies.
Finally, Stephens pointed to Trump’s legal actions, such as his pursuit of Columbia University over antisemitism on its campus, as an example of Trump’s ability to get results, even if his methods were often controversial.
"Not the way to go about it," Stephens said of Trump’s tactics, but the legal victories that followed demonstrated his willingness to take bold actions to address issues that mattered to his supporters.
The most striking aspect of Stephens’ column was his broader reflection on the nature of effective political opposition.
"If Trump’s opponents want to someday be effective — and let’s face it, we haven’t been — then we have to come to grips with realities that have so far eluded us. Such as: Not everything Trump does is bad," he wrote, acknowledging that Trump’s presidency has included successes that cannot be ignored.
This realization marks a significant shift for Stephens, who had long been a leading voice in the "Never Trump" movement.
His acknowledgment of Trump’s accomplishments serves as a valuable lesson for those who have relentlessly criticized the president, urging them to adopt a more nuanced approach to evaluating his presidency.
Bret Stephens’ column serves as a reminder that political legacies are often more complex than they appear at first glance.
While Trump’s presidency has been marked by controversy and divisiveness, it has also been defined by several notable successes that cannot be dismissed outright.
For critics of Trump, this presents a challenge: how can they continue to oppose a president who has managed to secure tangible victories on the world stage and at home?
As the 2024 election looms on the horizon, Stephens’ reflection serves as a timely reminder that political opponents must be willing to confront the realities of their opposition’s successes, rather than simply focusing on their failures.
Whether or not Trump’s presidency will ultimately be viewed as a success remains to be seen, but for now, his critics, including Bret Stephens, must reckon with the undeniable achievements of his administration.
