With the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican Party has lost one of its most consequential foreign policy leaders. Graham represented a tradition of conservative internationalism that combined military strength with economic statecraft, democratic values, and an unwavering belief that American leadership remains indispensable.
That tradition deserves to endure. He leaves very big shoes to fill.
After his parents died at a young age, Graham largely raised his younger sister in modest circumstances. His service as an Air Force judge advocate reinforced his appreciation for the military and the rule of law. Those experiences produced a public servant who believed that America is strongest when it leads with confidence and purpose.
Like his friend Senator John McCain, Graham believed deeply in Ronald Reagan’s principle of peace through strength.
He was one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for Ukraine. He understood that Russia’s invasion was not simply a dispute over territory. It was a test of whether free nations would defend the principle that borders cannot be changed through force. America’s support for Ukraine was not charity; it was an investment in global stability and American credibility. He died less than 24 hours after returning from a visit to Ukraine. The timing of his death is suspicious and a full autopsy should be carried out.
The same moral clarity defined his commitment to Israel. Following the October 7 attacks, Graham repeatedly traveled to Israel and consistently argued that the United States must stand firmly with one of its closest democratic allies. He also showed political courage by speaking plainly against antisemitism wherever he encountered it, including within his own party.
Years before Washington reached a bipartisan consensus on China, Graham recognized that the Chinese Communist Party represented America’s most significant long-term strategic competitor. Yet he also understood something that is sometimes forgotten in today’s debates: competition with China cannot be won through military power alone.
The same philosophy informed his view of international organizations. Graham was no naïve multilateralist. He recognized that many international institutions require reform and stronger oversight. He understood either we “ride herd” on these institutions or authoritarian competitors—especially China—will shape the rules that govern these institutions.
Perhaps Graham’s most overlooked contribution, however, had little to do with policy itself.
He understood politics.
Too many foreign policy experts believe that publishing reports, appearing on panels, or criticizing elected officials is sufficient. Graham knew better. Ideas only matter if there are leaders willing to champion them—and those leaders do not emerge by accident.
He regularly encouraged people who cared about American leadership to become involved in campaigns, support strong candidates, raise resources, and build durable political coalitions. He understood that if internationalists refuse to engage in the “dirty business” of politics, then others will dominate the debate. He encouraged people of goodwill to donate to candidates and to get involved-especially in Republican primaries.
He also understood that after 2016, the Republican party was now President Trump’s party and Senator Graham worked tirelessly to build trust with the President. He spoke to President Trump often was willing to use his time with the President to advocate for Ukraine or other important causes.
Lindsey Graham also rejected the false choice between hard power and soft power because he recognized that successful American statecraft requires both. A strong military is indispensable, but so are diplomacy, trade, development finance, technological innovation, and support for democratic institutions. Graham appreciated that foreign assistance, when properly designed and rigorously overseen, advances American interests by strengthening partners before instability becomes crisis. He believed that defending freedom abroad ultimately makes Americans safer and more prosperous at home.
His greatest legacy may not be the legislation he passed or the speeches he delivered. It may be the generation of policymakers, elected officials, and citizens whom he persuaded that American leadership is worth defending—and that defending it requires more than conviction. It requires political engagement.
That is a lesson Republicans, and the country, should not forget.
