Trump vs. Harris Foreign Politics
There are tremendous differences with domestic politics between the presidential candidates. Trump wants lower taxes, free enterprise, no immigration, protectionists, America first, abortion limitations to mention a few versus Harris who wants higher taxes, more government, open immigration, globalization, free abortion etc. The list can go on covering energy, crimes, infrastructure, education, healthcare and so on. In all areas, the candidates have opposite opinions. As we have seen with the past two presidents, the political agenda does matter.
When it comes to foreign politics, the candidates also have different agendas. It might be less extreme than domestic issues and less noticeable for U.S. voters, but their respective agendas will have significant impact globally. The key focus areas during the Biden years have been the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Trump tells the voters that the conflicts would not have happened had he been president instead of Biden. Who knows? Trump does not promote NATO eastward expansion and would not have given billions to Iran and eased Iranian sanctions that have enabled funding of Iranian proxy groups throughout the Middle East. So maybe he is right?
There have been tense relations with China the last few years, both due to tariffs and the conflict in Ukraine. China supports Russia and the U.S. is conducting a proxy war in Ukraine. There are also increased geopolitical tension in the Pacific area and China has been increasingly aggressive, not only towards Taiwan.
Most noteworthy the last week was Kamala Harris being missing from Israeli prime minster Netanyahu’s speech in Congress. This would be an event typically convened by the vice president. Instead, Harris chose to address a historically black sorority event in Indiana. So far, Harris has failed to outline any foreign policy objectives, but it is still early. A lawyer by training, Harris’s foreign policy portfolio is razor thin, marked by record illegal crossing at the U.S.-Mexico border during her tenure as Biden’s “border czar”.
If Harris wins the election in November, she will most likely stick to Biden’s foreign policy playbook on Iran, China, Ukraine, and Russia, while striking a less sympathetic approach towards Israel. Also dictating her foreign policy agenda would be her chief foreign policy advisor, Philip Gordon, a former Obama State Department official who helped negotiate Iran’s conciliatory nuclear deal back in 2015.
As with Ukraine, Trump promises an immediate end to the war in Gaza. Israeli-Saudi normalization would also be high up among Trump’s Middle East objectives. Harris would focus more on ending the war with Hamas, achieve ceasefire and work closer with the Palestinian and a potential two state solution.
Nowhere would Trump and Harris diverge more than on addressing Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. A Harris administration would focus on a policy of soft diplomacy while attempting to revive a nuclear deal. But the Biden administration failed to deter Iran from wreaking regional chaos. Both Iranian-linked Hamas and Hezbollah have been attacking Israel and escalated tension in the region. There is also a growing concern that Iran will obtain nuclear weaponry.
Trump, on the other hand, would reset U.S.’s eroded deterrence with Iran, paving a reset by projecting uncompromising strength to bring about the end of the Iranian regime. This might be a stretch, but a Trump administration would put much more pressure on Iran, both economically and militarily.
Like Biden, Harris backs Ukraine and has a pro-NATO stance, describing the alliance earlier this month as “the single greatest, most effective defensive alliance in the history of the world”. Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, signaled his opposition to the U.S. issuing blanks checks to help Ukraine fight. Rather than offer Ukraine blind support like Harris, Trump might strong-arm an end to the war in Ukraine, possibly even pressuring Ukraine to consider relinquishing territory. A Trump return to the White House would also see greater demands on NATO allies to spend a higher percentage of their GDP, reportedly as high as 3%, on defense.
On China, Harris is likely to toe the bipartisan line on curbing China’s geopolitical ascendancy, especially as it threatens Taiwanese sovereignty, while seeking out areas of cooperation. A Trump White House would likely ramp up trade and economic hostilities between the word’s two largest economies by reimposing tariffs on Chinese imports and restoring his flagship protectionist “America First” policy. Bottom line is that China still has several advantages trade-wise, and Trump is going to go after these.
For American voters, it is worth spending time on researching the candidates before voting. What do they stand for and what policies would they focus on? Trump and Harris have vastly different agendas and views of America and the world. It is still several months left before November 5th so there is time to investigate and think. Good luck!