An Examination of the Biden, Harris, and Trump Foreign Policies
For and By Practitioners
By G. E. Butler, October 6, 2024
Introduction
As the election draws near, getting a better sense of the effectiveness of the next President’s foreign policy should be scrutinized and considered as part of each voter’s ballot calculus. The foreign policy analysis published by Strategy Central over the past three weeks, along with selected deterrence articles, was used to compare policy and possible success at deterring China, Russia, and Iran. We used AI to compare and judge each policy. The conclusion was a surprise.
In comparing the foreign policies of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris to determine whose approach would most effectively restore the United States' deterrence capabilities against authoritarian rivals such as China, Russia, and Iran, we must first understand the context in which each policy was crafted. The U.S. today faces a deteriorating global order, one increasingly shaped by authoritarian regimes that challenge the norms of international relations with little repercussions. These regimes exploit gaps in international rules and capitalize on weakened U.S. deterrence. With that backdrop, we can now compare the respective foreign policies of Trump, Biden, and Harris and judge their relative effectiveness in confronting these challenges.
Trump's Foreign Policy: Aggressive and Transactional
Donald Trump's foreign policy, best summarized by the slogan "America First," sought to redefine U.S. global leadership by focusing on immediate U.S. interests over multilateral agreements and traditional alliances. Trump's approach was defined by unpredictability and assertiveness, often using tariffs, economic pressure, and military force as tools for coercion. Notable decisions included withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, imposing heavy tariffs on China, and brokering the Abraham Accords in the Middle East.
However, Trump's foreign policy frequently alienated traditional allies, as exemplified by his antagonistic relationship with NATO. While he pressured European allies to increase defense spending, he often threatened to withdraw U.S. support for the alliance. His rhetoric on authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping was erratic, ranging from personal praise to harsh criticism.
Trump's reliance on economic warfare, particularly tariffs, was intended to rebalance trade relations but often strained diplomatic ties and heightened tensions. His confrontational approach to China included a series of trade wars, but this strategy was criticized for focusing too much on short-term wins rather than long-term stability. Trump's emphasis on "peace through strength" led to increased defense spending and the creation of the U.S. Space Force. Still, his foreign policy also lacked a clear and consistent strategy for deterring adversaries.
While Trump's unpredictability occasionally worked to the U.S.'s advantage by keeping adversaries on edge, it ultimately undermined trust among allies, which is essential for maintaining a united front against common threats like China, Russia, and Iran.
Biden's Foreign Policy: Multilateral and Alliance-Centric
President Joe Biden entered office with the promise of restoring U.S. global leadership through multilateralism and strengthening alliances, particularly NATO. His administration took a more measured and predictable approach compared to Trump's, focusing on coalition-building and diplomacy. Biden’s foreign policy emphasized competition with China, particularly through alliances like AUKUS and the Quad, to counter Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. Biden's support for Ukraine during Russia’s invasion is a testament to his commitment to collective security, as he rallied NATO allies to impose crippling sanctions on Moscow and provided substantial military aid to Kyiv.
One of Biden’s key foreign policy achievements was rebuilding trust with European allies alienated by Trump's unilateralism. However, Biden's foreign policy was not without flaws. His chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, which resulted in the rapid takeover by the Taliban, significantly damaged U.S. credibility and emboldened adversaries like Russia and China. Critics also argue that his incremental support for Ukraine has prolonged the conflict without delivering a decisive outcome.
Biden’s approach to China focuses on "strategic competition" rather than confrontation, aiming to curb China's growing influence through economic and military alliances while avoiding outright conflict. This strategy includes restrictions on technology exports and strengthening domestic industries like semiconductor production. However, Biden’s restraint in escalating tensions with China while ensuring long-term stability may be seen as too passive in the face of an increasingly assertive Beijing.
Biden's reliance on alliances and diplomacy creates a more stable and predictable environment for U.S. global deterrence. Still, the slow pace of implementation in areas like Ukraine and Taiwan risks emboldening adversaries.
Kamala Harris's Foreign Policy: Balancing Multilateralism and Modern Challenges
As Vice President, Kamala Harris has largely aligned her foreign policy positions with those of Biden but has introduced some key distinctions. Harris's foreign policy framework addresses emerging global challenges like climate change, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity, focusing on the Global South and human rights. She has strongly advocated for continued support for Ukraine and maintaining a robust U.S. military presence in NATO. However, Harris places a greater emphasis on diplomacy and reducing U.S. military engagements abroad, marking a subtle departure from the more hawkish elements of Biden’s policy.
Harris’s approach to China mirrors Biden’s in many ways, focusing on "de-risking" rather than decoupling from China. She supports maintaining strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan while bolstering U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific, such as with Japan and South Korea. Harris’s foreign policy team, composed of figures like Philip Gordon and Rebecca Lissner, advocates for a pragmatic internationalism that balances traditional U.S. interests with progressive concerns like human rights and climate change.
However, Harris’s emphasis on diplomacy and multilateralism could lead to a perceived softening of U.S. deterrence. While her focus on modern global issues is forward-looking, critics may argue that her approach risks underestimating the immediate threats posed by authoritarian regimes like China, Russia, and Iran.
Comparing the Three Approaches to Deterrence
When comparing Trump, Biden, and Harris on their ability to strengthen U.S. deterrence, it is clear that each brings distinct advantages and challenges. Trump's confrontational and erratic approach generated immediate, albeit volatile, results. His willingness to use tariffs and military threats made adversaries wary, but it also alienated allies and lacked the long-term strategic vision necessary for sustainable deterrence.
Biden's focus on multilateralism and rebuilding alliances offers a more stable and predictable framework for deterrence. His ability to rally NATO against Russia and form new alliances in the Indo-Pacific demonstrates the strength of his approach. However, Biden’s cautious and incremental strategy may not be aggressive enough to deter authoritarian regimes like China and Russia, which thrive on U.S. indecision.
Harris's foreign policy continues Biden’s multilateralism but with a greater focus on modern challenges like climate change and human rights. While her emphasis on diplomacy and engagement is commendable, it may be seen as too soft in the face of rising global authoritarianism.
Ranking and Justification
Biden’s multilateralism is the most effective long-term strategy for improving U.S. deterrence in ranking the three foreign policy approaches. His ability to rebuild alliances and strengthen NATO provides a solid foundation for collective security against authoritarian regimes. However, Biden's slow and cautious approach may benefit from some of Trump's assertiveness, particularly when dealing with immediate threats.
While aggressive and effective in generating short-term results, Trump's foreign policy lacks the strategic foresight and alliance-building needed to sustain long-term deterrence. His unpredictability undermined trust among U.S. allies and left gaps in the international order that adversaries like China and Russia exploited.
Harris's approach, while modern and forward-looking, risks being perceived as too diplomatic and not sufficiently focused on the immediate authoritarian threats facing the U.S. Her focus on global cooperation, while necessary, may need to be balanced with a more assertive stance on deterrence.
Thus, Biden’s foreign policy ranks first, followed by Trump’s for its effectiveness in immediate deterrence, and finally, Harris’s, which holds promise but may need a more robust deterrence component to deal with current threats.
Conclusion
While logical from the limited inputs for AI to draw its conclusions, it seems patently wrong that Biden’s policy would be the best. The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the undeterred invasion of Ukraine, Hamas and Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, and the increasing boldness of the Chinese to push back on the U.S. and its partners in the Pacific have occurred on Biden’s watch. The 2017 and 2022 NDS rely on deterrence to maintain a friendly status quo for the U.S. and its allies and partners. Avoiding war is the right notion, given the costs and risks. However, being perpetually intimidated by the fear of passing imaginary red lines or paralyzed into inaction by outsized concepts of retaliation is the current hallmark of this and previous administrations. Deterrence cannot improve with this mindset and the failure to enforce with penalty what the U.S. finds unacceptable. Failing to punish rivals for illegal or excessively provocative actions creates the danger of escalatory actions we find unacceptable. Instead of nipping something in the bud, it will only fan the flames. With more significant provocation, the U.S. will have to act with serious force to disrupt, degrade, or simply stop actions that blow past our red lines.
Trump’s excessively personal and volatile nature makes the long-term commitment necessary to create lasting power dynamics in the international space almost impossible. Either Trump or Harris will win and will have to improve on Biden's (and previous administrations') poor deterrence performance. One key to this is keeping our friends close and our firm grip on the global international system. As any old monarch would tell you, “He who makes the rules and enforces them reaps the system's rewards.”
Deterrence in great power competition means keeping our hands on the levers of control and our rival's hands off. Isolationism, trade wars, and alienating democratic allies and partners are not conducive to maintaining dominance over global affairs. If we give up this power, someone else will fill the void, and future generations of Americans will struggle to succeed in a world designed to keep them out of markets and regions the new hegemon does not want Americans in.
By Trump’s admission, he wants to exit NATO, place tariffs on all goods coming into the U.S., and demonstrate contempt for the idea of leading the Western democratic nations against the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian rivals. Furthermore, Trump’s repeated claims to resolve the Ukraine-Russian war in one day are absurdly unrealistic. The Ukrainians won’t participate in negotiations with the premise that they will give up all the land lost to Russia in battle. Trump will likely suspend aid to Ukraine, which will weaken the democratic alliance and embolden both Russia and China. This will fail to create the deterrence necessary to avert more hostile actions in the future.
Furthermore, Trump’s erratic style and caricature of a strongman will weaken faith in the steady image of the American system and the dollar. Trade wars will not enrich America or necessarily drive the return of domestic production. While deeply popular with millions of Americans, his style did not translate well on the global stage in his first term. His embrace of chaos may have some deterrent effect, but when combined with his transactional approach, it will likely create a more permissive environment for autocrats and drive up the global price of goods. The total of these approaches makes Trump a uniquely poor choice for managing foreign affairs.
Harris has demonstrated some grit on the campaign trail, but it remains to be seen if campaign rhetoric will translate into real-world toughness. A toughness is needed to push past our current fearful state of deterrence management. She must select an experienced, no-nonsense team with the wisdom and guts to reject Biden’s excessive caution. If the Harris foreign policy team can craft policy with the vision for what the United States wants to achieve over the next five years and manage it, we can advance beyond the status quo. This assumes she blends Kissinger’s realism and Biden’s penchant for alliance-building and improvement. Teddy Rosevelt’s “Carry a big stick, and speak softly” approach would be a worthy adaptation for Harris, as long as that stick bruised a few heads. Harris is an unknown and, like Trump, is equally loved and reviled by the American electorate. Whether she can handle the divisions tearing at the country and pressures exerted abroad is unknown.
Domestic policy will be as much a drain as foreign policy for the next president, and in the final days of the 2024 Presidential election, which is looking like a draw at this point, we are boiling things down to hope. While not a viable course of action, the nation must hope whoever wins is up to the task and creates a better future for all Americans. Judging by the analysis presented, the devil we don’t know might be the better bet than the one we do.
End Notes
"America’s Weak Deterrence: Can Biden, Trump, or Harris Rebuild U.S. Power Against Authoritarian Rivals?"
"Deterring Dictators: Whose Foreign Policy Will Stand Up to China, Russia, and Iran?"
"Reclaiming Global Dominance: The Battle Between Trump, Biden, and Harris to Restore U.S. Deterrence"
"America on the Brink: How Biden, Trump, and Harris Plan to Confront the Rise of Authoritarian Powers"
"Who Will Save U.S. Hegemony? A Comparative Look at Trump, Biden, and Harris’s Foreign Policy"
Commentaires