Decision Guide: Foreign Policy Under Harris vs. Trump

 News

America 2024

Decision Guide: Foreign Policy Under Harris vs.

Trump

As major conflicts continue to upend global politics, the two American presidential candidates offer sharp contrasts in style and substance.

Illustration by Barbara Gibson for USN&WR | Source: Getty Images

It’s a perilous time in the world. The war sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the deadliest European conflict since World War II, has dragged on for two and a half years, leaving the continent on edge. The Middle East, still consumed by Israel’s bloody and politically combustible Gaza operation, is now staring down the prospect of a full-blown war involving Israel, Hezbollah and Iran. China continues to ratchet up its military presence in the Pacific and escalate tensions with Taiwan.

Amid such high stakes – and serious questions about the future of the decades-old American-led global order – Donald Trump and Kamala Harris present a stark contrast on foreign policy.

It’s a distinction that’s perhaps most evident in the candidates’ operational styles. Harris, although she’s been part of the Biden administration for four years, is only beginning to reveal her own foreign policy agenda. Yet analysts expect her to be a stable commander in chief who would weigh decisions carefully, surround herself with expertise and – like President Joe Biden – seek to uphold alliances and American engagement.

“I think the safest thing is to look at her decision making style in general, and her training as a lawyer and her work as attorney general,” says Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. “She sort of has a prosecutorial mindset. She likes to get to the heart of the matter … but she also seems to be pragmatic and cautious.”

Trump appears to be the opposite, according to experts.

“The first thing to say is that the search for a simple explanation of his foreign policy will be elusive, because it was very personal and technical,” says O’Hanlon. “There is no overarching ideology, or even a trust in sort of a foreign policy tradition of the United States. There’s no real sense of how to use the expertise and advice of different people in his government.” Instead, according to some of the advisers who have been closest to him, the former president tends to rely on his own instincts and is often dictated by his own moods and personal grudges – a style that can also lead him to quickly adopt dramatically different positions.

Here’s a closer look at the two candidates’ likely approaches toward several key regions.

Trump vs. Harris on Israel

It was perhaps Trump’s highest-profile foreign policy move: In May of 2018, roughly halfway into his term, the former president made good on a longstanding promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the contested city of Jerusalem – a switch that pleased the Israeli government and many Republicans but also sparked global condemnation and fears of escalating regional tension.

“I love Israel,” Trump boasted last fall at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual Leadership Summit. “I’m proud to be the best friend that Israel has ever had.”

After a rift reportedly caused when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Biden on his 2020 victory, Trump and the right-wing Israeli leader seem to have mended fences during a July meeting. Trump has also emphasized his unflinching support for the country in its war in Gaza – in the June debate against Biden, Trump declared that the U.S. should allow Israel to “finish the job” – and, as president, he would be likely to remain in lockstep with a Netanyahu administration.

Harris, by contrast, also recently met with Netanyahu and emphasized her “unwavering commitment to Israel” – while simultaneously urging for a ceasefire agreement that would immediately end the conflict. She then made waves for her comments forcefully decrying Gazan suffering, signaling an emerging public stance that would be more sympathetic to the views of many younger Democrats, especially, who tend to see Israel as an oppressor. Still, the most likely Harris policy toward Israel may be one that largely resembles that of Biden, who has maintained strong support for the country even as he’s increasingly criticized Netanyahu and the Gaza campaign.

Harris vs. Trump on Immigration.

Harris continued with the same tone at the Democratic National Convention, emphasizing that she “will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself” before drawing attention to the “devastating” and “heartbreaking” loss of innocent life in Gaza.

“I think the Harris administration wants to continue that policy from the United States,” Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, recently told The Hill, “standing by our ally, Israel, but also bringing an end to this conflict and ensuring that it doesn’t develop into a wider war in the Middle East that could draw in U.S. troops.”

Trump vs. Harris on Russia

At first glance, the two candidates could hardly be further apart on policy toward Russia.

Since February of 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and instigated Europe’s worst conflict since World War II, Biden and his administration have forcefully denounced the Russian aggression while rallying European allies and pushing for vast economic and weapons support for Ukraine. That support had added up to $175 billion by this spring, easily making Ukraine the largest recipient of American aid.

If she wins in November, Harris – who has met on her own with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and declared in a speech last year that Russia had committed crimes against humanity – is expected to largely continue with the same approach. At a peace summit for Ukraine in June, the vice president also emphasized the importance of principles like national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Trump, on the other hand, has long expressed warmth and admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. In early 2022, speaking on a radio show, he described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy”; earlier this year he ignited more controversy when he implied he’d give Putin a greenlight to invade any NATO members who weren’t meeting their spending obligations. Trump’s selection of JD Vance as his running mate, who has said he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine and led a charge to stop Congressional funding for the country, seemed to only reinforce the former president’s pro-Russia leanings.

Yet early in his administration Trump also approved the sale of Javelin missiles to Ukraine (before his attempt to pressure Zelenskyy to dig up damaging information on Biden ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment), and earlier this summer he spoke by phone with the Ukrainian president about a potential peace deal. The call, according to a member of Zelenskyy’s team, went “exceedingly well.”

DECISION GUIDE: 

The Supreme Court Under Trump vs. Harris

On the campaign trail he’s repeatedly bragged that he could end the war in one day.

“I mean, it’s hard to know with Trump,” says O’Hanlon, “but I’m sort of partially encouraged by the fact that he said that he has this idea for how to impose a peace in 24 hours, because even though it’s ridiculous to think that he could – and he’ll fail if he tries – what that suggests is he’s not willing to let Putin do anything, that he has sort of a natural compromise in mind.”

Trump vs. Harris on China

In 2018, as part of an effort to bolster American businesses that were suffering from restrictive Chinese economic policies, then-President Trump began imposing a series of heavy tariffs on Chinese goods. The import taxes did help boost certain niches of American manufacturing, like computer equipment, but Trump’s trade war also took a broad economic toll: Within a few years economists estimated that it was costing the United States 300,000 jobs and over $300 billion. Now candidate Trump is doubling down, lately promising to impose a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports – the biggest part of a sweeping new tariff plan that economists say would cause prices to spike and “could easily cause a recession.”

Yet Trump’s earlier China tariffs did prove politically popular: After once condemning the taxes, Biden ended up keeping and even increasing some of the duties, and it’s unclear if Harris would break from a trade policy that’s become generally accepted among both Democrats and Republicans.

The Democratic candidate has previously blasted China for human rights violations and stealing American products and intellectual property, and she’s also pushed for collaboration on issues like climate change. It’s a Biden-style approach toward America’s greatest economic rival – combining competition and cooperation – that Harris would likely continue.

Trump vs. Harris on NATO and Western Allies

“I think there’s nothing more important for Europe coming up this year,” Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in June, “than the U.S. elections.”

That’s because the Republican and Democratic candidates offer wildly different visions of NATO and U.S.-Western alliances. For years now, Trump has repeatedly sowed doubt about America’s commitment to NATO, both by suggesting that he might pull the U.S. out of the alliance and by threatening to abandon support for allies if they fail to meet spending requirements.

He has claimed the threats are a negotiating tactic, but they’ve caused real anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic about the future of the alliance and global peace as Europe continues to face a threat from Putin’s Russia.

Harris, like Biden, is a staunch NATO defender who would be expected to reiterate America’s international commitments. She said as much herself in last week’s speech, revealing that she met with Zelenskyy shortly before Putin attacked Ukraine and claiming that she “helped mobilize a global response” to help Ukraine defend itself.

“And as president, I will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies,” she added.

Tags:

elections, 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, foreign policy, Russia, Ukraine, Middle East, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, world news, China, Iran, NATO