But the upcoming presidential election may be somewhat of an outlier. In a September 2024 poll, foreign policy in voters鈥 concerns 鈥 with more Democrats and Republicans combined saying it was 鈥渧ery important鈥 to their vote than, say, immigration and abortion.
As such, understanding where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic rival Kamala Harris stand on the significant international issues of the day is important. And we can do so by looking at the records of their respective administrations in the three regions they prioritized: the Indo-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.
Donald Trump: Disrupter-in-chief
In his , Trump painted a dark picture of the U.S. In his telling, his country was being taken advantage of by other nations, especially in trade and security, while neglecting domestic challenges.
To disrupt this, Trump promised an 鈥溾 approach to guide his administration.
And in practice, his foreign policy certainly proved disruptive. He showed a clear willingness to buck traditions and undid some of former President Barack Obama鈥檚 signature policies, such as the , which exchanged sanctions relief for restrictions on Tehran鈥檚 domestic nuclear program, and the trade agreement.
In so doing, he ruffled the feathers of allies and foes alike.
Trans-Atlantic relations were tense under Trump, especially because of his hostility toward NATO. After deriding the Atlantic alliance , Trump stuck to the same tune while in office. He routinely and allegedly came close to .
While NATO did make inroads in bolstering its Eastern flank in that period, the alliance was primarily defined by in office. U.S. relations with the European Union hardly fared better. In 2018, the U.S. imposed on the European Union, citing national security concerns.
Trump also broke with previous U.S. presidents in his administration鈥檚 Asia policy. One of his first moves in 2017 was to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal . Trump鈥檚 late 2017 also announced a major shift toward China, labeling it as a 鈥渟trategic competitor鈥 鈥 implying a greater emphasis on containing China as opposed to cooperating with it.
This hawkish turn played out especially in the field of trade. Trump鈥檚 administration imposed four rounds of tariffs in 2018-19, . Beijing, of course, responded with tariffs of its own. The two countries did sign a so-called in January 2020 that sought to lower the stakes of this trade war. But the COVID-19 pandemic , and relations soured further with each Trump utterance of the pandemic being a 鈥.鈥
Trump showcased somewhat contradictory impulses toward the Middle East and other issues. He pushed for disengagement and to undo Obama鈥檚 major policies. Besides withdrawing from the , Trump abandoned the . His administration also signed a deal to , and it .
But at the same time, Trump continued the and in 2020. The latter was consistent with a policy that aimed to and diplomatically. The key example of the diplomatic pressure came through especially via through which Trump helped facilitate the establishment of normal diplomatic ties between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco.
Kamala Harris: Alliance and engagement
Although not taking a driving role in foreign policy, Harris has been part of an administration that has and engaging with the world.
This came across by undoing some major actions from the Trump administration. For example, the U.S. quickly and overturned a decision to leave the .
But in other areas, the Biden administration has shown more continuity with Trump than many expected.
For instance, the U.S. under Biden has not fundamentally deviated from strategic competition with China, even though the tactics have differed a little. The administration , even adding its .
Moreover, it cultivated different diplomatic platforms in the Indo-Pacific to act as a counterweight to China. This included the cultivation of the Quad dialogue with Australia, India and Japan, and the 17吃瓜在线KUS deal with Australia and the U.K., both of which attempted to further the Biden administration鈥檚 strategy of containing China鈥檚 influence by enlisting regional allies. Finally, the Biden administration did maintain , with Biden meeting Xi Jinping twice during his presidency.The Biden administration鈥檚 Middle Eastern policy displayed significant continuity with Trump鈥檚 approach 鈥 at first. While it turned out to be chaotic, the U.S. completed the , as had been agreed under Trump. The Biden administration also embraced the format and goals of the Abraham Accords. It even tried to build on them, .
Of course, the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel completely changed the equation in the Middle East. Preventing the spiral of violence in the region has become . Since then, Biden and Harris have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to balance support for Israel with .
Trans-Atlantic relations, however, are an area where there were marked differences in the past four years. The tone of the Biden-Harris administration has been in sharp contrast with that of Trump, . And once Russia launched its , the U.S. of supporting Ukraine.
Harris has suggested that she would continue Biden鈥檚 policy of providing Kyiv with . In conjunction with allies, the White House of Biden and Harris also implemented a . But the U.S. under Biden has not yet been .
What next?
Based on their records, what could we expect of a Trump or Harris presidency?
It鈥檚 unlikely either candidate will abandon strategic competition with China. But Trump is more likely to seriously escalate the trade war, . Trump鈥檚 commitment to defending Taiwan in .
U.S. policy toward Europe will largely depend on the results of the election. Harris has frequently underlined , as well as for Ukraine. Trump, on the other hand, is showing .
And for the Middle East, it remains to be seen whether either Trump or Harris would be able to better shape events in the region.
, Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .