Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris represent two poles in American foreign policy. Trump’s brash, transactional style was often alienating but had the advantage of clarity; allies and adversaries alike knew that his approach was grounded in America’s immediate interests. However, his unpredictability and personal biases frequently undermined his administration’s achievements, particularly with Russia and NATO. Harris, by contrast, offers a more polished, progressive vision rhetorically but often fails to connect lofty principles to concrete outcomes. Her foreign policy ideals may be popular domestically, yet they risk sounding hollow without pragmatic steps to back them up.
Her foreign policy stance has left many wondering if the Vice-President is out of her depth on the world stage. Harris’ rhetoric relies on politically correct platitudes instead of the realities of statecraft.
If Kamala Harris’s foreign policy is guided by progressive ideals and politically correct soundbites, Donald Trump’s approach is defined by a blunt pragmatism often dismissed as simplistic or even reckless. Trump’s foreign policy saw its successes, notably in Middle Eastern accords and direct engagement with adversaries, but was marred by inconsistencies and accusations of undermining alliances.
While Harris adopts the rhetoric of human rights and rule-based order in her dealings with China, Trump took a different tack altogether. Trump’s approach was unequivocally confrontational: tariffs, trade wars, and sanctions were wielded to assert American economic dominance and counter what he saw as China’s “cheating” on global trade. Trump’s tariff-heavy policies disrupted Chinese trade practices in ways previous administrations had shied away from, marking a shift in Sino-American relations from cautious engagement to open rivalry. The approach had its critics as many argued that the trade war hurt American farmers and consumers more than it pressured Beijing. Yet for Trump’s base, and even some policymakers, the tariffs demonstrated a willingness to use economic tools aggressively to signal American strength.
Harris’s stance, however, appears mired in contradictions. She has condemned China’s human rights abuses against the Uyghurs and called for defending Taiwan, gestures that play well domestically but lack the firm backing of actionable policy. While Harris has occasionally echoed Biden’s commitment to a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” her administration has struggled to articulate a cohesive China policy that balances deterrence with diplomacy. A half-hearted commitment to standing up to Beijing, especially given the administration’s reliance on China for climate cooperation, makes Harris’s statements on human rights and Taiwan appear more like symbolic gestures than strategic imperatives.
Harris’s approach to China exemplifies the broader challenge she faces: speaking to multiple, often competing, domestic constituencies without alienating allies. The result is a hedged, ambiguous position on the world’s most important bilateral relationship.
Grand rhetoric about freedom in the Indo-Pacific needs to be underpinned by a clear plan for cooperation with regional allies, supply-chain resilience, and military deterrence. Lacking this, Harris’s statements risk being interpreted as empty political theater.
That said, while Trump’s China policy was free of Harris’s moral grandstanding, it was equally lacking in strategic coherence. Despite his tough talk on intellectual property theft and trade, Trump’s administration failed to address deeper issues like Chinese militarization in the South China Sea, focusing instead on immediate economic grievances.
Trump’s relationship with Russia is perhaps his most controversial foreign policy stance, and one that has left diplomats and analysts scratching their heads. While his administration-imposed sanctions on Moscow and expelled diplomats over election interference, Trump himself frequently praised Vladimir Putin’s leadership. This contradictory stance led to suspicions that Trump was reluctant to confront Putin personally, even as his administration took punitive measures against Russia. Trump often framed his approach as a desire for diplomacy and strong-man respect, favouring direct engagement over multilateral condemnations. His 2018 summit with Putin in Helsinki, for instance, was widely criticized after Trump seemed to side with the Russian president’s denials of election interference over his own intelligence agencies’ conclusions.
Despite his apparent affinity for Putin, Trump’s Russia policy was in many ways tougher than Harris’s. He approved lethal aid to Ukraine - a step the Obama administration had avoided—and sanctioned Russian companies. However, his unpredictable statements often muddied the overall stance, leading to questions about the consistency and sincerity of his actions. Harris, by contrast, has consistently condemned Russian aggression but has struggled to outline any substantial measures.
Harris’s comments following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine have shown her preference for soundbites over substance. She has routinely affirmed that America will “stand with Ukraine” in the face of Russian aggression, statements that signal solidarity but do little to address the broader strategic complexities at play. Her public appearances, while rhetorically forceful, lack the grasp of historical context that senior figures in Washington’s foreign policy establishment deem essential. She speaks of standing up to “autocracy,” yet without outlining any specific vision for how the U.S. and Europe should confront the energy dependencies, military imbalances, and political fissures that Russia exploits.
Her declarations also reveal an absence of substantive engagement with the most pressing question surrounding the Ukraine conflict: what is America’s ultimate objective in this confrontation? To stop Russian advances? To force regime change in Moscow? Without articulating clear goals, Harris’s insistence on democratic principles sounds hollow, particularly to European allies who seek clarity on U.S. intentions. Statements about “standing up for democracy” do little to reassure Kyiv or Washington’s European allies without concrete commitments.
Trump’s Middle East policy was perhaps his most surprising success. He secured diplomatic recognition for Israel from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco under the Abraham Accords - a significant achievement that Harris has yet to match in any region. By bypassing the Palestinian issue, Trump capitalized on shared regional fears over Iran’s influence and shifted the focus toward a pragmatic peace among former adversaries. Though criticized for sidelining the Palestinian cause, Trump’s approach appealed to his “America First” ethos, focusing on tangible outcomes over endless negotiations.
One of Trump’s more unconventional policies was his personal diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Breaking with decades of precedent, Trump had become the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader, meeting Kim in Singapore and again at the Korean Demilitarized Zone. The meetings were unprecedented and led to a temporary lull in North Korean nuclear testing, but they ultimately failed to secure a lasting deal. Critics argue that Trump’s overtures legitimized Kim’s regime without securing substantial concessions. The summits offered photo opportunities but did little to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions in the long run.
Harris, for her part, has denounced authoritarianism but has yet to outline a North Korea policy beyond supporting multilateral pressure. Her criticism of Trump’s summits as “reckless” overlooks the benefits of direct communication channels, however flawed.
Trump has, however, crossed swords with NATO. In his view, Europe had become overly dependent on American defence spending, and he made no secret of his impatience with NATO allies who failed to meet their defence commitments. His push for burden-sharing led to increased defence spending among NATO members but alienated key allies, who questioned his commitment to the alliance’s core principles.
While Trump’s approach to NATO was controversial, it had a practical rationale that underscored Europe’s need for self-reliance. Harris, in contrast, speaks more warmly of transatlantic partnerships but has yet to address the structural imbalance that Trump highlighted. Her emphasis on shared values and democratic principles may reassure European allies, but without a clear plan for long-term security cooperation, her policy risks being seen as diplomatic niceties rather than actionable commitments.
תגובות