Summary
- Both Trump and Harris aim to defend Washington’s international position and uphold the system of Western hegemony against powers seeking to change it. However, their approaches to achieving this will differ; Trump emphasizes deal-making over adhering to institutional constraints and alliances, making his positions less predictable. In contrast, Harris stresses the importance of alliances and multilateral cooperation, making her foreign policy predictable and without major shifts.
- Regardless of who wins the presidential race, American foreign policy will continue to prioritize a firm stance towards China, with U.S.-China relations swinging between competition and conflict. Both candidates agree on the importance of imposing tariffs on Chinese imports, though they differ on their value and which sectors should be targeted.
- Expectations grow that the main arena where substantial differences will emerge between Trump and Harris is Europe, rather than anywhere else in the world. While Trump is unlikely to abandon NATO, he will continue a “brinkmanship” policy to force Europeans to spend more on their defense budgets. Despite his campaign promises, it’s difficult to imagine Trump successfully navigating a deal with Putin to end the war in Ukraine.
- The Middle East will be at the heart of both candidates’ priorities amid the ongoing Gaza war and the threats of direct confrontation between Iran and Israel. Both will continue their full commitment to Israel’s security and support its war objectives in Gaza and Lebanon, with the difference between them lying in the level of discretion allowed for Netanyahu. They will continue to strengthen relations with Washington’s partners in the region, especially the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. Trump will prioritize the continuation of the Abraham Accords, making the likelihood of Saudi Arabia reaching a security agreement with him more probable.
- A second Trump term is likely to witness a return to strong pressure campaigns and deterrent actions against Iran. However, the more concerning aspect is that his aggressive approach may evolve, under the current regional context, to support Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program. This means that a Trump victory will place Iran in more extreme choices: either make significant concessions to satisfy Trump or proceed with open escalation options.
- It is premature to assert Harris’s policy towards Iran amid the ongoing regional escalation that leaves significant uncertainty; however, one can expect her to maintain a cautious approach that blends sanctions, military pressure, and negotiation, rather than war.
Introduction The United States is preparing for a presidential election in early November, amidst a clear divergence in foreign policy between the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, the current U.S. Vice President. This edition focuses on what a Trump or Harris victory would mean for U.S. foreign policy in the coming four years.
Before anticipating the foreign policies of Trump and Harris, it’s essential to distinguish between a candidate’s political rhetoric during the campaign and what they will be capable of once in office. This does not imply that foreign policy elements are absent from the candidate’s political discourse, but real-world contexts may restrict their ability to adhere strictly to their promises or approaches once they assume office.
It is also important to note that we already have a record of Trump’s first term from which to predict his foreign policy. While Harris does not have a four-year track record to analyze—since the Vice President typically wields limited influence over U.S. foreign policy—her foreign policy can be anticipated based on her political rhetoric after announcing her presidential candidacy, as well as her positions during her Senate tenure (2017-2021), noting that she will not be so far removed from the current administration’s stance as to be contradictory.
Trump and Harris: Different Approaches to Achieving Similar Goals
Both candidates are undoubtedly focused on defending the United States’ position in global politics and maintaining the international system based on Western hegemony against rival powers. There is no fundamental disagreement in identifying the global threats that the United States must confront, particularly the rise of China, the conflict with Russia, competition for technology and advanced capabilities, combating “terrorist movements,” and confronting anti-Western regimes like North Korea and Iran. However, the approach of each candidate will differ regarding some or all of these issues.
Trump strongly insists on his intention to end the external conflicts in which the United States is involved, relying on a deal-making strategy rather than adherence to institutional limitations or alliances, making his positions less predictable, especially since he does not necessarily depend on the opinions of traditional U.S. bureaucracy. In contrast, Harris emphasizes the importance of strong alliances and multilateral cooperation, particularly with key partners in Europe and NATO, to enhance America’s strategic interests, making it likely that she would guarantee a foreign policy that is predictable and without major shifts.
Both Trump and Harris agree to place economic security at the center of their political agendas. This likely means continuing plans to reshore supply chains to countries with strategic alliances with Washington and bringing production back to the U.S., along with maintaining tariffs. This approach will lead to higher export costs to America and disruptions in some global supply chains, potentially harming the economies of other countries, particularly China.
China: Ongoing Competition Regardless of Election Results
Regardless of who wins the race for the White House, U.S. foreign policy will continue to prioritize a firm handling of China and countering Beijing’s efforts to undermine U.S. hegemony and transition to a multipolar international system. Thus, U.S.-China relations will oscillate between competition and conflict.
The rise of China in recent years has posed the greatest political and economic challenge to the U.S., prompting both the Republican and Democratic parties to adopt a similar approach to rebalance national security and the economy, leveraging economic power to enhance American foreign policy objectives and protect national security. This is reflected in the agreement between Trump and Harris on the importance of imposing tariffs on Chinese imports to protect vital sectors and stimulate domestic manufacturing, even though they differ on which sectors should be targeted and which countries should be penalized.
Tariffs have become a prominent battleground for the U.S. economic confrontation with China. Trump proposes tariffs ranging from 10% to 20% on most imports, with a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, while Harris opposes such high values out of concern for their negative effects on American consumers. The Democratic candidate commits to continuing Biden’s policy of selectively using tariffs, such as for semiconductor imports. Goldman Sachs’ analysis aligns with Harris’s perspective and predicts that her policies will bolster economic growth, whereas it warns that Trump’s approach, alongside strict immigration policies, may lead to a decline in economic output.
Trump’s focus in the U.S.-China confrontation is on economic and trade aspects, where he proposed a four-year plan to gradually eliminate all imports of key goods from China. He has also vowed to impose rules that severely restrict American investment in China and Chinese investments in the U.S., limiting them to those that serve American interests only. On the other hand, Harris prioritizes the competition in technology with China, such as advanced semiconductor export controls to restrict access to China, and stimulating domestic growth in strategic industries linked to critical minerals and renewable energy.
The Indo-Pacific: Testing Washington’s Position as a Reliable Partner
Although the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections has limited implications for the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region—as the policy of containing China is not a matter of dispute between the two American parties—there are concerns about the potential implications of Trump’s re-election for the U.S.’s strategic alliances in the region that the Biden administration has committed to, especially with Australia, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and India, particularly regarding the emerging military partnership with New Delhi, as well as security alliances like the AUKUS (United States, United Kingdom, and Australia) and the Quad (United States, Japan, Australia, and India) alliances.
Economically, Trump’s protectionist policies and increased tariffs on Chinese goods are likely to lead to a general rise in prices for Chinese goods, which will adversely affect the economies of Southeast Asian countries and could trigger substantial trade disruptions in the region; these countries have essential trade ties with Beijing and rely heavily on imports from it. Notably, ASEAN countries are China’s largest trading partner, with trade reaching $975.3 billion in 2022. Furthermore, countries in the region will need to take Trump’s threats of withdrawing from the economic framework of prosperity seriously, given that he already withdrew during his first term from a similar framework known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Conversely, a victory for Harris would mean that Washington’s commitment to its alliances in the region continues, deepening economic partnerships with partners to counter Chinese influence by focusing on trade, economic development, and climate change cooperation, as well as ongoing participation in frameworks led by regional countries such as ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), in addition to enhancing military ties in the area.
Regarding Taiwan, Trump may lean toward engaging in a trade-off with Beijing aimed at extracting trade concessions in exchange for placing restrictions on U.S. security cooperation with Taiwan. However, this deal does not seem highly probable, as it would face opposition even within the Republican Party itself, where a majority of members believe that integrated deterrence against China requires doubling down on both economic security measures and an empathic stance towards Taiwan. Meanwhile, Harris would prioritize maintaining stability in the Taiwan Strait, urging Taipei to make greater efforts to enhance its defense capabilities.
Transatlantic Relations and NATO: European Security at Stake
Expectations indicate that the main arena where substantial differences will manifest between Trump and Harris is Europe, rather than anywhere else in the world. Trump and his accompanying Republican team in the White House will likely show less interest in European relations, focusing instead on what they consider the greatest challenge: the increasing rise of China. While it is unlikely that Trump will abandon NATO, he will continue a “brinkmanship” policy to force Europeans to spend more on their defense budgets and increase their contribution to European security burdens, including supporting Ukraine.
Economically, European countries would face the prospect of high tariffs on their exports to the U.S. between 10% and 20% should Trump win, undermining trade between the U.S. and the EU, which amounts to $1.3 trillion, thus requiring challenging choices for European governments that may find themselves in trade disputes with the United States.
Trump has shown no inclination to continue supporting Ukraine at the current level; rather, his statements affirm his intention to reduce U.S. global military commitments, especially those allocated for Ukraine. While Trump pledges to end the Russia-Ukraine war within days of entering the White House, it is difficult to envision a clear path for Trump to strike a deal with Putin; he simply cannot accept Putin’s terms for ending the war, as they represent a complete surrender of the West to Russia. Likewise, Путин is unlikely to simply yield his conditions, particularly Ukraine’s commitment not to join NATO; otherwise, any military gains would be meaningless.
This means that the most likely scenario is Trump’s failure to convince Putin to strike a deal, compelling him to increase military support for Ukraine, or at the very least to continue it, as a means to exert pressure on Putin to reach a settlement to end the war or, at the very least, ensure that Putin does not win on the battlefield.
In July, Biden sent a strong message of support to Washington’s European partners, through a plan to deploy American long-range missiles in Germany in 2026 to reaffirm Washington’s commitment to European security. Harris’s speeches show a similar enthusiasm to that of Biden regarding transatlantic cooperation and continued support for Ukraine. Biden’s approach has successfully urged NATO members to increase their defense spending, leading to 23 out of 32 NATO allies now spending more than 2% of their GDP on defense. Harris may be less cautious than Biden about the levels of support for Ukraine to resolve the conflict, such as supplying more advanced weaponry to Kyiv and lifting some restrictions on the use of American weapons.
However, the United States, in general, no longer has the same enthusiasm for providing all of Europe’s security needs. Thus, Europe will have to assume greater responsibility regarding supporting Ukraine and in overall plans for securing the continent in the long run, as evidenced by Western countries, particularly Germany, seeking to increase their military spending and develop their self-defense capabilities.
The Middle East: Continued Support for Israel and Confronting Iranian Threats
The Middle East will be at the core of both candidates’ priorities, against the backdrop of the ongoing Gaza war and rising tensions threatening direct confrontation between Iran and Israel. Undoubtedly, both candidates will remain fully committed to Israel’s security, supporting war objectives in Gaza, particularly undermining Hamas’s military capabilities and preventing its return to power in Gaza, and in Lebanon, ensuring the security of northern Israeli settlements and weakening Hezbollah’s capabilities, while imposing a new settlement to meet Israel’s security considerations on the northern front. The difference between the candidates will be in the level of autonomy granted to Netanyahu to achieve these aims, and in their approach to Iran.
Harris may differ from Biden in exercising stronger opposition to Israeli conduct, particularly regarding Palestinian civilians in Gaza. While Harris generally follows Biden’s approach in foreign policy, the Gaza war could be one of the issues where some differences between Biden and Harris emerge, given that Harris is less emotionally and ideologically tied to Israel compared to Biden; she is also the administration official who has repeatedly called for a ceasefire while ignoring Netanyahu’s address to Congress.
Trump’s hardline policy towards Iran during his first term suggests that a second term is likely to see a return to strong pressure campaigns and deterrent measures against Iran. However, the more dangerous aspect is that Trump’s aggressive approach towards Iran may evolve, under the current regional context, to support more sophisticated Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program. This means that a Trump victory could place Iran in more extreme choices, diminishing its usual capacity for maneuvering, thus leading to either making substantial concessions sufficient to satisfy Trump or proceeding with open escalation options.
While it is still early to predict Harris’s definitive policy towards Iran amid ongoing regional escalation that maintains considerable uncertainty, one can expect her to maintain a cautious approach towards Iran, continuing to blend options for sanctions, military pressure, and negotiation rather than war, while consistently ensuring that Israel retains its ability to defend itself through continued military assistance to Israel and the deployment of substantial American forces in the region to deter Iran.
Both candidates will continue to strengthen relations with Washington’s partners in the region, particularly the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. Should Trump win, it is likely that he will place special importance on continuing the Abraham Accords, particularly with Saudi Arabia, thus making the prospect of Saudi Arabia reaching a security agreement with the United States more likely under Trump than under Harris. While the latter will work to bolster security relations with Riyadh and continue mediation efforts for normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, Trump will likely be more open to granting Riyadh a near-term deal, and the Saudi crown prince seems more eager to work with Trump.
Global South: Symbolic U.S. Moves vs. Serious Steps from Beijing and Moscow
The Global South represents a key challenge for any new U.S. administration, as the United States has faced increasing accusations of double standards in dealing with various international issues in recent years, such as the contradictory standards in response to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, having implications for the international system. Additionally, America imposes economic rules that do not benefit the Global South and poorer countries.
In contrast, in the past decade, China and Russia have made tangible progress in the Global South, where Russia continues to enhance its influence in Africa, and China completes massive infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa, while Western influence, particularly in the Sahel region, erodes. Moreover, the political rhetoric from both Beijing and Moscow supports the rights of the people in the Global South and values their political and economic aspirations, in countering Western hegemony and its colonial legacy.
While Harris appears more inclined towards multilateralism and strengthening the international system, Trump seems more inclined towards isolationism and nationalism. Nonetheless, the differences are minimal between the Democratic and Republican candidates regarding support for the aspirations of Global South countries for a more balanced and just international system, and a pivotal shift in U.S. policies concerning the Global South is not anticipated. Any efforts from whoever wins the presidential election will largely be limited to rhetorical and symbolic moves, which will be more pronounced if Harris wins.
