Harris and Trump on Foreign Policy: How Do They Compare?
Reproductive rights, immigration, the economy, and gun rights are just a few domestic policies that will be contested this November 5th in the US. But where do the presidential candidates stand on foreign policy?
After President Joe Biden’s historic decision to drop out of the race, Vice President Kamala Harris has spent over two months introducing herself to the American public, compared to former President Trump whose presence is more widely-known. The candidates debated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for 90 minutes on September 10th over a range of issues, mainly domestic, but foreign policy got ample air time as the candidates debated. While the debate was a key event in defining the stances of each candidate, it was just one piece of a broader set of views and statements that framed their distinct visions for the United States’ role on the global stage.
Overall, Trump has taken a more isolationist approach, with his "America First" ideology and a reduction in international commitments. Harris, by contrast, has embraced a more traditional, multilateral strategy, reinforcing alliances and advocating for US engagement in global institutions and treaties.
Here is what the two presidential candidates have said on three key foreign policy issues:
China
During the debate, the candidates clashed over how the US’s economic competition with China and how it should respond.
Trump argued that his hardline tariffs and trade policies were more effective in curbing China’s ambitions. He asserts that China and others “have been ripping us [the US] off for years.” He insists that the tariffs had China “paying us [the US] hundreds of billions of dollars” with “virtually no inflation.” He doubled down on the idea that Harris would be "soft" on China and suggested that her administration would lead to a decline in US manufacturing competitiveness.
On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration has often called China the leading national security threat to the US, citing theft of US intellectual property and filling the US market with cheap exports. In the debate, Harris attacked Trump’s tariff proposals and critiqued Trump’s previous handling of US-China relations. She claimed he levied a sales tax on American consumers that provoked a trade war and drove up the US trade deficit. She emphasized the need for the US to win “the competition for the 21st century.” Harris has indicated that she would continue Biden’s approach of strategic competition, highlighting the need for a strong Indo-Pacific presence while expanding partnerships in the region.
Ukraine-Russia
At the Democratic National Convention in August, Harris affirmed her commitment to NATO and pledged to continue supporting Ukraine. She reiterated this stance in the September debate, recounting her meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and noting that her administration would not waver in backing Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russian aggression. Harris also called upon the Biden administration’s record of aid: “Because of our support, because of the air defense, the ammunition, the artillery, the Javelins, the Abrams tanks that we have provided, Ukraine stands as an independent and free country.” Additionally, she cited NATO as the “greatest military alliance the world has ever known” and accused Trump of being ready to abandon Ukraine.
In contrast, when asked about the war, Trump stated that it should end with a “fair deal” but in the September debate, he did not clarify whether that meant a victory for Ukraine. In the past, he has said he could end the war in one day as president. This stance follows a history of complicated relations between Trump and Zelensky. In 2019, Trump was impeached over accusations that he pressured Zelensky to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Despite these past controversies, Trump insisted he could negotiate peace quickly, portraying Harris’s support for military aid as unnecessarily prolonging the conflict. He also reiterated during the debate that the war never would have happened had he been in office, instead of Biden.
The War in Gaza
When the candidates were asked about the war in Gaza, both candidates echoed previous talking points.
Harris backed a ceasefire deal that would include the release of captives, but she also pledged that she would continue to “stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” In the debate, she emphasized the humanitarian suffering of Palestinians, the need for humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians, and reiterated her advocacy for a two-state solution.
Trump has positioned himself as a committed supporter of Israel. However, he has said very little on how he would end the war. When asked directly in the presidential debate about how he would negotiate a hostage deal and prevent more bloodshed in Gaza, he did not give a concrete answer. Instead, deflected to critique Harris’s views and claimed that Harris “hates” both Israel and Arabs. He also repeatedly stated he would sort out the Middle East and “will get that settled and fast.” Outside the debate, his campaign has suggested that military aid to Israel would continue. In an email to the Washington Post, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt wrote, “When President Trump is back in the Oval Office, Israel will once again be protected, Iran will go back to being broke, terrorists will be hunted down, and the bloodshed will end.”
Overall, Harris and Trump mainly disagreed about how to manage US foreign policy, underscoring the broader stakes in the election. With most polls showing the candidates in close competition with each other in the battleground states, the outcome of this election will shape the nation’s role on the global stage for the foreseeable future, having a profound impact not only on US security and domestic conditions, but also how major international conflicts will play out.
Image of Trump courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, ©2016. Some rights reserved.
Image of Harris courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, ©2019. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
