With the 2024 U.S. presidential election just around the corner, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump stand at the forefront of the foreign policy debate. Both candidates have their unique approaches to handling increasingly complex international issues, from the volatile Middle East to enduring tensions with Russia and China. The stakes have never been higher as global challenges mount, posing significant tests for whoever claims the presidency.
The next leader of the United States will have to navigate through multiple crises, including persistent conflicts stemming from the Israel-Hamas war, Russia's aggression toward Ukraine, and the growing influence of China on the world stage. This election season, foreign policy is set to play a pivotal role, particularly among voters entrenched in pivotal battleground states.
Harris, who has served both as vice president and senator, emphasizes strong international alliances and supports traditional Democratic values, including multilateral diplomacy and addressing global challenges such as climate change and human rights. Trump’s style, on the other hand, leans heavily toward his “America First” policy, which champions unilateral decisions and sometimes prioritizes economic and security benefits at the cost of traditional alliances.
According to polling data from the Wall Street Journal, it appears Trump retains the upper hand on foreign policy. A recent survey indicated approximately 50% of voters from diverse battleground states believe Trump is more capable of managing international conflicts, particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, compared to Harris's 39% support.
While foreign policy has historically taken a backseat during presidential elections—domestic issues like the economy typically garner more attention—the current climate presents foreign policy challenges as key deciders for voters. For example, significant Arab American and Muslim communities have begun voicing dissatisfaction with U.S. support of Israel amid the humanitarian crisis following the recent Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Actions taken by both the Biden-Harris administration and potentially swaying public opinion will shape how these communities vote.
This past fall, the tragic Hamas-led assault killed around 1,200 Israelis and took many hostages, intensifying the already fraught regional tensions and prompting Harris and Trump to address the issue directly. Harris has underscored the importance of negotiating for peace and has publicly supported efforts for a cease-fire and the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution. She emphasized during several forums, including her appearance on CBS’s "60 Minutes," the necessity of balancing support for Israel with the humanitarian calls to aid the Palestinian people who are suffering immensely.
Trump, meanwhile, has been more supportive of aggressive military strategies, stating he would not oppose Israel’s offensive actions against Hamas, which he argues would persuade the world of Israel’s strength. His comments about the Israel-Palestine situation have been less specific, and he has expressed skepticism about U.S. involvement without immediate benefits. During his campaign, he’s also claimed the October attacks could have been avoided if he were still president, framing the debate within his narrative of strength and leadership.
The increasing strife between Israel and Hamas reflects wider regional instability, with Iran's involvement complicative due to its support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Trump has denounced the Iran nuclear deal, which was originally formed during Obama’s presidency, arguing it funded terrorism without adequately blocking Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This issue remains pertinent, with neither Trump nor Harris signaling drastic changes to existing policies toward Iran, provided tensions stay as they are.
Global peace and stability will be of utmost importance as the next president approaches other crises, especially the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration has pushed for substantial military aid to support Ukraine, which has amounted to approximately $175 billion since the war began. Harris supports this strategy, emphasizing moral imperatives and strategic stability. She believes effective support against Russia’s aggression is pivotal, especially as it may embolden other adversarial regimes like China.
Trump, too, has engaged with the Ukraine-Russia conflict by proposing to negotiate peace if re-elected, showing interest yet again to tackle the situation urgently. His contrasting strategy to negotiate terms directly could potentially swing support among voters who favor direct interaction over involvement through alliances.
Looking toward the Asia-Pacific, both candidates agree China poses one of the most significant challenges to U.S. interests. Trump advocates imposing tariffs and taking aggressive measures to offset China’s economic expansion, echoing sentiments from his previous term. Harris counters this by reinforcing collaborative alliances with other nations to counterbalance China and defend U.S. interests, especially about technology and production sectors.
With the election looming, how voters perceive each candidate’s handling of these foreign relations will undoubtedly play a significant role. Domestic policies remain central to the campaign debate, but as international issues intensify, Harris and Trump’s foreign policy views get more scrutiny than ever. This election could be shaped not just by who captures the presidency but by how these foreign philosophies are received by strategic states across the nation.
The storyline of the 2024 elections predicts one of continuity with Harris, centering on alliances and collaboration, whereas Trump's narrative points toward assertive, nationalistic policymaking. With poll numbers swinging and public sentiment shifting, it beckons two distinct pathways for U.S. foreign engagement—two visions vying not just for votes, but for the very direction of the nation’s role on the international stage.
