Biden vs Trump: Who Has the Stronger Foreign Policy?
Biden vs Trump: Who Has the Stronger Foreign Policy? In the ever-evolving landscape of global politics, the foreign policies of the United States hold immense weight on the world stage. The choices made by U.S. presidents, especially regarding diplomacy, defense, trade, and international alliances, reverberate far beyond the country’s borders. As President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump continue to be pivotal figures in American politics, the question arises: Who has the stronger foreign policy? This inquiry goes beyond the surface-level decisions made by each leader; it encompasses their overarching strategies, long-term visions, and the effectiveness of their policies in shaping global geopolitics.
The contrast between Biden and Trump foreign policies lies not just in their approaches, but also in their guiding philosophies, historical contexts, and the results that have followed their respective terms in office. Trump, on the other hand, championed an “America First” approach, with an emphasis on isolationism, skepticism toward international organizations, and aggressive trade tactics.
This article delves into the specifics of Biden and Trump foreign policies, analyzing key areas such as diplomacy, military engagements, economic strategies, and international alliances. Through this examination, we aim to provide a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each president’s approach to global governance.
1. Diplomatic Engagement: Multilateralism vs. Unilateralism
One of the most striking differences between Biden and Trump foreign policies is their approach to diplomacy and international cooperation. For Biden, diplomacy is the cornerstone of American foreign policy. After years of perceived disengagement under Trump, Biden’s administration has worked to rebuild relationships with long-standing allies and reassert the U.S. as a global leader in multilateral institutions. His decision to re-enter the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO) is emblematic of his belief in global cooperation and the importance of international frameworks to address issues like climate change, health, and security.
The Biden and Trump foreign policies diverge sharply in this respect, with Biden’s focus on diplomacy and collaboration contrasting with Trump’s tendency to question or even exit from international agreements. Trump’s “America First” mantra led to a more confrontational approach, including withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Iran nuclear deal, and the Paris Climate Agreement. These decisions sent ripples through the international community, leaving some allies questioning the reliability of the United States as a partner.
Biden’s diplomacy also extends to the Middle East, where he has shifted focus from military intervention to building diplomatic bridges. A prime example of this is his attempt to re-enter negotiations with Iran to resurrect the 2015 nuclear deal, despite challenges and setbacks. Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy on Iran, which involved the imposition of harsh sanctions and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, took a decidedly more aggressive route, drawing the U.S. closer to military confrontation and alienating European allies.
Analysis:
Biden’s preference for multilateralism and diplomatic solutions has been a stark contrast to Trump’s more transactional, unilateral approach. Biden’s strategy has sought to emphasize cooperation and unity, but whether this has led to more tangible results remains debatable. Trump’s foreign policy, while more isolationist, had clear short-term impacts, particularly in reshaping international trade relationships and forcing allies to negotiate on terms favorable to U.S. interests.
2. Military Strategy and Defense
When it comes to military policy, Biden and Trump foreign policies reflect two divergent visions of American power. Under Trump, the U.S. focused on military strength but largely in the context of deterrence and projecting power. His administration oversaw a significant increase in military spending, and Trump was not afraid to use force to achieve objectives, as seen in his decision to launch airstrikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities in 2017.
Trump’s most notable military decision, however, was his desire to reduce U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts. Trump frequently emphasized the need to bring American troops home from “endless wars” and took steps to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria and Afghanistan. His “America First” doctrine encouraged a more isolationist stance, with an emphasis on having other nations carry more of the burden in international security. Trump’s dealings with North Korea also reflected his willingness to engage in high-stakes diplomacy with authoritarian regimes, but his “friendship” with Kim Jong-un was criticized for yielding few tangible results on denuclearization.
Biden, on the other hand, has pursued a more cautious military approach, balancing diplomatic efforts with military presence where necessary. His decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2021, ending the 20-year war, was controversial but was framed as a necessary step to refocus American priorities on new challenges, such as rising tensions with China and Russia. Unlike Trump, Biden has maintained a robust defense commitment to NATO and worked to increase the U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific region to counter China’s growing influence.
Biden’s focus on modernizing the military and enhancing cybersecurity also reflects his understanding of the changing nature of warfare. While Trump often prioritized traditional military might, Biden has acknowledged the importance of cyber defense, technological advancements, and hybrid warfare in contemporary conflicts.
Analysis:
Trump’s military strategy often favored unilateral action and a reduction in U.S. interventionism. In contrast, Biden’s approach is more aligned with traditional military alliances and a commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe and Asia. However, Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal has faced criticism, particularly regarding the chaotic exit and the subsequent resurgence of the Taliban.
3. Economic Diplomacy and Trade Relations
Trade is another area where Biden and Trump foreign policies diverge significantly. Trump’s approach to trade was defined by protectionism and a series of confrontational policies designed to level the playing field for American workers. His administration imposed tariffs on China, renegotiated NAFTA into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and withdrew from the TPP, a deal that would have opened markets in the Asia-Pacific region.
Trump’s trade war with China was one of the most defining aspects of his foreign policy. By imposing tariffs and taking a hard stance on intellectual property theft, Trump sought to rebalance trade relations and reduce the U.S. trade deficit. This aggressive posture, however, resulted in economic pain for American businesses and consumers, and the long-term benefits of these trade tactics remain unclear.
Biden, in contrast, has taken a more measured approach to trade. While he has expressed concern about China’s trade practices, Biden has avoided the wholesale imposition of tariffs that marked Trump’s tenure. Instead, Biden has focused on strengthening trade relationships with allies, particularly in the European Union and Asia, and working to address issues like climate change through international economic cooperation. Biden has also supported revitalizing supply chains, especially in the tech sector, to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign manufacturing, particularly in China.
Both administrations have prioritized economic competition with China, but Biden’s strategy emphasizes working within international systems and engaging with allies, rather than going it alone as Trump often did.
Analysis:
Trump’s economic diplomacy focused on protectionism and confrontation, aiming to reshape trade deals to benefit the U.S. Biden, in contrast, favors a more collaborative approach, seeking to balance competition with cooperation. While both approaches have their merits, the long-term effectiveness of each will depend on how global trade dynamics evolve.
4. Global Leadership and Alliances
Another key difference between Biden and Trump foreign policies is their respective attitudes toward international alliances. Biden’s vision for America’s role in the world has been to restore traditional alliances, particularly with NATO, the European Union, and democratic partners in the Indo-Pacific. His presidency has been marked by efforts to reaffirm America’s commitment to collective defense and the global order built after World War II.
Trump’s foreign policy, however, was defined by skepticism toward multilateral institutions and alliances. While he occasionally voiced support for NATO, he often questioned the relevance of the alliance and pressured European allies to increase their defense spending. His “America First” agenda often led to strained relationships with key allies, with his administration withdrawing from key agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal.
Biden has worked to re-establish the U.S. as a leader in global governance, engaging in efforts to restore the credibility of American diplomacy. In contrast to Trump’s transactional approach to international relations, Biden views the U.S. as an integral part of a broader democratic alliance system, focused on shared values and collective security.
Analysis:
Biden’s emphasis on strengthening alliances and multilateral cooperation contrasts sharply with Trump’s more isolationist and transactional approach. Whether Biden’s efforts to rebuild these alliances will pay off in the long run will depend on the continued stability of international institutions and the U.S.’s ability to navigate new global challenges.
In comparing Biden and Trump foreign policies, it is clear that the two presidents have pursued vastly different paths in terms of global engagement. Biden’s administration is characterized by a return to multilateralism, a focus on diplomatic alliances, and an emphasis on global cooperation in addressing shared challenges like climate change and security threats. Trump, on the other hand, advocated for a more isolationist approach, centered on nationalism and America’s unilateral interests, often at the expense of longstanding alliances.
Ultimately, the question of who has the stronger foreign policy depends on one’s perspective. Biden’s approach aims to position the U.S. as a reliable global leader within a system of international cooperation, while Trump’s policies were designed to prioritize American sovereignty and national interests, often through more confrontational means. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and as the world continues to evolve, so too will the strategies employed by U.S. presidents in navigating the complex terrain of global politics.