With the US presidential elections around the corner, there is a question in the mind of Europeans: which candidate would be a better fit for European interests/values? We try to make a quick attempt to outline the foreign policy- and Europe-related views of the two candidates and make an educated guess about their future policies on the matter – coming to some kind of conclusion in this uneasy question.
There is one big difference between the two that needs to be emphasised at the very beginning as a methodological issue: Donald Trump’s presidency between 2017-2021 gives us direct experience related to his views, policies and practice, while Kamala Harris’s time in office as vice-president surely does not feed us as much information. The role of the VP practically makes it impossible to develop one’s own foreign policy profile, especially under a president like Joe Biden who has always been active on this field and gave thorough attention to it. Here, the VP is often condemned to a merely supportive role, and Kamala Harris was currently no different.
General comparison
Comparing the candidates and their general background, we can conclude that Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy and European matters was more confrontational, rather focusing on bilateral agreements than multilateral approach and has often criticized the European Union for trade practices and defence spending – two of the issues he often used in domestic politics as debate subjects and attention focus points. On the other hand, Kamala Harris has emphasized multilateralism and wider cooperation among states, which was in close connection with the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen transatlantic alliances and address global challenges together, often not avoiding questions – and conflicts – of moral or ideological nature.
These differences nicely outline the general differences of the Republican and Democratic political thinking about foreign policy, but we need to underline that on some issues, the US foreign policy thinking shows common elements even in spite of differences, and not always to the liking of European ideas. This should make everyone cautious who plans to simplify US foreign policy to European ideas and use parallels like Democrat-pro EU / Republican-anti EU as the situation is not that simple. Some may argue that Trump means a less Europe-conform foreign policy, meaning a more assertive, independent approach, while the collaborative, partnership-driven strategy of Kamala Harris may be a better fit for Europe. It is still ahead of us to see.
Experience so far
We have seen that Donald Trump’s foreign policy, during his presidency from 2017 to 2021, was characterised by his “America First” approach, by which he meant to prioritise U.S. interests, often at the expense of traditional alliances and international agreements. We could see him withdrawing from several international accords, including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Iran nuclear deal. Not all of his decisions were welcomed by the international community or European political circles, especially that in some cases these decisions had destructive effects on European interests and strategies. His administration also imposed tariffs on China, sparking a trade war, which was not well received at that time, but now we can see the EU speculating about something very similar. In general, many critics argue that Trump’s foreign policy was marked by unpredictability and a willingness to engage in brinkmanship. He sought to renegotiate trade deals and reduce U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, while also strengthening the military and increasing defence spending. His approach to North Korea was particularly notable, as he shifted from threats of military action to unprecedented direct diplomacy with Kim Jong-un to the surprise of many. Our opinion is that many of these steps cannot be understood without taking into consideration Trump’s personal ambitions and character, even if it does not shed good light on the president himself: e.g. his totally pointless stance on North Korea was a clear – even admitted – chase after the Nobel Peace Prize which had earlier been granted to Barack Obama. The same goes to his steps on the Middle East (and the conclusion of the Ibrahim Accords), while here still he produced the signs of a cynical realist (see e.g. the recognition of Jerusalem and the moving of the US embassy).
For his desired second term, Donald Trump has so far emphasized strengthening the economy, protecting national security, and restoring the “American dream”, whatever that means, but probably not a more passive foreign policy. His plans so far include reducing taxes, promoting energy independence, and implementing stricter measures against illegal immigration.
We are in trouble with ideas related to Kamala Harris’s foreign policy, as it seems to be largely an extension of the Biden administration’s approach, with a few distinct emphases. She has been vocal about supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and maintaining a tough stance on China, which seems to be similar to Trump’s demonstrated approach. At the same time, Kamala Harris has advocated for a more forceful tone with Israel, particularly in response to the Gaza conflict, which is a difference to Trump’s all-supportive attitude, but it is very hard to decide now if it is a base of a thought-through policy or just trends according to modern day’s left-side politics. In the case of the latter, it is questionable if it will be possible to turn this into a strategy, knowing the realities of US politics.
Based on her statements so far, her future administration would likely continue to prioritize issues like climate change, human rights, and democratic values on the global stage in international relations. An interesting point to highlight with an eye on the future is that Kamala Harris has been involved in shaping U.S. policy towards artificial intelligence, viewing it as a matter of national security. Taking that question to the international level, instead of keeping it within the domestic domain may be an interesting difference to Trump, who probably would support the domestic ambitions of US industry in the matter.
Differences on International Criminal Court
Taking the issue of the International Criminal Court gives us the possibility to try to identify differences in a matter which raises a lot of debates even among US foreign policymakers, while at the same time, these debates do not really surface on the level of policy.
Kamala Harris so far has not explicitly outlined a foreign policy stance or position on the International Criminal Court – some may argue that by this she simply wants to avoid any unforced errors during the campaign. However, her broader foreign policy approach emphasizes upholding international norms and human rights, which aligns with the principles and the idea of the International Criminal Court. As US Vice President, she had continuously supported the Biden administration’s efforts to re-engage with international institutions (one of which has been the Hague-based Court) and promote accountability for human rights abuses.
On the other hand, Donald Trump’s foreign policy towards the International Criminal Court was notably hostile. Instead of silently ignoring the Court, his administration imposed sanctions on its officials, including its Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, in response to the Court’s decision to initiate investigations into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and by U.S. allies in the Palestinian territories. Then-President Donald Trump signed an executive order authorizing these sanctions, which included visa restrictions and asset freezes, to the general shock of most European states, being constant supporters of the International Criminal Court.
This step marked a new milestone in the already problematic US-ICC relations and the European allies have decided for a long time not to involve themselves in that. The Trump administration’s stance was rooted in the belief that the ICC lacked jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, as the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, but this has not required such a harsh reaction from the US administration. This decision marked a significant departure from previous U.S. administrations (both Republican and Democrat), which had a more cooperative, albeit cautious, relationship with the court – without any significant winnings for the US.
Differences on relationship with the European Union
Maybe the most interesting question for us, Europeans: how about Europe?
Donald Trump’s foreign policy towards the European Union was marked by a mix of scepticism and confrontation. He often criticized the EU for what he perceived as unfair trade practices and a lack of burden-sharing in NATO. That has gone so far that his administration imposed tariffs on European goods, which led to tensions and retaliatory measures from the EU. His approach was also characterized by a preference for bilateral agreements over multilateral ones (as we indicated at the beginning of this analysis), which sometimes strained relationships with European allies of the US. His administration’s stance on issues like climate change and the Iran nuclear deal further widened the gap between the US and the EU.
Kamala Harris’s foreign policy towards the European Union aligns closely again with the broader Biden administration’s approach. She emphasizes the importance of transatlantic alliances and cooperation on global challenges such as climate change, security, and economic stability. Harris as a VP has been involved in discussions related to strengthening NATO and addressing issues like cybersecurity and trade relations with the EU, which gives her some valuable experience and understanding of Europe, just as having a stance that is generally supportive of multilateralism and of working with European allies to uphold democratic values and human rights. This may lead to openness for collaborative efforts to counteract authoritarian influences and promote global stability.
It may be interesting to take note of the two candidate’s relationship to relevant European political figures.
Kamala Harris as VP and Ursula von der Leyen as president of the European Commission have maintained a professional and collaborative relationship, they have engaged in discussions on various global issues, including coordinated actions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Their interactions reflect a commitment to strengthening US-EU relations and addressing shared challenges and may give us optimistic vibes.
At the same time, Donald Trump’s relationship with Ursula von der Leyen was marked by some tension and differing views. Von der Leyen criticized Trump’s discussions on NATO as “immature” and questioned his approach towards Russia, not helping a good friendship. Despite these differences, there were moments of attempted cooperation, for instance, von der Leyen expressed optimism about working with Trump and saw their meetings as opportunities to connect personally. Their relationship was a mix of professional engagement and public disagreements, nicely reflecting the broader complexities of US-EU relations during Trump’s presidency.
Kamala Harris and Kaja Kallas, future EU foreign policy boss, had earlier maintained a collaborative and supportive relationship, particularly in their roles as Vice President of the United States and Prime Minister of Estonia. They have engaged in discussions on various global issues, and their interactions seemed to reflect a commitment to strengthening US-Baltic relations and addressing shared challenges – there is no reason to expect something else from a wider European context.
Donald Trump’s relationship with her at the same time, was marked by some tension, particularly around NATO and defence spending. Kallas had expressed concerns about Trump’s comments on not supporting allies unless they meet their defence spending commitments, but this would probably not mean a serious issue today, as it can easily be positioned as a “wake-up call” for NATO allies, which have become even more important after Russia’s invasion against Ukraine. As the US is essential for the European defence complex, Kallas will remain committed to strengthening Estonia’s defence capabilities as well, and maintaining strong ties with the US, so we are sure that these supreme interests will provide for a well-balanced relationship.
Conclusions
Before making final conclusions, we need to acknowledge the fact that shaping US foreign policy does not solely depend on the president. Confirming international treaties is in the power of the US Senate, which may maintain different foreign policy priorities than the president, especially in the case of the other party possessing majority.
Other than that, the above mentioned differences between the candidate’s records draw a picture of two possible different foreign policies for the upcoming four years of US foreign policy, both of them with their own priorities and strategic goals. The differences are clear and well-visible, none of those seem to be impossible to be managed by Europe. So the task at hand is to prepare for both of those.