Harris’s foreign policy must differ from Biden’s — even if it means copying Trump

Kamala Harris has rallied a coalition as broad as it is unusual: pop stars, elder statesmen and even some high-profile Republican national security officials. They’re united by fear of Donald Trump’s assault on democracy and “America First” foreign policy. 

But Harris should be wary. Embracing establishment foreign policy ideas is a Faustian bargain.

The Harris ticket makes clear the distinctions between the two candidates’ worldviews. Harris offers a forward-looking vision for the country; Trump peddles a declinist narrative. Harris supports America’s role in upholding international norms; Trump flouts the rules-based order. Harris affirms America’s commitment to allies; Trump threatens to abandon them. Harris dismisses Ukraine negotiations as appeasement; Trump promises to end the Ukraine War immediately.

This stark contrast has won over former Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IIl). But retreating to the hawkish foreign policy orthodoxies these former lawmakers espouse isn’t the answer. It could even become a liability come November.

Here’s the problem: Americans have lost faith in the foreign policy establishment. Iraq and Afghanistan wasted blood and treasure. Globalization inflamed economic insecurity. Ukraine and Middle East conflicts shake confidence in the Pax Americana. 

Nearly half of Americans think political elites are among the biggest threats to the nation, and according to a new poll by my colleagues and me at the Institute for Global Affairs, most independent voters think Washington’s foreign policymakers rarely or never make decisions with the best interest of ordinary Americans in mind.

Foreign policy shapes Trump’s populist appeal more than many realize. He draws a direct line from overseas engagement to kitchen table issues. China steals jobs and traffics fentanyl; foreign aid leaves the border underfunded; and alliances burden taxpayers. 

Enabling these disorders, Trump argues, is an out-of-touch political class that allows both adversaries and allies to take advantage of the U.S. His invective against the “deep state” taps into paranoid currents in U.S. foreign relations.

Trump’s first term saw xenophobic travel bans, loyalty tests and the gutting of the diplomatic corps. But “draining the swamp” isn’t the solution, even if it means borrowing from Trump’s populist playbook. Strength plays well among voters, but strength isn’t only about standing up to adversaries. It’s also about right-sizing relations with allies.

Paeans to U.S. leadership in the Atlantic alliance fall flat. More Republicans and independents support decreasing security commitments, especially in Europe. 

Trump’s browbeating of NATO countries to increase their defense spending put the issue of burden-sharing on the political agenda. As president, Trump presided over an increase in European defense spending. And the prospect of his return has prompted a vigorous debate on the future of America’s role in the alliance. Most Americans likely prefer a middle ground that preserves NATO while empowering Europe to stand on its own.

America’s commitments are increasingly seen as liabilities, not assets: Ukraine and the Middle East risk entangling the U.S. in catastrophic conflicts. Washington’s handling of these conflicts gives the impression that it respects other nations’ agency more than its own, moving glacially to leverage its considerable aid and arms. 

Trump stokes these notions effectively. He accuses the Biden-Harris administration of sleepwalking into World War III while dubiously framing himself as a peacemaker. In the swing states, he is seen as more likely than Harris to end both the Ukraine and Gaza wars.

Harris has not effectively countered this narrative. Dismissing territorial concessions in Ukraine as appeasement doesn’t inspire confidence among most Americans, who want a negotiated settlement or de-escalation. 

Ukraine’s cause is just, but clarity on the endgame is needed. A frank discussion on the extent of U.S. support to Ukraine to defend itself while not creating unacceptable risk for the United States and its allies.

Even many Democrats worry about the moral and geopolitical costs of President Biden’s support for the Israeli offensive in Gaza and Lebanon. Biden might oppose Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in response to Iran’s missile attacks earlier this month. But by neglecting for so long to tie U.S. military aid to improved conditions in Gaza, he undermines America’s calls for peace.

Harris is trying to rebuke Trump’s capricious unilateralism. But resurrecting yesterday’s foreign policy consensus will only feed more mistrust. The challenge is to break the perception of the U.S. as a hapless superpower. 

Washington needn’t dictate allies’ policies, but it must make clear that America’s interests come first. It’s a hard chord to strike, but one that could resonate with voters listening for a foreign policy that truly serves them.

Lucas Robinson is a senior research associate at the nonprofit Institute for Global Affairs.