STIMSON Foreign Policy Priorities in the September 2024 Presidential Debate Stimson experts decode Trump and Harris foreign policy priorities — or lack thereof — in Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, and more

 STIMSON 

Foreign Policy Priorities in the September 2024 Presidential Debate

Stimson experts decode Trump and Harris foreign policy priorities — or lack thereof — in Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, and more

By  Elizabeth Threlkeld  •  Emma Ashford  •  Madelyn MacMurray  •  Julian Mueller-Kaler  •  Yuki Tatsumi  •  Martyn Williams  •  Andrew Hyde  •  Barbara Slavin

Grand Strategy

September 11, 2024

On September 10, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris took the stage for the first – and potentially the only – debate bringing the two candidates together to examine their domestic and foreign policy platforms. Stimson experts unpack the issues, motivations, and strategies behind their debate answers through a foreign policy lens.

“Three years after withdrawal, Afghanistan was back in the headlines”

Elizabeth Threlkeld

Senior Fellow and Director

Three years after the U.S. withdrawal, Afghanistan was back in the headlines at the presidential debate. Vice President Harris, asked if she bears any responsibility for the chaotic withdrawal, emphasized her support for the decision to pull out U.S. troops and end the financial costs of the conflict. She pivoted to remind viewers of then-President Trump’s 2020 Doha Agreement with the Taliban, in which his administration took the controversial step of negotiating directly with the Taliban and “bypassed” the Afghan government to allow the release of 5,000 “Taliban terrorists.” 

She also criticized Trump’s invitation to the group to visit Camp David to finalize the negotiations, a scuttled episode that would have seen the Taliban welcomed to one of U.S. diplomacy’s most revered sites just days before the anniversary of 9/11. 

In response, Trump defended the negotiations, highlighting his personal involvement in securing the direct deal because “the Taliban was killing our soldiers.” He pointed to the 18-month period beginning just before the Doha Agreement was signed in February 2020 when there were no U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, claiming it was the result of a threat he had made to the head of the Taliban’s negotiating team, Abdul Ghani Baradar. He blamed the Biden administration for not following through on the terms of the deal, arguing it was “terminated by [the US] because [the Biden administration] didn’t do what they were supposed to do” – failing to mention the Taliban’s own failures to adhere to commitments on counterterrorism and intra-Afghan talks. 

As I detailed in a piece soon after the Doha Agreement was signed, the reality is more complicated. The deal suffered from significant deficiencies as the U.S. made concessions on behalf of the then-Afghan government without its concurrence – a symptom of the broader structural challenges of the U.S. role. These concessions included the release of prisoners, which became a major sticking point and source of friction between Washington and Kabul. As former Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad argued soon after the withdrawal, the Ghani government misjudged the seriousness of U.S. withdrawal plans and had an interest in delaying negotiations in order to maintain its position and access to resources.  Washington, meanwhile, was constrained in its ability to hold either side to its commitments because doing so would have required remaining in Afghanistan for far longer with no guarantee of success. 

What neither candidate addressed is the more pressing question of how their administration would approach U.S. policy towards a Taliban-led Afghanistan going forward. A range of terrorist groups remain active in Afghanistan and are conducting attacks internationally in violation of the Taliban’s commitments under the Doha Agreement and subsequent assurances by its Emir. The Taliban have enforced a series of increasingly draconian restrictions on the rights of women and girls while failing to include minorities in their government. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains dire, and calls for the U.S. and the international community to limit support for Afghanistan’s economy in order to pressure the Taliban fail to grapple with the inevitable human toll. The next administration will be forced to face these complex challenges even as U.S. leverage remains limited, international attention and assistance wanes, and other pressing foreign policy challenges compete for attention. Much as whoever wins in November might wish otherwise, Afghanistan is not yet in the rear-view mirror.  

“Harris came out on top, but both candidates’ answers shared a remarkable thematic similarity”

Emma Ashford

Senior Fellow

Last night’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was shaped by an unusual dynamic. Unlike typical presidential debates – which often feature an incumbent and a challenger – this election pits two semi-incumbents: a man who has been president before but is not currently the president, and a woman who is vice president, but whose contributions in the realm of foreign policy in the current administration remain unclear. This dynamic was key to last night’s debate on foreign policy issues: Both candidates focused more on blaming the other for past failed policies, while arguing that they themselves would do better than the status quo. 

Harris came out on top, both rhetorically and stylistically. But both candidates’ answers often shared a remarkable thematic similarity: Harris accused Trump of being soft on China, and Trump responded by accusing the Biden administration of mismanaging China tariffs. Trump criticized Harris over the Biden administration’s handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and Harris responded that Trump had negotiated that deal. The result was limited substance about the candidates’ actual policies. 

Perhaps the area of foreign policy which highlighted the clearest difference was the issue of the war in Ukraine. The question was poorly framed by moderators in terms of whether they wanted Ukraine to win, rather than a question about strategy or an end to the war. But it was nonetheless revealing. Harris doubled down on the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine, implying—though not explicitly stating—that she would continue support to Kyiv. Trump, in contrast, argued that it would be in American interests to see the war conclude sooner rather than later. The other big known issue of contention between the candidates – the future of the US military in Europe – did not come up. 

Overall, it remains unclear how far apart the candidates are in foreign policy. Does Harris have distinct, settled views on foreign policy as opposed to those of the Biden administration? Would a Trump second term be as chaotic as his first or more streamlined thanks to advisors who share his worldview? The debate did little to clarify the foreign policy outlook after November.

“Strategic ambiguity that aims to satisfy both young voters and blue-collar voters in battleground states”

Madelyn MacMurray

Research Assistant

Last night’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump highlighted their contrasting approaches to the energy transition. The Vice President focused on the Biden-Harris administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest government funding for climate and clean-energy initiatives in U.S. history. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the IRA will help reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 33-40% by 2030. 

Harris outlined a path to further reductions, reiterating her commitment to green job growth in the United States through investment in domestic manufacturing for the wind, solar, and electric vehicle (EV) sectors. Her recent endorsement from Shawn Fain, President of the United Auto Workers (UAW), underscores the success of the IRA for the middle class, which is projected to create more than nine million green jobs over the next decade.

In his response, Trump criticized the Biden administration’s energy policies, focusing on the impact of high gas prices and arguing that Biden’s approach undermines American energy independence. The former president accused the administration of mishandling energy issues and of harming the fossil fuel industry, pandering to voters in Pennsylvania where fracking is a dominant industry. Veering away from directly addressing climate change, Trump instead drew a line of attack against Biden’s and Harris’s positions on energy and renewed his defense of traditional energy sources.   

Harris also doubled down on her support for fossil fuel investments and traditional energy sources, stating, “I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.” Under the Biden-Harris administration, the U.S. achieved record levels of oil and gas production in 2023, averaging 12.9 million barrels of oil per day, surpassing the previous peak of 12.3 million barrels per day set during Trump’s presidency in 2019, alongside record levels of natural gas production. This argumentation is in line with a strategy of strategic ambiguity that aims to satisfy both young voters eager to address climate change as well as blue-collar voters in battleground states who rely on fossil fuel industries, while also underscoring the importance of American energy independence to protect national security.   

Not included in last night’s debate was any significant discussion on how either candidate planned to address the threat of more unpredictable weather, or any substantial commitment to keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. While Harris offered a more forward-leaning approach to address one of today’s most urgent challenges, her platform would do well to offer more ambition on climate mitigation while building climate resilience, in line with the calls of U.S. partners and allies abroad. 

“The debate exemplified two different worldviews — but also an increasing number of similarities between the candidates on foreign policy”

Julian Mueller-Kaler

Chief of Staff and Director

Apart from the political show best exemplified by the numerous personal attacks and insults, last night’s debate offered a glimpse into the different worldviews of the two candidates for the Office of the President. Former President Trump firmly reiterated his commitment to a more isolationist foreign policy, emphasizing his intent to bring an end to overseas conflicts in which the United States is involved one way or the other regardless of their current status or potential outcomes. 

He underscored his belief that America’s focus ought to be on its domestic issues, not entangling itself in what he described as endless wars abroad — a notion that is increasingly popular among the American public, and his loyal base in particular. Trump thereby pointed to his previous efforts to withdraw troops from the Middle East as proof of his resolve to disengage from foreign military entanglements, and he made it clear that under his leadership, the U.S. would no longer be a global policeman – an approach that reflects a broader “America First” stance, favoring limited foreign intervention, a reduction in global commitments, and a certain unpredictability as means for successful deterrent. 

In contrast, Vice President Harris highlighted the importance of strong alliances and multilateral cooperation, particularly with key partners in Europe. She pointed to the U.S.’s pivotal role in NATO and underscored the need to stand firmly with allies in times of crisis, including the ongoing challenges in Ukraine. Much in line with the Biden administration, Harris argued that American global leadership depends heavily on the country’s ability to work collaboratively with international partners, reinforcing a strategy of alliance-building over unilateral action. Accordingly, Harris suggested that the U.S. not only strengthens global security but also bolsters its own strategic interests in an increasingly interconnected world, instead of retreating from global theaters. 

What the respective dispute overshadowed, however, is the fact that there are an increasing number of similarities between the two candidates when it comes to questions of foreign policy. While respective strategies might differ substantively, a stronger stance towards China has become one of the few things Republicans and Democrats can actually agree on and is playing out with bipartisan support for tariffs and export controls in the high-tech sector. Furthermore, a more protectionist economic policy is reversing globalization, as it is trying to bolster the U.S. manufacturing sector and thereby reviving the battered American middle class, which decline has contributed so much to the populist moment we face. Last but not least is a broader foreign policy approach that tries to minimize the risk of direct U.S. military involvement, after large parts of the American public have seen their country’s global commitments balloon endlessly, for what felt like diminishing returns at home. U.S. allies will certainly feel that retrenchment, as they are going to have to step up their engagements and fill in some of the gaps moving forward – irrespective of who wins the race to the White House. 

“Perhaps as expected, foreign policy issues barely came up”

Yuki Tatsumi

Senior Fellow and Co-Director

There is little surprise that the voters across the U.S. did not hear much thoughtful—let alone in-depth—discussion over foreign policy issues in the September 10 presidential debate.  After all, all politics is local – or in this case, domestic.  Particularly for this election cycle, from grocery prices to women’s right to choose, there are enough domestic issues that weigh heavily on the minds of the voters to leave little room for either candidate to prioritize foreign policy issues.  So, perhaps as expected, with the exception of wars in Ukraine and Gaza and Harris’s occasional reference to Trump’s “love letter to Kim Jong Un” and “world leaders…laughing at” Trump, foreign policy issues barely came up.   

Similarly, aside from the back-and-forth over whether tariffs contribute to price hikes at home, the discussion on trade issues was also missing. If anything, this is where both campaigns missed the opportunity to assuage the concerns of U.S. allies and partners, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. Whether the approach is “Make America Great Again’ or “Opportunity Economy”, there is a concern among U.S. allies and friends in the Indo-Pacific region that they will be forced to choose sides between the U.S. and China as the U.S. continues to take measures to separate the ecosystem of its economy away from that of China. Furthermore, as both campaigns compete over their respective plans to revitalize the domestic industry, there is a growing concern outside the U.S. that a new administration, whether Republican or Democrat, will take “America First” approach to trade, creating a not-so-friendly environment for foreign investments in the U.S.   

For Japan, this concern became real when, a few days before the debate, Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated the Biden administration’s position to oppose U.S. Steel’s sale to Nippon Steel. Her statement immediately met pushback from U.S. Steal itself which issued a statement that “(t)he partnership with Nippon Steel, a long-standing investor in the United States from our close ally Japan, will strengthen the American steel industry, American jobs, and American supply chains, and enhance the U.S. steel industry’s competitiveness and resilience against China.” Japanese business community was so alarmed that the Keidanren, the largest association of Japanese corporations, issued a rare statement in which it expressed “hope that the (acquisition) review procedure will be conducted with the utmost integrity and fairness in accordance with the law” on September 6. Without further information, context, or nuances of her position, there is no doubt that her statement deepened the concern in Japan that the Harris administration would resort to more protectionism than the Trump administration in bilateral trade issues.   

The debate would have been an opportunity for both candidates to clarify their position on how they will uphold their respective commitment to rebuild domestic industry while ensuring an inviting environment for foreign investments from U.S. allies, partners, and friends in the United States and maintaining their support for free and open trade. Last night’s debate, however, did little to assuage the concern for the resurgence of U.S. protectionism.     

“Voters deserve to know how either candidate will seek to deescalate the issue of North Korea”

Martyn Williams

Senior Fellow

The lack of anything substantial from either candidate on the North Korea issue was not a surprise. There are numerous issues more important to the voting public and a stated policy on how the next administration will approach North Korea is not likely to swing any votes. 

But the issue is one that deserves at least some attention from both candidates. In the years since the Hanoi Summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un fell apart, the country has continued to develop advanced weapons systems and build up its military. It has also evolved into a serious threat in the cybercrime space, stealing and hacking its way to billions of dollars to fund its weapons programs. 

Voters deserve to know how either candidate will seek to deescalate the issue, potentially reengaging North Korea in meaningful dialog on its nuclear program and sanctions relief, or if they will continue the “strategic patience” policy that led to the current status. 

"Standing up to foreign pressure has proven an important theme to both candidates, but how they describe it varies dramatically”

Andrew Hyde

Director and Senior Fellow

Substantively, the September 10 Presidential Debate broke little new ground. As expected, foreign policy issues were raised both by the moderators and the candidates, but the bulk of the debate centered on domestic concerns. Neither candidate veered very far from previously announced foreign policy positions or attitudes. Trump reiterated past stances popular with his base while Harris sought to characterize herself as a global leader, citing her travels and meetings with foreign heads of state. Several exchanges turned on personal relationships with world leaders, with both Trump and Harris portraying how others viewed Donald Trump. Harris said they saw her opponent as a “disgrace.” 

Retorting, Trump said he was respected on the global stage, specifically citing Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban, calling him admiringly “strong, tough and smart” and reeling off a list of world leaders who feared him.  

On NATO, Trump doubled down on his insistence that European allies increase their military spending, repeating his assertion that without it, U.S. willingness to come to their defense would be uncertain. Seeking to demonstrate strength, he boasted that he told the Europeans, “Either you pay up or we’re not going to protect you anymore.” While this transactional theme was a notable feature of his presidency, it also contributes to undermining NATO’s arguably chief strength – deterrence — if the U.S. commitment is cast into doubt. Trump also repeatedly cited President Biden’s willingness to approve the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany as a sign of weakness in the face of Russian pressure.   

 

Standing up to foreign pressure has proven an important theme to both candidates, but how they describe it varies dramatically. 

On Ukraine, the exchanges on the debate stage were revealing of what was said and what was not. Despite repeated moderator questions, Trump refused to answer whether he wanted a Ukrainian victory, only that he wanted an end to the war. Trump said the war in Ukraine would not have started had he been President and if re-elected, it would end quickly. Pouncing on that, Harris retorted that Trump would have given free rein to Putin on Ukraine and said Trump would imperil European security by supporting a rapid peace agreement in Ukraine on Russia’s terms, adding that is why “our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president.” With a deft political touch, Harris pirouetted from steadfast support for Ukraine to “800,000 Polish Americans in Pennsylvania” who would be appalled with Trump’s willingness to compromise with Vladimir Putin. 

The debate revealed little new about the candidates and their positions on some key international issues, while further solidifying their underlying approaches to foreign competitors and allies. It will be interesting to see if and how either their positions or their approaches evolve further through the remaining 50-odd days left in the campaign. 

“Viewers expecting a thoughtful conversation on the Middle East came away disappointed”

Barbara Slavin

Distinguished Fellow

Viewers expecting a thoughtful conversation about the conflicts raging in the Middle East came away disappointed from last night’s debate. Supporters of the Palestinian cause may have been left with precious little substance to react to as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris competed to show who was the most pro-Israel. In her remarks, Harris’s talking points suggested concern for 40,000 Palestinian deaths and the need for a two-state solution, but without providing any specifics on how to achieve a cease-fire in Gaza, let alone create a sovereign Palestinian entity. On his part, Trump argued that Harris “hates Israel” and that “Israel will be gone” in two years if Harris wins, repeating claims that Hamas would never have attacked Israel last year if he were president. 

Apart from affirming support for Israel, Trump and Harris found some common ground in their criticism of Iran as a supporter of Hamas and other anti-Israel and anti-U.S. militant groups. “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel,” Harris said. This is in line with the Biden administration policy of increasing military aid to Israel and deploying massive American firepower in the region to protect Israel against Iranian retaliation for Israeli assassinations of Iranian and Iran-backed senior military figures. 

Trump, whose 2018 decision to quit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran as well as to kill Iran’s most important general in 2020, has not curbed Iran’s nuclear program or its regional influence, repeating claims that “Iran was broke” when he left office. He falsely alleged that “now Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had.” In fact, Iran’s economy is struggling. The Biden administration has added sanctions on Iran and on the day of the debate announced new restrictions on Iran’s national airline given Iranian missile deliveries to Russia.