January 20, 2025
The Trump-Biden-Trump Foreign Policy
Today, U.S. President Donald Trump will sweep back into power promising a new American approach to the world. As he was in 2017, Trump has been harshly critical of his predecessor’s foreign policy and pledged major differences in priorities and style. His supporters cheer the return to an “America first” attitude, one that emphasizes toughness, seeks concrete benefits from any foreign engagements, and centers on hardheaded dealmaking. His detractors fear a cramped, short-term worldview combined with an erratic, transactional approach to a complicated international environment. Either way, much of the world now braces for significant policy departures and prepares for a major lurch in U.S. foreign policy.
To be sure, a second Trump era promises significant changes after four years of President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden firmly committed to supporting Ukraine, defending Taiwan militarily, fulfilling the United States’ climate change commitments, and centering democracy in U.S. foreign policy. He stressed the benefits of the United States’ alliances and the threats that China and other revisionist powers pose to the global order. Trump, on the other hand, questions the need to continue aiding Ukraine, declines to commit to Taiwan’s protection, downplays climate change, and deprioritizes the promotion of democracy and human rights. He often portrays U.S. allies as free riders enriching themselves under U.S. protection and emphasizes the unfairness of trade deficits with countries such as China more than any systemic risks these countries might pose. The new president will surely spend his first weeks in office issuing executive orders and other directives aimed at visibly reversing Biden’s policies.
The stability of U.S. interests and values, the role of Congress, and the realities of today’s world will demand a significant measure of constancy.
For all the differences, however, there will likely be far more continuity between the two administrations than meets the eye. Across administrations—even ones as different as those of Biden and Trump—foreign policy is something like an iceberg. The visible portion is gleaming and jagged and draws much of the attention. Yet it also has a far bigger and underexamined foundation, one that tends to remain mostly unchanged. Even as they focus on Trump’s differences in style and substance, observers should not ignore the potential stability in the United States’ approach to the world. Otherwise, they may misunderstand policy, attributing it to a specific president, rather than more firmly rooted in bipartisan consensus and likely to endure.
Read the full article on Foreign Affairs.
More from CNAS
-
The Dhaka Test: Washington and New Delhi’s Alternative to China in a New Bangladesh
Commentary
The challenge is not that each vertex lacks interest in stabilising Bangladesh, but rather that each is pursuing those interests in ways that undermine the others, at the prec...
By Keerthi Martyn
-
Podcast
Indo-Pacific Security / Middle East Security
Why Trump’s Efforts to Force Iran to Concede to U.S. Demands Aren’t Working"So far, there has been no combination of carrots and sticks that has brought Iran to the terms that the Americans want. And if the idea is that, at some point soon, Iran will...
By Richard Fontaine
-
Is the Quad Fracturing as U.S. Priorities Shift?
Podcast
The Quad was meant to anchor stability in the Indo-Pacific—a way for the United States, India, Japan, and Australia to stay aligned in a rapidly changing region. But shifting ...
By Derek Grossman
-
How the War with Iran Is Shaping U.S.-Chinese Competition
Commentary
The war also gives Beijing an opportunity to court developing countries....
By Jacob Stokes
