Biden drops out and the Harris candidacy!
When President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, it sent shockwaves through the nation during a particularly tense election season. But that shockwave also extended around the globe at a time of unprecedented conflict and crisis. Past American presidential elections have rarely been fought over foreign or national security policy, but the 2024 election could be different. Whoever is elected in November will face confrontations with America’s nuclear rivals – China and Russia. Both these ongoing “cold wars” are just one crisis away from dramatic escalation.
Biden, known for his foreign policy bona fides and support for US allies, was considered a steady hand on the international stage. His decision to endorse his running mate – Vice President Kamala Harris – to take up his mantle has raised some questions, however, especially since many believe she has limited international experience.
So, what does this decision mean for American national security and foreign affairs between now and the inauguration of a new president? Since it now appears Harris is the presumptive candidate for the Democratic Party, what is her background on national security issues and foreign policy views? How would a Harris administration differ from Biden’s or former President Donald Trump’s – and what policies might she pursue?
Biden’s lame duck six months
Before reviewing Biden’s final six months as president, It is important to acknowledge that there is no possibility that he will step down from the presidency despite the recommendation of the Speaker of the House and other Republicans.
What is accurate, however, is that during these final days Biden will essentially operate as a “lame duck”. This was already likely to be true in terms of legislative or budgetary matters, as there was little chance of a significant vote by Congress prior to the election. As of now, considering their eagerness to return to the campaign trail, it appears Congress is more likely to lean onto a continuing resolution for the budget issues that remain.
But that means that Biden can spend these final months focused on what has been a key part of his presidency – foreign policy and national security. Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared to make it clear that would be a continuing focus in a statement that he made on X after Biden announced the end of his re-election campaign.
President Biden “has restored U.S. leadership around the world and delivered historic accomplishments as President. I look forward to building on that record with him over the next six months,” Blinken wrote.
Biden will undoubtedly want to use this time as an opportunity to cement his legacy. As with any transition of power, some of America’s foes may believe that the time is ripe to challenge the US or seek to simply “wait Biden out”. Moscow or Beijing might believe they will have an easier time with an untested Kamala Harris or a historically volatile Donald Trump. But the president has always maintained that this area is one of his key strengths, and he reportedly cited that regularly when he argued he should remain in the race despite questions over his mental acuity and age.
He had an immense opportunity to push his legacy forward when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president was expected to press the foreign leader on a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip that both sides have reportedly agreed to, and the lack of electoral pressure could allow him to act more boldly. This might further set the stage for a larger agreement that the Biden administration has sought – Saudi normalization of relations with Israel. If this could be achieved, it would isolate Iran and send a geopolitical earthquake through the Middle East.
He will also likely continue his ongoing efforts in the aftermath of the recent NATO Summit to solidify support for Ukraine and the transatlantic alliance, while also providing further challenges to Russia and China. Biden and his political allies likely noted a night at the Republican National Convention themed “Make America Strong Again,” when numerous speakers blasted the president for his policies toward Iran, Russia and China. They will want to push back against that narrative.
The Biden White House was already discussing future action against China over its support of Russia, with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggesting that the US could announce additional sanctions against Beijing. Some believe this could include Chinese banks, which would be seen as extraordinarily escalatory. But that is only one action that was telegraphed just before Biden dropped out of the race. He could be much bolder from here.
Harris’s national security experience
It is well known that Kamala Harris does not have the foreign policy experience of President Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years and served as vice president during the Obama administration. But Harris has also gained significant understanding as vice president, meeting with more than 150 world leaders and visiting 21 countries while in that role.
Biden has also made her a key part of his national security team from the onset of the administration – continuing the tradition of his predecessors. As such, she receives daily top-secret briefings and has been reportedly consulted on major US foreign policy challenges, such as China’s efforts in the South China Sea, Iran’s work with militant groups, and the growing Chinese and Russian influence campaigns in Africa.
She attended the Munich Security Conference in the past year, and she delivered remarks in support of NATO that denounced isolationism and vowed to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. She also represented the US in June at the “peace conference” convened by Ukraine in Switzerland where she also reaffirmed US support to Kyiv.
Harris will likely take a different approach to the Israel-Gaza War than President Biden, who has maintained “unwavering” support for Israel. The vice president is an outspoken supporter of a two-state solution and was one of the first members of the administration to call for an “immediate cease-fire”. She has regularly raised concerns over the “humanitarian catastrophe for Palestinians” and has announced that she would not attend Netanyahu’s speech before Congress due to a previously planned campaign event. She will meet with the Israeli Prime Minister during his visits the US and tell him that the war needs to end, though reports suggest she will seek a direct confrontation.
Despite a vice-presidential term heavy on foreign policy, some still question whether she is prepared to be commander-in-chief. In an effort to quash that narrative, more than 350 US national security leaders – largely Democrats – released a signed letter expressing their belief that she is the “best qualified person” to lead the country given her international experience.
Harris may also choose to respond to such questions with her vice-presidential pick. While she is reportedly considering some governors who have limited national security experience, she is also vetting Arizona Senator Mark Kelly – a retired NASA astronaut and fighter pilot – and retired Admiral William McRaven, the man credited with overseeing the operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Both are also moderates in their party and their experiences contrast greatly with Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who served in the Marines. Their views also could not be more different than Vance and Trump who have advocated for an isolationist foreign and security strategy.
How a Harris administration might differ from Trump’s
Harris’s campaign has seemed to push for an image of stability and continuity, which likely means she would pursue many of the policies of the Biden administration in the field of national security and foreign policy. Consequently, the distinction between a future Harris or Trump administration would be quite stark.
Based on the Republican national platform and Trump’s remarks at the convention, this is not the party of Ronald Reagan with respect to national security policy. Great power confrontations have returned, and the country’s traditional approach to both allies and global security is being redefined. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed recently at the Aspen Security Forum that there has been a return of “the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse – populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism”.
Former President Trump opposes future military aid to Ukraine and has been – at best – skeptical about NATO and other American alliances. He has successfully helped push NATO members to meet their defense obligations, but he has also said he would “encourage” Russia” to do whatever the hell they want” to further increase pressure on those member states that fail to achieve NATO goals for defense spending.
It is largely expected that Trump will maintain the transatlantic alliance, however, but he will downsize the US footprint in Europe and redirect military power toward the Pacific. Vance’s views regarding NATO and Ukraine are perhaps even harsher. He has been the leading congressional critic of American involvement in Ukraine, and his candidacy was welcomed by the Russians.
“He stands for peace, for cessation of aid [to Ukraine],” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said of the pick at a press conference at the United Nations. “We can only welcome this because, in fact, it is necessary to stop pumping Ukraine with weapons, and the war will end.”
Trump advisors have promoted a peace proposal if he wins the White House that calls for cutting off weapons to Ukraine if Kyiv doesn’t agree to peace talks. It also notably calls for “flooding Ukraine with weapons” if Russia doesn’t negotiate.
The former president appears to be pursuing similar tactics with allies in the Pacific, as he recently stated that “Taiwan should pay us for defense…You know, we’re no different than an insurance company.”
In response the conservative Hudson Institute noted, “A significant disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor industry could affect as much as $1.6 trillion, or roughly 8%, of America’s annual gross domestic product — hurting industries like personal electronics, automotives and telecommunications.”
Events are moving quickly, and there is still much that could happen in the approximately 100 days until Election Day. A normal election has its surprises, but this one seems to have shockwaves. That isn’t without its precedent.
Mark Twain once observed that history does not repeat, but it may occasionally rhyme. Nearly 60 years ago, an incumbent president announced he would not run for re-election, the Democrats held a convention in Chicago, a Kennedy was running for president, an assassin shot a presidential candidate and there was an unpopular foreign war causing civil unrest in the US. The times and terms of 2024 are certainly much different than they were in 1968, but – whatever happens – we can be certain that the country will have an interesting and historical next 100 days.