The rivalry between the Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in the U.S. presidential race has significant implications for American global interests. In particular, the possibility of Trump winning has become one of the greatest concerns for Continental Europe. The prospect of the Republicans returning to power with their “America First” approach could lead to a reduction in U.S. defense support for Europe and potentially result in a loss for Ukraine in its ongoing war. Trump repeatedly claims he could end the war in Ukraine within a day, and his curious dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin has become a primary concern for Europe. Indeed, it is argued that the Russia-Ukraine War could end swiftly if Trump is in power.
As the presidential race continues, an assassination attempt on Trump has raised concerns among Democrats, who worry that this incident may increase his popularity. This concern has led to increased pressure on Joe Biden within the Democratic Party, and Biden has ultimately withdrawn from the race, endorsing Kamala Harris. Both the assassination attempt on Trump and Biden’s withdrawal in favor of Harris have been seen as efforts to reshape American politics.
It is generally assumed that regardless of the personal views or visions of the presidential candidates in the U.S., they will operate within the boundaries set by American national and global interests. Whether the candidate is from the Republican or Democratic Party, the primary priority while in office will be to act in line with these interests.
Every U.S. government institution involved in global affairs, particularly the CIA, Pentagon, and Congress, has its own reports, analyses, forecasts, and policy recommendations. These recommendations play a significant role in decision-making processes at the White House. For example, during his previous presidency, Trump threatened to strike Iran but eventually refrained from doing so, influenced by such policy recommendations. These recommendations, regardless of their source, have a considerable impact on the president’s decisions.
Another example is the Pentagon’s warnings to the White House about the dangers of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in early August 2022. Despite these warnings, the visit proceeded. Similarly, Pentagon recommendations about the direction of the war in Ukraine and related military strategies significantly shape White House policies. For instance, the Pentagon cautioned that using American weapons by Ukrainian forces to attack Russian territory could lead to a potential war between NATO and Russia. Subsequently, the White House authorized the use of these weapons by Ukraine.
These institutions will prefer to work with an experienced president and a White House administration that aligns with advancing American global interests. During Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency, his unpredictable policies undoubtedly complicated the tasks of American governmental institutions. Trump’s surprising policy choices prompted these institutions to provide him with more frequent policy recommendations on issues concerning U.S. national and global interests.
As the presidential race unfolds, the American public will likely prefer a candidate capable of navigating global geopolitics. Key international issues currently include the Russia-Ukraine War in Europe, the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, and potential conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that the U.S. should focus on China and ensure security in the Asia-Pacific, reflecting public sentiment. Trump’s previous actions, such as initiating trade wars with China and meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in an effort to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula, have helped boost his standing in the presidential race.
As a result, the American public will vote for the candidate they believe can best advance the country’s global interests. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat takes office, foreign policy decisions may bring new nuances, but they will continue to serve the advancement of U.S. global interests.
