President Joe Biden, once hailed by Democrats as a transformative leader, now faces an ironic twist of fate. Just days after being ousted from the re-election race by the very allies who once championed him, the party's convention sought to celebrate his achievements. Leading the charge was Nancy Pelosi—the powerful speaker emeritus and the undeclared doyenne of the Democratic Party who pushed him out. Yet, this effort to reframe Biden as a hero rings hollow against the backdrop of his more visible failures on the global stage and the internal coup that led to his forced abdication.
On the foreign policy front, his legacy is marred by missteps, most notably the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan—a debacle Biden himself admitted was preventable and has left the country vulnerable to terror once more. In the Middle East, with the war in Gaza now having claimed over 40,000 lives and nearing its first anniversary, Biden has largely failed to leverage American influence to persuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to change the course of the bloody conflict that continues to devastate the enclave.
Turning to China, Biden has maintained the policies of his predecessor, which many experts have described as ineffective. In an effort to present himself as tougher on Beijing and a defender of American jobs against China’s growing manufacturing dominance, Biden imposed new tariffs on $18 billion worth of Chinese goods. This move, seen in hindsight, was intended to appeal to blue-collar workers ahead of the November presidential election—a race Biden is no longer in. Ironically, while the immediate economic impact of these tariffs is expected to be minimal, they could ultimately force companies reliant on Chinese inputs to raise prices, leaving American consumers in a precarious position.
Biden’s efforts to counter China’s growing influence have been a recurring theme throughout his presidency. Recently, he ordered a significant overhaul of Washington’s nuclear strategic plan, shifting its focus to deterring Beijing. This reorientation, quietly initiated by the president in March, contrasts sharply with his previous advocacy for nuclear non-proliferation. The decision, largely kept under wraps until recently, was subtly hinted at by administration insiders through carefully crafted statements. A more detailed, unclassified notification to Congress is expected before Biden's term concludes next year.
According to The New York Times, Vipin Narang, a nuclear strategist from M.I.T. and former Pentagon official, noted that the revised nuclear-weapons guidance was designed to address the challenge posed by multiple nuclear-armed adversaries, including Russia, North Korea, and primarily China. Biden’s decision was based on the Pentagon’s assumption that China’s nuclear arsenal will soon rival those of the US and Russia, further acknowledging that both his predecessor’s and his own policies have inadvertently strengthened the bond between Washington’s adversaries, undermining the foreign policy approach once advocated by Richard Nixon to keep Russia and China divided.
In short, Biden has pushed the world closer to a new arms race and potential nuclear catastrophe. It starkly contrasts with the efforts of his predecessors, from John F. Kennedy onward, who sought to mitigate the dangers of atomic warfare. Despite the increasingly volatile nuclear landscape, Biden has largely remained silent on the perils of proliferation. His doctrinal shifts, enacted without any public discussion, are likely to heighten paranoia and distrust in countries like Russia and China, making an arms race nearly inevitable and increasing the risk of miscalculations that could lead to a catastrophic outcome.
If Biden were truly committed to preventing a new arms race, his administration should have engaged with Beijing from the outset rather than exacerbating distrust that might drive China to significantly expand its nuclear arsenal. Conservative estimates suggest that China’s stockpile could exceed 1,500 warheads by 2035 if current trends continue. Instead of focusing on diplomatic efforts to achieve disarmament, Biden’s policy has inadvertently encouraged both Moscow and Beijing to increase their stockpiles, positioning the US against two nuclear-armed adversaries and potentially giving China a strategic advantage. In the long run, according to Western analysts, Beijing could even exploit nuclear threats to sway US allies, potentially undermining support for Taiwan if the People’s Liberation Army attempts to claim the island by force, much like Moscow’s use of nuclear threats to delay aid for Ukraine.
As it remains to be seen how Washington will implement Biden’s covert nuclear overhaul aimed at countering Beijing, advancing this strategy could plunge America into an arms race that it may have initiated but will struggle to win. Economically and strategically, this could be disastrous, preventing the expansion of America’s non-nuclear military capabilities. Moreover, policymakers should reconsider Biden’s policy shift not only for its costs and risks but also because the US already possesses the capability to retaliate effectively even if adversaries strike first—an advantage it holds multiple times over.
Even as President Biden seeks to portray China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran as the harbingers of apocalyptic scenarios, his justification for abandoning disarmament policies endorsed by General Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan—who negotiated an arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union in the 1980s—remains unconvincing. This latest overhaul of the nuclear strategy is likely the final nail in the coffin of his legacy. Yet, as the saying goes, the last nail doesn’t matter if you’re already in the coffin.
Despite the shifting global landscape since his vice presidency, when Biden was a staunch advocate for disarmament, he has missed the opportunity as president to more effectively champion non-proliferation. Instead, he could have fostered an environment encouraging China—now America’s declared adversary—to maintain its ‘No First Use policy’ on nuclear weapons.
In sum, the stark contrast between Biden’s current policy and the disarmament principles upheld by past US presidents reveals a deeply troubling shift. While his administration highlights its foreign policy achievements, the reality is that Biden’s tenure risks leaving the world on the edge of a dangerous nuclear arms race if reason does not prevail in Washington. As much as he might wish otherwise, his presidency will likely be defined more by these foreign policy failures than by any accomplishments he hopes to highlight before his term concludes on January 20.