As the US presidential election approaches its finale, the world is watching closely. Joseph Biden, the incumbent, beset by concerns over his age and a series of public gaffes, has been sidelined by his own party. Once the presumptive nominee, the president now appears more as a surrogate.
This dramatic turn of events has paved the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to take centre stage in a fiercely contested race against Donald Trump, the former president who is making history as the first convicted felon to seek the White House. Having survived an assassination attempt and decisively outperformed Biden in the first presidential debate—laying bare the president’s cognitive decline—Trump seized the momentum, energised his base, and clinched the Republican nomination for the third time.
For Harris, the stakes couldn’t have been higher. She steps in to replace Biden, who was trailing his firebrand predecessor in nearly all national polls. Harris, too, has made history as the first Black woman and the first person of South Asian descent to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency. She also becomes only the second vice president in US history, after Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, to enter the race after the sitting president stepped aside. But the question remains—has Harris truly emerged from the shadow of her soon-to-be former boss? History offers a cautionary tale—Humphrey, too, struggled to distance himself from President Lyndon Johnson and ultimately lost to Richard Nixon. If history repeats itself, Harris could face a similar fate—a scenario that should be the worst nightmare for her party’s leadership at this point. Despite an energetic performance at the Democratic National Convention—held in Chicago, evoking memories of the 1968 gathering that nominated Humphrey—Harris has managed only a statistical tie with Trump in most battleground states. Even the addition of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, selected as her running mate to appeal to Middle America, has done little to improve her standing in the polls.
Trump, the former president who was ousted in 2021, continues to cling to his divisive rhetoric, now more aggressively courting his base with the familiar dog whistles they’ve come to expect. He has not shied away from expressing his isolationist views and subtle plans to undermine democracy at home. If the chaotic end to his presidency remains fresh in the public’s memory, Trump’s recent remarks should be alarming. Urging his Christian supporters, he hinted at a potential end to the electoral process if he wins the White House again. The ex-president’s penchant for provocative language is causing him trouble, particularly after he questioned his opponent’s race during an interview. He continues to fuel his campaign with his salesman instincts, frequently resorting to hyperbole that has been known to energise his voter base.
Interestingly, following Biden’s unexpected departure from the race, the Trump campaign was caught off guard and has been struggling to devise a strategy against a new, relatively unknown opponent from the opposite gender. Since then, the former president’s political strategists have focused on casting Kamala Harris as a California liberal with limited accomplishments as vice president. Harris’s challenge is to establish her own identity before Trump does it for her. So far, Harris, as the lead candidate for the Democratic Party, has struggled to differentiate herself from Biden, and many analysts believe this will continue to be a challenge given her role as his vice president and former running mate. The election now hinges on a narrow pool of undecided voters whom both candidates are trying to persuade. The outcome will largely depend on how effectively each candidate can appeal to an increasingly divided electorate in battleground states.
On the global front, the incoming president will confront a range of challenges, from managing intricate foreign policy issues to grappling with America’s declining superpower status.
No surprises for the world
For a world besieged by conflict and chaos, this US presidential election holds some significance but few surprises. Both candidates have largely avoided detailing their foreign policy strategies for addressing the myriad challenges awaiting the next occupant of the Oval Office. Conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza show no signs of slowing.
Biden, who has publicly criticised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not doing enough for peace, appears increasingly fatigued. In a glaring contradiction to his stated commitment to ending the conflict, the administration’s unwavering support for supplying ammunition to Israel—used in the killing of more than 40,000 Palestinians—has led some to question his credibility as a genuine advocate for peace. As his vice president, Harris has supported the administration’s stance on Israel’s right to self-defense, and if elected, she may continue this policy of unconditional support. Trump, on the other hand, has been explicit in his backing of Netanyahu.
Both candidates also offer contrasting approaches to handling the conflict in Ukraine.
On China, both Trump and Harris are anticipated to adopt a tough stance. Trump’s approach is likely to stay the course, aiming to deter Beijing as he did during his previous term. Harris, who has yet to unveil any groundbreaking proposals to set herself apart from Biden, is also expected to endorse a tougher policy on China should she succeed him.
If Trump returns, longstanding alliances like NATO and a broad network of European and global partners may face a potential reset. In contrast, Harris is likely to continue Biden’s strategy of reassurance, aiming to maintain the dwindling list of allies in America’s Western bloc—an approach that, while largely seen as futile, may temporarily serve as the only means to keep China’s growing influence at bay.
Foreign policy challenges
On matters of foreign policy, the US president wields considerable power. And while Biden may claim that his presidency has made America safer, the reality paints a different picture. The world is arguably less secure, partly due to policy deficiencies during his term. The president’s hasty exit from Afghanistan is likely to haunt his legacy, with some predicting it could become the defining headline of his political epitaph. The region remains less secure and stable due to the abrupt withdrawal of US forces three years ago. While Trump stands to gain politically from what is viewed as America’s most humiliating withdrawal since Vietnam, Harris will have much to defend, both now and potentially after the election if she succeeds.
The Middle East, a volatile and strategically crucial region, has consistently shaped presidential legacies. From Jimmy Carter to Joe Biden, it has left an indelible mark on American foreign policy and those who have crafted it. In Biden’s case, he leaves a fractured region with a deadly conflict that has been raging in Gaza. Despite wielding considerable influence over Israel, President Biden has largely offered only lip service to the idea of peace in the region. Initially, he set a red line, warning that if crossed, it would jeopardise America’s unconditional support for Israel in its efforts to root out Hamas following the October 7 assault. However, that red line proved to be more of a line in the sand, shifting as time went on. Not only did Biden fail to persuade Netanyahu to protect Gaza’s civilian population, but he continued to supply the ammunition that was used to flatten the enclave. During this period, the president approved more bombs and jets for Israel and provided billions of dollars in aid, solidifying his role as the most significant supporter of Israel’s military actions against Palestinians. Harris, as his vice president, has aligned herself with this stance, recently defending Israel’s right to continue the fight. When assessing how Harris might differ, even slightly, from Biden, no issue—foreign or domestic—has received more scrutiny than the war in Gaza. Yet, there’s been no credible indication that she would chart a different course as president.
Trump, for his part, has shown no signs of seeking to de-escalate the conflict, which has resulted in an appalling death toll in Gaza. His administration was staunchly supportive of Netanyahu’s policies, delivering the ultimate trophy to the Israeli leader in 2017 when Trump recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced the relocation of the US diplomatic mission from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
While Trump’s record provides some clues about the future trajectory of his foreign policy, Harris, who has self-styled herself as a human rights hawk, has been less forthcoming about her doctrine. With just two months until the presidential election, the democratic nominee has yet to clearly signal whether, as president, she would champion democracy and freedom abroad, or if she is a ‘pragmatic internationalist’ who might cautiously retreat from America’s waning global dominance. Her campaign has offered little clarity on whether she would bring an end to the era of American hubris and reintroduce humility to foreign policy. While as vice president, Harris may have engaged with numerous world leaders, and her team might tout her as a foreign policy savant, experts remain sceptical. They view her as a neophyte who, if elected, would require a seasoned hand to guide her. Unlike Barack Obama, Harris does not have a vice president with prior foreign policy experience—questionable as Biden’s influence on his former boss’s policies may have been.
Regardless of who steps into Biden’s shoes next year, the obsession with China is likely to remain at the centre of US foreign policy. Since Trump’s departure from office, that policy has remained largely unchanged. Some experts argue that Biden has even escalated the rivalry, ensuring that tensions with Beijing will continue to overshadow American foreign policy. Adding a fresh voice to the debate, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, recently criticised Biden’s covert efforts to modify America’s nuclear strategy. Stein condemned it as a calculated provocation for a new arms race, suggesting that there was no genuine or imminent threat from Beijing to justify such measures.
Following this playbook, the next president appears set to escalate tensions with China rather than pursue a grand strategy of cooperation, potentially risking a Cold War-style rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Signs of this are already evident in recent actions by the Biden-Harris administration, including the escalation in the South China Sea, the chip and trade wars, and changes in the nuclear strategy. However, if anyone in either camp had heeded Richard Nixon’s warnings, they might have reconsidered these anti-China policies. Nixon, a Republican credited with opening diplomatic channels with Beijing in the 1970s, foresaw the 21st century as China’s era and advocated for cooperation rather than confrontation. He cautioned that future presidents would need to carefully consider their approach to China and Russia, whose combined population of 1.5 billion could tip the balance against US interests. And that balance may shift against Washington in the long run. Russia and China have never been closer than they are now—a scenario Nixon had long warned against.
On the Ukraine front, Biden’s policy seems to be faltering as the conflict approaches its third year. The protracted war has led to significant financial burdens on America’s European allies, who are debating whether to continue funding the conflict or reduce their contributions. Meanwhile, Ukraine has recently urged Western nations to provide more long-range missiles and lift restrictions on their use, including targeting airfields inside Russia. However, deploying such weapons could provoke a direct confrontation between the West and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. As Americans gear up for the November election, the incoming president will have significant implications for Ukraine, which is grappling with the most devastating conflict in Europe since World War II. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, has committed to supporting Ukraine. However, there is mounting criticism in Washington regarding President Biden’s management of the conflict.
Former President Trump has promised to resolve the crisis immediately upon taking office, potentially through peace talks that might even require Kyiv to cede territory. The Republican candidate and many of his supporters have questioned the billions of dollars in aid Biden’s administration has committed to Ukraine. What happens after January 20 remains uncertain, as both candidates have proposed plans that lack concrete details and may not offer a viable resolution to the conflict—at least not one envisioned by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has been advocating for a more aggressive stance against Russia, even as Putin appears to be inching closer to capturing the strategic logistics hub critical to Kyiv’s war effort.
Overall, the strategic rivalry with China is expected to remain a major foreign policy challenge for the incoming administration. The next president will have to navigate an increasingly strained relationship with Beijing, characterised by growing disputes over trade and security. Moreover, the new administration will face global scepticism regarding Washington's commitment to peace, especially if it does not take meaningful steps to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. This includes advancing a two-state solution that promises some form of independence for Palestinians.
The economic challenge
Calls for a global shift away from US dollar dominance are not new and are not limited to the BRICS club of emerging nations. However, recent geopolitical developments and rising tensions between the West, Russia, and China have intensified these discussions. While the dollar’s eight-decade reign remains firmly entrenched, the growing movement toward regional currencies and, in some instances, actual transactions in these currencies should be a concern for the incoming US president. The ability to sustain global influence through the dollar will remain a key element of US foreign policy. And as Washington increasingly weaponises the dollar, the momentum for de-dollarisation could intensify. Whether this trend gains substantial traction will largely depend on how Trump or Harris plans to utilise the dollar influence in the future.
Similarly, in the ongoing trade war with China, the next president will confront a significant challenge. Increased tariffs on Chinese goods could translate into long-term costs that will ultimately be borne by US consumers. In a move designed to bolster his legacy ahead of the election he is no longer contesting, Biden imposed new tariffs on a range of Chinese imports, intensifying the already strained trade relations with Beijing. These tariffs affect products from electric vehicles to solar cells. Trump has proposed tariffs of between 10 and 20 per cent on most imports, with rates exceeding 60 per cent on Chinese goods. Although Harris has expressed opposition to Trump’s approach, experts anticipate that she would likely continue Biden’s trade policies if elected.
At home, the health of the US economy plays a crucial role in its capacity to shape global events. While President Biden frequently touts the economy as the strongest in the world, many economists are raising concerns about soaring debt levels, persistent inflation, and a lag in advanced technology manufacturing. Harris positions her economic policy as a pathway to creating opportunities for the middle class. However, a significant segment of this class appears to be feeling the burden of decisions made by the Biden-Harris administration over the past three years. Trump, in contrast, presents himself as a saviour of blue-collar jobs, a promise he hopes will continue to resonate with his voter base and secure him another term.
The tech war
The tech trade wars between Beijing and Washington expose vulnerabilities on both sides. For the US, the greatest challenge is the lack of insight into the decision-making processes of Chinese leadership. In response to the Biden administration’s escalating restrictions on the sale of computer chips and chip making technology to Chinese companies, Beijing struck back in July by imposing its own export controls. It limited the export of gallium and germanium, two crucial metals used in chipmaking, electric vehicles, telecommunications, and weapons systems.
For many in the industry, this move represented a worst-case scenario, highlighting Beijing’s strategy to exploit its dominance in producing these vital materials. Yet, in practice, the feared supply disruptions for gallium and germanium have not materialied. Exports have continued, but with the added requirement of new permits from China. This situation underscores that the new export rules were likely designed more as a strategic warning by Beijing than a full-scale economic assault, signalling to the US and its allies that China is ready and able to retaliate if provoked.
The incoming president will confront a complex dilemma in managing the escalating tensions with China across a broad range of issues. Imposing restrictions or countering Beijing’s advances will inevitably come with significant costs for Washington. As a key figure in the Biden administration, Harris is already familiar with these potential repercussions. If she opts to continue her current boss’s approach, she must prepare for the consequences, some of which are already apparent in China’s reactions. Conversely, Trump has suggested that such measures could spark a new arms race, and given his track record, he may not hesitate to escalate tensions with China further if he returns to office.