When Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris met September 10th for a nearly-two-hour sparring match, foreign policy was on the agenda. Brought up consistently by both candidates and moderators throughout the debate, it’s clear that each campaign views this issue as important to voters.
During the debate, Ukraine and Israel each received 19 shout-outs, China and Russia got 13, Afghanistan 10, and Gaza/Palestinians six. Other countries, leaders, and regions were discussed as well, from Europe, to NATO, to North Korea. This puts the tally of foreign mentions over 80, while “America” and “Americans” were mentioned 64 times.
Political communications strategy expert and USC Instructor Steve Caplan weighed in on whether each candidate achieved their goals for the debate regarding foreign policy.
“I think that Kamala Harris had to send the message that she understands foreign policy, that she’s capable of being the Commander in Chief, that she’s been able to meet with world leaders and will maintain, to a certain extent, the current policy. She met all those tests,” Caplan said.
“As far as Donald Trump, I think he certainly extended and continued his brand of foreign policy, which is very much an America First policy, with a focus on having our allies stand for and put money into these conflicts.”
He thought each candidate achieved their goals and that “there were no surprises, which in this case is probably a good thing for both candidates.”
Within the first minutes of the debate, Trump’s opening answer discussed China, responding to Harris’ claims that he would put in place a “Trump tax” in the form of tariffs on foreign imports.
“Other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we’ve done for the world,” Trump said. “And the tariff will be substantial in some cases. I took in billions and billions of dollars, as you know, from China. In fact, they never took the tariff off because it was so much money, they can’t.”
The first mention of foreign policy in the debate, but not the last. On China alone, Harris condemned trade wars and Trump’s selling of American chips to the nation, as well as his praise of President Xi Jinping in the early days of COVID-19.
But how do these positions stand up against each candidate’s real-world policies? After all, each has had their share of authority in the west wing over the past eight years.
While in office, Trump did enact substantial tariffs, imposing several rounds on steel, aluminum, solar panels, laundry machines, and goods from China. According to the Tax Foundation, which provides research and analysis of tax policy, these affected more than $380 billion worth of trade at the time of implementation and amounted to a tax increase of nearly $80 billion for Americans.
Since leaving office, some of these tariffs have expired, and some have been suspended by the Biden administration. Trump isn’t the only one adding tariffs, however. In May 2024, President Joe Biden announced additional tariffs on $18 billion of Chinese goods, leading to a $3.6 billion tax increase at home.
If elected, Trump plans to go further and may seek a more than 60% rise in tariffs on Chinese goods in particular, and tariffs of 10% to 20% on most imports.
It is unclear what tariffs exactly would look like under a Harris administration, but a spokesperson for the campaign said she would employ strategic tariffs to support the American economy.
Last month, the New York Times reported there wasn’t an extreme divide on trade: “On economic policy and trade issues, you have both major parties moving in the same direction,” they spoke to Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America. “Mr. Iacovella said that Mr. Trump would most likely go further on tariffs than Ms. Harris would, but that no matter who won the election ‘it’s still going to be a tariffs administration, and an industrial policy one.’”
What wasn’t mentioned: Taiwanese Sovereignty, Territorial Conflicts in the South China Sea, China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia’s war in Ukraine was another flashpoint, on which each candidate painted a different picture of what would have happened if Trump had been in office at the time of the initial invasion.
“If I were president Russia would have never, ever -- I know Putin very well…Have gone into Ukraine and killed millions of people,” Trump said.
However when asked if he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he reiterated “I want the war to stop.” He claimed that he would be able to achieve this while President elect.
Harris discussed meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the importance of the NATO alliance.
“Because of our support, because of the air defense, the ammunition, the artillery, the javelins, the Abrams tanks that we have provided, Ukraine stands as an independent and free country,” Harris said. “If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now.”
What wasn’t mentioned: Use of American weapons by Ukraine inside of Russia, a plan to end the fighting.
Perhaps the most top-of-mind foreign policy issue of the day is the Israel-Hamas war. It has been nearly a year since the October 7th attacks, and Harris was asked about her plan to get a ceasefire.
“The way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out,” Harris said. “And so we will continue to work around the clock on that. Work around the clock also understanding that we must chart a course for a two-state solution.”
Harris affirmed her goal of a two-state solution, while maintaining security for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Trump criticized Harris in his answer, and did not provide specific details on his own plan to end the conflict.
“But when she mentions about Israel all of a sudden -- she hates Israel. She wouldn’t even meet with Netanyahu when he went to Congress to make a very important speech.”
Harris had a prior commitment during Netanyahu’s address to Congress, however she met with him the next day. Trump met with Netanyahu later that week at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
During Trump’s presidency, the two leaders had a positive relationship, however, Trump’s view of Netanyahu reportedly changed when he congratulated Biden on his victory in the 2020 election, which Trump disputes. While in the White House, he cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which has provided relief to Palestinian refugees. Biden reinstated this relief in 2021. However in January, the Biden administration joined other nations in withholding funding this year after Israel claimed a number of employees were involved in the Hamas-led October 7th Attack.
Trump said in April he wants a “fast” end to the war and believes, similarly to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that it would not have happened under his watch. Trump has yet to outline a detailed plan regarding Israel’s military campaign or aid for Palestinians.
The Biden-Harris administration has sought a ceasefire under terms outlined by the president on May 31. This proposal has not been agreed to, and negotiations have reportedly reached a stalemate, though talks are ongoing.
Harris has expressed concern over what she describes as the “humanitarian catastrophe” taking place in Gaza, and in December 2023, remarked that “Israel has the right to defend itself. It matters how.” She has not yet clarified whether this stance will lead to any divergence from the president’s policy.
What wasn’t mentioned: If Harris plans to differ from Biden’s policy to seek a ceasefire, Trump’s goals and/or plan: does he want a ceasefire? Will he continue to arm Israel?
The New York Times tracked speaking time and attacks during the debate, and broke this down further into time spent on issues discussed. At the top of the foreign policy agenda was the Russia Ukraine war, with over six minutes of speaking time. Broader foreign policy received five minutes, Israel Hamas, almost 2 1/2 minutes, and China just under one minute. It can be assumed that discussions of Afghanistan, North Korea, Victor Orban, and Iran fall under the broad foreign policy tracker.
A presidential debate will always be centered on what the election of each candidate would mean for citizens at home, but when foreign countries are mentioned more often than America there is no question that international relations is a key priority in this election.