Issues of military security may have a low profile in the presidential race, but headlines from around the world attest to their importance. When it comes to how to address vital national interests, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump differ sharply.
Democratic nominee Ms. Harris, a former prosecutor, is particularly committed to rule-based order as a principle behind U.S. action and posture in the world.
Republican nominee Mr. Trump by contrast, has staked his ground on skepticism of foreign military engagement and on encouraging European nations to shoulder more of NATO’s financial and military burdens.
Why We Wrote This
Big gaps exist between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on two current hot spots: Ukraine and the Middle East including Iran. That hints at broader contrasts in their worldviews on national security.
Big differences exist on two current hot spots: Ukraine and the Middle East including Iran.
Vice President Kamala Harris
For Ms. Harris, that lens of rule-based order is linked to engagement in alliances with other nations – a theme she highlighted at the Munich Security Conference in February. “History has also shown us: if we only look inward, we cannot defeat threats from outside; isolation is not insulation,” she said. “In fact, when America has isolated herself, threats have only grown.”
Her message, says the Biden-Harris White House, was based on “strongly rejecting the failed ideologies of isolationism, authoritarianism, and unilateralism.” This view reassures allies that America will continue its role as a world leader.
The NATO alliance is “central” to this U.S. approach to global security and Moscow is its biggest collective threat, Ms. Harris has said. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine runs counter to international law, and she’s expected to carry on the White House’s military support for Kyiv in its efforts to repel illegal occupation. Ms. Harris has personally met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy half-a-dozen times. She has likened Mr. Trump’s promise to end the war within 24 hours as akin to surrender.
Amid the current war in Gaza, Ms. Harris has so far hewed closely to Biden administration policy, which has included sending some 40,000 U.S. troops, a dozen U.S. Navy warships, four fighter jet squadrons to the Middle East, and about $18 billion in military aid. While condemning Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and emphasizing that Israel has a right to defend itself, she has also said that she “will not be silent” about the suffering of “far too many” Palestinians.
In the Pacific, the Biden administration has strengthened military partnerships with allies including Japan, the Philippines, and Australia in the face of what it has called the “dangerous and provocative brinkmanship” of “an increasingly aggressive China.”
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken wrote in an August op-ed that “no place on Earth is more critical to Americans’ livelihoods and futures than the Indo-Pacific,” and cited “unprecedented” defense cooperation undertaken since 2021.
It is a strategy, they noted, that’s been advanced by Ms. Harris as well as President Biden.
Former President Donald Trump
The Republican nominee is not thought to have warm feelings towards President Zelenskyy. Mr. Trump was impeached during his term as president for trying to make military aid for Ukraine contingent on launching an investigation into actions by political opponent Joe Biden when he was vice president. Mr. Zelenskyy declined to do so. Mr. Trump in turn has declined to say that he hopes Ukraine will win the war.
He has promised to end fighting through negotiations. Without offering specifics, he’s implied he could do this in part by lifting U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Mr. Trump is perhaps best known among the security set in Europe for saying that “NATO is dead” and that he would let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to allies who don’t pay their fair share of alliance bills. He has also questioned NATO’s linchpin Article 5, which declares that an attack on one is an attack on all.
After criticizing Germany for riding American military coattails by spending less than 2% of its GDP on defense, Mr. Trump announced that he would withdraw roughly one-third of U.S. troops from the country in 2020.
Evan Vucci/AP/File
President Biden reversed this plan after his election win. The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy plan, developed by many former Trump administration officials, once again calls for pulling U.S. forces back from Europe and for relinquishing responsibility for leading NATO.
On the matter of Middle East policy, Mr. Trump has said that Israel needs to get its war in Gaza “done quickly, because they are getting decimated with this publicity.” He said following this month’s Iranian missile strike that Israel should “hit” Iran’s nuclear facilities.
In campaign mode, likely defense leaders in another Trump administration have called for stepped up U.S. military spending to combat China.
As president, Mr. Trump pushed for more arms sales to Taiwan, while saying the country should pay up for U.S. protection. Similarly, Mr. Trump sought a fourfold increase in South Korean funding in order to keep U.S. forces stationed there, and floated the idea of a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. There are nearly 30,000 U.S. troops stationed at Camp Humphreys, America’s largest overseas military base, on South Korea’s west coast.
Nuclear weapons lie at the heart of Mr. Trump’s plan for increasing U.S. security. He has called for expanding the U.S. arsenal and rejecting disarmament and nonproliferation agreements. He has also pushed for a return to nuclear weapons testing, which the U.S. stopped doing in 1992.