The Trump/Vance campaign’s position on the Russian-Ukraine war is that the US should pursue a rapid settlement of the conflict. Vance has repeatedly stated that the extensive Western military and economic assistance to Ukraine is not part of a clear strategy that would bring Ukraine closer to achieving the objective of regaining the territory it has lost since 2013. A Trump/Vance administration would likely signal that further US assistance to Ukraine would not be coming and that the conflict should be settled on terms favorable to Russia. They have not indicated just how much they are willing to concede to the Russian side or what concessions it might take to get Russia to cease its assault on Ukrainian territory and infrastructure. They have simply made it clear that Ukrainian victory is not possible and should not be set out as a priority of US policy.

The Harris/Walz position is somewhat less clear. President Biden has always been the main principal when it comes to deciding most foreign policy issues and, especially, on policy toward Russia and Ukraine. VP Harris has not played a significant role in forming US policy toward the war. At the Presidential Debate, Harris signaled that there was no difference between her position on the war and the position of the Biden administration. She stated that it was a vital national interest of the United States to assist democracies in defending themselves against external aggression and that her administration would continue to support Ukraine and do whatever possible to make sure that Russia would fail in its efforts to expand its territory and force political changes in Ukraine. She has notably linked this position to the interests of the Polish-American voters in swing states. Neither Harris nor Walz has mentioned the need for a cease-fire or any effort to end the fighting.

-SIS professor Keith Darden

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have strikingly different foreign policy approaches. Trump sees the world in zero-sum terms, wants to increase barriers between the United States and other countries, and places no value on democracy or human rights. Harris believes the United States is strengthened through cooperation with other countries and favors an engaged approach to the world that advances America’s security and values.

Trump’s slogan, “America first,” reflects his nationalistic and insular foreign policy orientation. Immigration and trade are the foreign policy issues that animate Trump the most, and on each of these issues he favors extreme steps to protect the United States from a perceived foreign threat. On immigration, he is calling for “the largest deportation in the history of our country.” On trade, he advocates imposing tariffs of 10 to 20 percent on all US imports. Trump also displays little commitment to America’s long-standing allies and partners. He has toyed with withdrawing from NATO and shows more interest in cozying up to dictators than in building strong relationships with democratic leaders.

Harris, by contrast, thinks the United States should continue to play an active and leading role in the world to address pressing challenges and promote American ideals. In her August speech at the Democratic National Convention, she said America must be “steadfast in advancing our security and values abroad,” and she highlighted the importance of the United States standing on the side of freedom in the “enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny.” She places great value on US alliances and believes the United States should stand firmly on the side of Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself against Russian aggression. In the Middle East, she strongly supports Israel’s right to defend itself and strongly supports Palestinian rights.

Few presidential campaigns have witnessed the leading candidates voicing such different foreign policy visions. Given these marked contrasts, the outcome of the election will matter greatly not only for Americans but for people around the world.

-SIS professor Jordan Tama

Kamala Harris' track record on tech and cybersecurity issues—spanning her time as a senator, California's attorney general, and now vice president—offers useful insight into how a Harris-Walz administration might handle cybersecurity issues. Her focus has consistently been on prosecuting those behind cyber exploitation schemes and holding tech companies accountable for security flaws in their products. As president I expect her to prioritize addressing scammers, cybercriminals, and state-sponsored hackers, with a strong emphasis on protecting critical infrastructure and enforcing cybersecurity laws.

Her running mate, Tim Walz, also has a good track record of prioritizing cybersecurity as governor of Minnesota. In 2022, he played a key role in advocating for the Biden administration to avoid federal measures that could complicate state-level cybersecurity efforts. That same year, he issued an executive order directing Minnesota state agencies to bolster their cybersecurity defenses and safeguard critical infrastructure. More recently, he signed a data privacy law aimed at further protecting residents' information from cyber threats. I expect him to maintain this focus as vice president and be a strong advocate for a states-led approach to cybersecurity in a Harris-Walz administration.

Unlike other issues, cybersecurity is mostly nonpartisan so there are many similarities between the Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance approaches to cybersecurity. For instance, both campaigns see value in enhancing national cyber defenses and reducing vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, they differ on how best to achieve this. While the Harris-Walz team tends to lean toward government-led regulatory measures, the Trump-Vance team prefers more private sector-driven solutions. For example, the Harris-Walz team is partial to close government oversight of tech firms but the Trump-Vance team advocates for less regulation on tech firms, aiming to promote innovation and protect U.S. interests without overburdening companies with compliance. 

The Trump-Vance ticket has also signaled a more defensive posture on cybersecurity, with a strong emphasis on countering cyber threats from China and curbing its growing technological influence. The U.S. Department of Justice under the first Trump administration issued a significant number of criminal indictments against domestic and foreign-based hackers in response to high-profile cyber incidents like the HBO, Sony, and Yahoo data breaches. While chances are slim that these indicted hackers (especially the foreign-based state-backed ones) will ever see the inside of a courtroom, the indictments may nonetheless be useful as a deterrence against future cyber breaches. I would expect more of these aggressive tactics during a second Trump administration.

-SIS professor William Akoto

Neither campaign has been terribly clear regarding their vision for US trade policy, but we can expect either administration to follow a trend line based on the last time their party was in the White House.

A Trump/Vance Administration seems intent to significantly and broadly raise tariffs on countries that they perceive to be taking advantage of the US in trade policy. While these policies are often articulated as focusing on conventional US adversaries such as China, placing tariffs on US partners and allies in Europe does not seem off the table. This predilection for protectionism seems to flow from one of two logics. First, Trump believes that tariffs are a good way to extract concessions from trade partners, and while this seems conceivable as it follows some of the logic underlying the threat and imposition of economic sanctions historically, tariffs have so far not been a clearly effective method to extract concessions - either economic or political - from other countries, as those countries often elect simply to retaliate with protectionist measures of their own, sometimes with the implicit or explicit approval of the international trade regime, as retaliatory tariffs are seen as a legitimate countermeasure in international trade law. Second, Trump seems to believe that the imposition of tariffs is a mechanism by which other countries contribute revenue to the federal government, which is patently false since tariffs are paid by importers (usually domestic firms) who often pass the bulk of the tariff on to the consumer in the form of a higher price. So, revenue does increase, but not because other countries are paying it. Such imported goods might still end up being cheaper relative to domestic goods, which is why they continue to be imported, but they are more expensive relative to pre-tariff import goods, thereby representing a decrease in purchasing power, ceteris paribus, for US domestic consumers.

A Harris/Walz Administration would appear to take a more nuanced approach to trade policy that does not altogether eschew protectionist measures and can best be described in three strands. First, a Harris/Walz Administration seems highly likely to keep many of the protectionist measures imposed by the Biden Administration in place, many of which are a continuation of Trump policies. This is a bit of an albatross for the Democratic Party, which I suppose would like to market itself as the more trade-friendly party and decouple itself from Trump Administration policies, but path dependency and voter anchoring can best explain the state of affairs, and it is the same reason why tax cuts rarely expire. Second, a Harris/Walz Administration seems intent on placing tariffs on foreign goods for which it believes the US must carve out a dominant strategic position, such as with microchips and electric vehicles, in a process often described as "de-risking." Finally, a Harris/Walz Administration would seem to exhibit more of a preference for conventional US allies and partners in global trade policy at the expense of strategic adversaries like China and Russia, signifying that trade policy would be less transactional and thus reify many of the geopolitical fault lines ossified since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

One thing that is clear is that neither administration would seem intent on restoring the kind of neoliberal free trade consensus that dominated US domestic politics during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. Regardless of whether one considers it a good or bad thing, economic protectionism is in vogue once again on both sides of the aisle. As such, the differentiation between the parties is one of magnitude rather than direction. Both administrations would seem likely to increase protectionism in the aggregate, but a Harris/Walz Administration could be expected to do so to a possibly significantly lesser extent.

-SIS professor Michael Stanaitis