U.S. foreign policy has long served as a cornerstone of international relations, with America’s strategic decisions reverberating throughout the global landscape. The stark contrast between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden’s approaches to foreign affairs represents not merely different political ideologies but fundamentally divergent visions of America’s role in the world. As we witness the return of Trump to the White House in 2025, these differences have become increasingly pronounced, with significant implications for global stability, international alliances, and America’s position on the world stage. The oscillation between Trump’s “America First” doctrine and Biden’s multilateral approach has created a fascinating study in contrasting foreign policy philosophies, each with distinct advantages and vulnerabilities in addressing complex international challenges.

The America First Doctrine: Trump’s First Term Foreign Policy

During his first administration from 2017 to 2021, President Trump revolutionized American foreign policy through his distinctive “America First” approach. This doctrine fundamentally challenged decades of post-World War II consensus, questioning longstanding assumptions about America’s role in maintaining the liberal international order. Trump’s skepticism toward multilateral institutions represented a seismic shift in how the United States engaged with the world.

The cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy was his approach to international alliances and agreements. Trump quickly targeted NATO, beginning during his 2016 campaign, by demanding alliance members increase their defense spending contributions. This confrontational stance resulted in some NATO countries meeting the spending target established in 2014, though many fell short of these goals. In a particularly controversial move, Trump withdrew 12,000 American troops from Germany in 2020, while simultaneously accusing the country of taking advantage of the United States1. This action signaled a transactional view of alliances that prioritized immediate financial considerations over long-term strategic partnerships.

Trump’s withdrawal from international agreements further exemplified his preference for bilateral arrangements over multilateral frameworks. His administration pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, citing economic concerns for American workers and businesses. Similarly, the withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) reflected Trump’s assessment that the agreement insufficiently constrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions while providing excessive sanctions relief. The administration also exited the Trans-Pacific Partnership and later withdrew from the World Health Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that these institutions failed to adequately serve American interests.

Relations with traditional allies became noticeably strained during Trump’s presidency. Beyond tensions with NATO members over defense spending, disagreements emerged on issues ranging from trade policy to climate change commitments. The administration imposed tariffs on European steel and aluminum, creating friction with the European Union and challenging the conventional wisdom that free trade among allies strengthened collective security. Public disagreements with leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau highlighted the shift in diplomatic tone from consensus-building to confrontation.

Regarding adversaries, Trump’s approach to Russia demonstrated particular complexity. Despite imposing some sanctions on Russia, Trump consistently dismissed U.S. intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit his candidacy, characterizing these concerns as a “hoax” and a “witch hunt.” When questioned about his seemingly conciliatory approach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump maintained that “there has been nobody tougher on Russia than Donald Trump”1. This dissonance between rhetoric and policy created uncertainty about America’s stance toward Russian aggression.

China policy under Trump evolved dramatically throughout his presidency. After initially hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping for a cordial summit at Mar-a-Lago in the early months of his administration, relations subsequently deteriorated into a full-scale trade war1. The administration imposed significant tariffs on Chinese goods, targeting what it viewed as unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, and intellectual property theft. This economic confrontation expanded into technology restrictions against companies like Huawei and TikTok over national security concerns, initiating a technological decoupling process that continues to unfold.

Biden’s Multilateral Approach to Foreign Relations

President Joe Biden entered office in January 2021 with an explicit commitment to restoring America’s global leadership and rebuilding international partnerships damaged during the previous administration. His approach represented a deliberate rejection of Trump’s unilateralism in favor of collaborative problem-solving and traditional diplomatic engagement.

Biden immediately signaled this shift by rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and halting America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization on his first day in office. These symbolic actions represented a substantive return to the multilateral frameworks abandoned by his predecessor. The Biden administration also attempted to revive the Iran Nuclear Deal, though these efforts encountered significant obstacles due to complex political dynamics within Iran and domestic opposition in the United States.

Rebuilding alliances became a defining feature of Biden’s foreign policy. In stark contrast to Trump’s critical stance toward NATO, Biden characterized the alliance as “the single most consequential alliance in the history of the United States” and warned it would “fall apart” if Trump won reelection1. Biden prioritized reestablishing these international partnerships through early communications with allied leaders, hosting a Summit for Democracy, and emphasizing shared values and collective security arrangements. His first international trips and phone calls deliberately focused on reassuring allies about America’s renewed commitment to multilateral cooperation.

Biden’s approach to Russia diverged significantly from his predecessor’s. He pledged to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and other destabilizing activities. Biden expressed bewilderment at Trump’s conciliatory stance, questioning “why this president is unwilling to take on Putin when he’s actually paying bounties to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, when he’s engaged in activities that are trying to destabilize all of NATO”1. The Biden administration imposed additional sanctions on Russia for the SolarWinds cyberattack, election interference, and the treatment of opposition figure Alexei Navalny.

On China policy, Biden maintained many elements of Trump’s confrontational approach while adjusting the strategy and rhetoric. The administration framed the relationship with China as “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be.” While maintaining tariffs imposed during Trump’s presidency, Biden sought to build a more coordinated international response to China’s economic practices, technological development, and human rights issues. This approach emphasized working through alliances rather than unilateral action to increase leverage against Beijing.

The Biden administration’s most consequential and controversial foreign policy decision came with the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Although based on an agreement negotiated by the Trump administration, the execution of this withdrawal led to chaos, humanitarian crises, and considerable criticism. The rapid Taliban takeover of the country and the emergency evacuation of U.S. personnel and Afghan allies raised serious questions about planning, intelligence assessments, and America’s commitment to international partners who had supported American objectives.

Trump’s Return: Foreign Policy Shifts in 2025

President Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 has initiated another significant recalibration of U.S. foreign policy. His second administration has reinforced many “America First” principles that defined his first term while also addressing an evolved international landscape. The administration currently faces substantial foreign policy challenges, including ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, complicated relations with China, and various global economic challenges requiring immediate attention2.

One of the most consequential early actions of Trump’s second term has been a comprehensive freeze of federal aid. In January 2025, just days after taking office, the Office of Management and Budget issued a two-page memo ordering all federal agencies to temporarily suspend payments across a wide range of priorities, including foreign assistance programs3. This sweeping directive exempted only Social Security and Medicare payments, signaling a dramatic shift in funding priorities. The administration justified this action by stating that “the use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve”3. This freeze has profound implications for America’s global engagement, potentially affecting billions of dollars in assistance to international partners and multilateral organizations.

The administration has simultaneously issued numerous executive orders reshaping U.S. foreign policy implementation. The establishment of a regulatory freeze pending review on January 20, 2025, paused the publication and enforcement of new federal rules until they could be evaluated by Trump appointees4. This action has affected regulations related to international trade, investment security, and diplomatic engagement. Additional executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs have reshaped staffing and priorities at the State Department and other agencies involved in international affairs4.

North American relations have received particular attention through executive actions. An order pausing additional duties on goods from Canada temporarily suspended the implementation of significant tariffs, including a 25% ad valorem tariff and a 10% tariff on energy products, until March 4, 20254. This approach demonstrates a strategic balance of pressure and flexibility in negotiations with America’s northern neighbor. Simultaneously, the administration declared a national emergency regarding the flow of illicit drugs across the northern border, framing cross-border challenges as security issues with significant implications for bilateral relations4.

Trump’s second term has been characterized by a renewed skepticism toward international institutions and agreements. The Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy team at the Stimson Center has identified nine different core assumptions central to U.S. foreign policy that will likely be tested in 2025, including whether U.S. leadership remains indispensable to global peace and prosperity2. The administration appears to be challenging conventional wisdom about American leadership requirements, suggesting a more selective approach to international engagement based on narrower definitions of national interest.

Constitutional Framework and Executive Authority

The implementation of U.S. foreign policy occurs within a constitutional framework that distributes powers between the executive and legislative branches, creating inherent tensions in policy formulation and execution. The Constitution designates the President as Commander-in-Chief while granting Congress authority over funding, commerce regulation, and war declarations. This separation of powers creates a system where foreign policy emerges from an institutional dialogue rather than unilateral presidential decisions.

Both Trump and Biden have exercised executive authority extensively in foreign affairs, though with different justifications and emphases. Trump’s administrations have generally emphasized presidential prerogatives and national sovereignty, frequently issuing executive orders to implement major foreign policy shifts without extensive congressional consultation. His January 2025 directive freezing federal aid, including foreign assistance, demonstrates this approach to governance, bypassing traditional legislative involvement in funding decisions3.

The White House’s constitutional authority in foreign affairs has expanded considerably throughout American history, with modern presidents claiming extensive powers in international relations. Trump’s use of executive orders in early 2025 continues this tradition of assertive presidential action. The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency and other administrative reorganizations impacts how foreign policy is formulated and executed across the federal government4. These structural changes occur primarily through executive action rather than legislative processes, raising questions about their long-term sustainability and constitutional foundations.

Congressional responses to presidential foreign policy initiatives typically vary along partisan lines. During Trump’s first term, Democratic-controlled chambers sought to constrain certain actions, while during Biden’s presidency, Republicans questioned decisions like the Afghanistan withdrawal. With the current configuration of power in Washington, the interplay between the White House and Capitol Hill continues to shape the implementation of foreign policy priorities, with particular tension surrounding funding authorizations and treaty commitments.

Global Implications and Strategic Challenges

The oscillation between Trump’s and Biden’s foreign policy approaches has generated varied responses from international actors, creating both challenges and opportunities for American leadership. Traditional allies, particularly in Europe and East Asia, expressed relief at Biden’s election in 2020 and his commitment to rebuilding partnerships. However, Trump’s return to office in 2025 has revived concerns about the reliability of American security guarantees and trade relationships.

This policy instability has accelerated discussions about strategic autonomy in various regions. European leaders have increasingly emphasized the need to develop independent security capabilities and reduce dependence on the United States. Japan and South Korea have similarly adjusted their strategic calculations to account for potential fluctuations in American commitment to regional security architectures. These developments suggest that regardless of which approach ultimately proves more effective, the inconsistency itself has consequences for American influence.

Adversaries and competitors have adapted their strategies to navigate the shifting U.S. policy landscape. China has maintained its long-term strategic planning regardless of which administration holds power in Washington, though with tactical adjustments to respond to specific policies. Russia has similarly pursued its core interests consistently across administrations, modifying its diplomatic approach rather than fundamental objectives. Iran, North Korea, and other regional powers have likewise calibrated their responses to changes in American policy, sometimes exploiting periods of transition to advance their interests.

The business community has faced particular challenges adapting to these alternating approaches. Trade policies, sanctions regimes, and regulatory frameworks have shifted dramatically between administrations, creating uncertainty for long-term investment decisions and international operations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has carefully tracked President Trump’s executive orders in early 2025, analyzing their implications for various sectors of the business community4. This economic dimension of foreign policy remains particularly vulnerable to disruption through policy reversals.

Comparative Assessment: Effectiveness and Future Trajectory

When evaluating the effectiveness of these contrasting approaches, several factors warrant consideration. Trump’s “America First” doctrine has demonstrated strengths in certain areas, particularly in forcing reconsideration of burden-sharing arrangements within alliances and challenging conventional wisdom about international economic relationships. His administration’s facilitation of the Abraham Accords represented a significant diplomatic achievement in Middle East normalization efforts. The aggressive stance toward China’s trade practices also enjoyed bipartisan support, suggesting that some elements of this approach resonated beyond partisan divisions.

Biden’s multilateral approach showed advantages in rebuilding damaged relationships with allies and partners while coordinating international responses to shared challenges like climate change and pandemic preparedness. His administration’s emphasis on democratic values and human rights provided moral clarity in America’s international engagement, though questions remained about the practical impact of these principles on policy outcomes. The effort to align like-minded democracies to address China’s rising influence demonstrated potential strategic benefits of coalition-building over unilateral action.

Trump’s current administration faces the challenge of implementing its vision in a world that has adapted to previous policy shifts. The sweeping freeze of federal aid ordered in January 2025 signals a dramatic reorientation of priorities, but implementation details remain unclear, with “widespread confusion over how the memo would be implemented and whether it would face legal challenges”3. Similarly, executive orders targeting various aspects of government operations will require sustained effort to translate into effective policy changes.

Despite these differences in approach, certain enduring U.S. strategic interests persist across administrations. Managing China’s rise, preventing nuclear proliferation, combating terrorism, and maintaining access to global markets remain priorities regardless of who occupies the White House. The question of which approach—unilateral or multilateral, transactional or values-based—better serves these long-term interests remains contested and will likely continue to shape American political discourse about the nation’s proper role in the world.

Conclusion

The contrast between Trump’s and Biden’s approaches to foreign policy represents more than partisan differences—it reflects competing visions of America’s role in an increasingly complex global environment. Trump’s “America First” doctrine, with its emphasis on sovereignty, bilateral deals, and skepticism toward international institutions, stands in sharp contrast to Biden’s multilateral approach focused on alliances, shared values, and global cooperation. With Trump’s return to office in 2025 and his immediate actions through executive orders freezing federal aid and restructuring government operations, U.S. foreign policy has entered another phase of transformation34.

This pendulum swing between contrasting approaches creates both challenges and opportunities for U.S. foreign policy. Policy inconsistency undermines credibility with allies and adversaries alike, making long-term planning difficult and potentially weakening America’s global influence. However, the ability to adapt approaches to changing circumstances and challenge conventional wisdom can also lead to innovative solutions and breakthrough moments in international relations.

The constitutional framework of shared powers between the president and Congress ensures that American foreign policy will always reflect a complex interplay of institutional interests, partisan priorities, and personal leadership styles. As we assess these competing visions, the key question is not simply which approach is “correct” in an absolute sense, but rather which elements of each approach best serve American interests and values in specific contexts. The ongoing clash of visions in U.S. foreign policy will continue to shape America’s global role and influence for years to come, with significant implications for international stability, economic prosperity, and democratic governance worldwide.

References:

• How Biden and Trump Differ on Foreign Policy
• Testing Assumptions About US Foreign Policy in 2025
• Trump administration orders sweeping freeze of federal aid
• Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations
• Trump vs. Biden on the issues: Foreign policy
• Here’s How Trump’s Executive Orders Align With Project 2025—As He Touts Agenda In Speech To Congress
• Foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration
• Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for Trump’s second term
• Trump Freezes Federal Aid To Americans, Triggering Fury