Gong Ting is an Associate Research Fellow at the Department for International and Strategic Studies of the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing.

Unlike previous U.S. presidential elections, characterized by alternating Democratic and Republican administrations and domestic policy adjustments, the 2024 U.S. presidential election carries deeper global and strategic significance. In recent years, American domestic politics has seen a notable increase in the frequency of changes, along with greater uncertainty, unpredictability, and instability. This has become one of the defining features of U.S. politics and has produced significant spillover effects on global politics, international relations, economic globalization, and major country relations.

A friendship turned sour? Presidents Xi and Trump in 2017

 

The world is currently experiencing unprecedented changes, with a deepening new wave of technological revolution and industrial transformation, a profound readjustment of the balance of international power, and the growing momentum of the Global South. At the same time, anti-globalization, unilateralism, and protectionism are clearly on the rise. Local conflicts and turbulence are becoming more frequent, while global challenges continue to intensify. Humanity now faces an increasing number of uncertain, unstable, and unpredictable factors.

 

Within this grand context, the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election will provide answers to several key questions, such as the future direction of the United States, what the country will offer to the world, and what role it will play in it. This election will also offer other countries and their peoples a vivid perspective, helping them further deepen their understanding of the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world.

 

The Election Result Uncertainty

In the early months of this election season, the race was largely shaped as a competition between “Trump 2.0” and “Biden 2.0.” According to the polling trends recorded between October 2023 and July 2024, when Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the race, Biden’s approval ratings were significantly lower than Donald Trump’s. Voters were dissatisfied with the Biden Administration’s handling of inflation, the economy, and immigration. More importantly, in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in the Rust Belt, as well as Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina in the Sun Belt, Biden’s approval ratings also lagged behind. Concerns about Biden’s age and physical condition were a constant focus of voters.

 

In recent years, the polarization of American politics has intensified. The conflicts between the Democratic and Republican parties, blue and red states, left and right, and between liberalism/progressivism and conservatism, have all become more severe. Different political groups at the extremes of the spectrum have grown increasingly entrenched, making it harder for the opposing side to find common ground or reach compromise. As a result, U.S. presidential election outcomes have increasingly hinged on six to seven key swing states. To win over independent voters in these states, both parties and their candidates have spared no effort in making promises and introducing new economic and social policies.

 

Biden’s campaign performance raised concerns within the Democratic Party and among its voters. Increasingly, there were calls from within the party to replace Biden and propose an alternative candidate. In July 2024, Biden announced his withdrawal and endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris, as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Harris accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August.

 

Along with her vice-presidential running mate Tim Walz, Harris ushered in a “honeymoon” period for the Democratic Party’s campaign. Since late July 2024, Harris has had success in surpassing Trump in most recent polls. By mid- to late August, several polls showed her leading Trump by as much as three percentage points. Harris’s polling numbers also improved significantly in Sun Belt swing states. Notably, voters’ concerns about candidates being “too old” shifted to Trump. After Biden’s withdrawal, Trump, born in 1946, became the oldest presidential candidate in U.S. history.

 

Although some polls may indicate that the election appears to be leaning in favor of the Democratic Party, its outcome remains uncertain. Harris has strong appeal among key voter groups such as women, young people, and immigrants. In recent years, the U.S. population has been undergoing structural changes, with the growth rate of minority populations significantly outpacing that of white populations. Since Hispanic, African American, and immigrant groups form a strong voter base for the Democratic Party, these demographic trends favor Harris’s campaign. However, if Harris, who enjoys an advantage among base voters, cannot maintain a consistent lead beyond the margin of error in the polls, it is hard to say she has a clear edge over Trump in the actual election.

 

Meanwhile, economic nativism, trade protectionism, and anti-immigrant sentiment, represented by “Trumpism,” continue to dominate among lower-income white voters. In this context, Trump’s voter base remains very stable. However, according to several recent swing state polls, many results remain within the margin of error. Some early September 2024 polls even showed that Harris’s campaign momentum had weakened, with Trump briefly overtaking her in the polls. Therefore, at the time of this writing, it is still difficult to determine which side holds a clear advantage.

 

In addition, after Trump narrowly escaped an assassination attempt and the Democratic Party’s sudden replacement of its presidential candidate, the world is closely watching for any further unexpected events, which may occur before November 5th. Given the high polarization of U.S. domestic politics, any sudden event could influence the voting preferences of certain groups, potentially affecting the election results. The possibility of black swan events, such as political violence in the United States like after the 2020 presidential election, is also being closely monitored by the world.

 

The Intensification of Trade Protectionism

If there is one keyword that could summarize Trump’s foreign policy during his first term, it would be “tariff war” or “trade war.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump proposed imposing tariffs on a large range of imported goods if elected. This strong protectionist stance went against the longstanding free trade philosophy upheld by the United States. After taking office, Trump “fulfilled” his campaign promise by imposing tariffs on China, covering approximately $550 billion worth of goods exported to the U.S. from China, with the highest tariff rate reaching 25 percent.

 

The Trump Administration’s aggressive tariff measures against China were largely driven by its approach of “strategic competition.” The same Administration also employed tariff and non-tariff barriers against its allies, including Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Trump also announced the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, nearly halted negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, obstructed the selection of new judges for the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) appellate body, and repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the WTO. This demonstrated that right-wing conservative groups in the United States viewed nearly all countries as contributors to America’s substantial trade deficit, taking broad retaliatory measures almost indiscriminately.

 

Since the 2024 election season began, many of Trump’s economic policy statements have again focused on imposing tariffs. He believes that other countries “have been taking advantage of the U.S.” and has vowed, if re-elected, to push for the “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act,” replace income tax with tariffs, impose a 10 percent benchmark tariff on all goods imported into the U.S. (covering approximately $3 trillion worth of imports), and introduce retaliatory tariffs on countries that impose them on the United States. Recent research from the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that Trump’s tariff plan would cause significant collateral damage to the U.S. economy and cost a typical American household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in additional taxes each year. In the context of a potential Trump re-election—based on the characteristics of his previous term—the world must be prepared for another round of intense trade protectionism.

 

Compared to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party appears to adopt a more moderate stance on tariffs. Trump has even criticized Biden’s trade policy as “globalist.” Indeed, the Biden Administration did not significantly increase overall U.S. tariff levels, or those on China, and Kamala Harris has recently criticized Trump’s tariff plan. Currently, Harris’s foreign economic and trade policies remain somewhat unclear. However, with growing anti-globalization sentiment within the United States, opposition to free trade has gained a stronger base and has even become “politically correct.” Given this domestic political climate, Harris may find it challenging to significantly reduce tariff levels or advance bilateral or multilateral free trade agreements. In May 2024, the Biden Administration announced tariff increases on imported steel, aluminum, medical equipment, electric vehicles, lithium-ion batteries, and solar batteries from China, largely in an attempt to win over voters in Rust Belt swing states. This once again illustrates that U.S. domestic politics, along with the rising populist climate and protectionist preferences, are also key considerations for the Democratic Party’s trade policy.

 

The Inevitability of “America First”

In addition to tariff policies, the gap between Democratic and Republican positions has further narrowed in domestic industrial policies. Since the days of the Obama Administration, both parties have emphasized promoting the re-shoring of off-shored production to the United States to revitalize domestic manufacturing and boost employment. In addition to using industrial policies and expanding manufacturing investment, the Trump Administration had also used tariffs, investment restrictions, economic sanctions, and supply chain exclusion during its previous term to strengthen protection of domestic production and weaken the competitiveness of foreign-manufactured products. The Biden Administration focuses on critical and emerging technologies such as infrastructure, chips, electric vehicles, bio-manufacturing, and critical key minerals. As a result, the Biden Administration promoted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, along with a series of executive orders, aiming to further empower domestic production investment and mobilize companies from its allies and partner countries to invest and build factories in the United States.

 

Since the beginning of this election season, presidential candidates of both parties have made new commitments to strengthening economic localism measures. The similarities in their claims far outweigh their differences. Trump has proposed implementing the Strategic National Manufacturing Initiative and a New Trade Plan to Protect American Workers, aimed particularly at “rescuing” the U.S. automotive industry and workers. Harris emphasized the need to protect American workers and continue expanding investment in local manufacturing and infrastructure. While one can argue that Trump is the one who reinstated the 1930s slogan, both parties are now proponents of the “America First” policy. Compared to Trump’s unilateralism, the Democratic Party’s version of “America First” appears relatively “friendly” to American allies and partners. However, this is not entirely the case. While facilitating the re-shoring of production from overseas, the Biden Administration has called upon America’s “like-minded” allies and partners to jointly build supply chains for critical products. Still, the Biden Administration remains committed to an “America First” mindset and still practices the policy of “buying American and hiring American.” This friend-shoring approach negatively impacts the interests of U.S. allies and partners. For example, the U.S. government required South Korean semiconductor companies like Samsung to submit trade secrets and imposed discriminatory measures against electric vehicles from Japan, South Korea, and Europe under the subsidy policies of the Inflation Reduction Act.

 

The consequence of pushing supply chains to locations with low economic rationality through administrative measures is an increase in the economic costs of business activities. The United States is attempting to redirect its global supply chain layout through “on-shoring” and “friend-shoring,” disrupting the underlying logic of supply chains based on global division of labor and cost advantages. This approach amplifies inflation in the United States and negatively affects its allies and partners, increasing the cost of cross-border economic activities and making the global economy more fragmented.

 

In addition to industrial policies, both parties have become more inward-looking in dealing with immigration issues, differing only in their degree. Although the United States is a nation built on immigration, discrimination and exclusion of minority groups have long been deeply rooted. With the escalating immigration crisis in recent years, the Republican Party has pursued extreme xenophobia, white supremacy, and anti-immigration policies, blaming the crisis on the Democratic Administration. The Biden Administration has emphasized the need to adjust Trump’s harsh immigration policies but has made little progress. Immigration has become a key issue for the Republican Party to attack the Democrats during this election season. Recently, facing pressure on immigration issues, Harris took on a stronger public position. This suggests that, regardless of the party in power, populism, white supremacy, and growing xenophobia within the United States will continue to have a profound impact on immigration policies. U.S. practices of deporting, imprisoning, and repatriating immigrants are often accompanied by violent law enforcement actions, resulting in humanitarian crises for immigrant groups from other countries.

 

Uncertain State of International Security

Debates between the two parties during the presidential election have focused more on domestic policies than on foreign policy issues. However, from the foreign policy statements of both candidates, as well as known U.S. positions on relevant international security issues, we can discern a possible post-election trajectory.

 

If the Democratic Party retains the White House, the U.S. government is likely to work with NATO member states and other allies to increase funding, weapons deliveries, and other assistance to Ukraine, strengthen sanctions against Russia, and continue fueling the crisis. Trump holds a different view regarding the U.S. system of alliances and the Ukraine crisis. He believes that the United States has long carried the financial burden for the security of its NATO allies, criticized them for insufficient defense investment, and emphasized that they should take on more responsibility. This stance has caused widespread anxiety among America’s transatlantic allies. Trump has even suggested that, if elected, he would end the Ukraine crisis within 24 hours—before even taking office. However, there are many uncertainties regarding whether and how the crisis could be resolved in such a short period of time.

 

On other important international security issues, the consensus between the two parties far outweighs their differences. The fundamental U.S. position in supporting Israel in the latest round of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis will not change, regardless of which party holds power. So far, Israeli military operations in Gaza have continued, resulting in new casualties. The U.S. stance not only hinders efforts to promote ceasefire negotiations and political solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also exacerbates regional humanitarian disasters, which have sparked widespread concern around the world. Significant differences exist within the EU and its member states regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Across Europe, people continue to organize demonstrations and marches, calling for a ceasefire.

 

Both parties are committed to maintaining America’s absolute military hegemony. U.S. military expenditure has topped the world for decades, often exceeding the combined total of the next nine countries. Currently, the U.S. maintains about 800 military bases overseas, with over 170,000 troops stationed in approximately 160 countries. In the fields of conventional weapons, nuclear power, and even space, the United States seeks to strengthen the arms race. Trump has even proposed that if re-elected, he would establish a National Guard branch for space missions.

 

There is strong continuity between the two parties in shifting the U.S. global strategic focus from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. From the Obama Administration’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy to the Trump and Biden Administrations’ “Indo-Pacific Strategy,” the U.S. focus on the “Indo-Pacific” continues to intensify. The Trump Administration formally proposed the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” and shifted the priority of U.S. global strategy to “great power competition.” During this election season, some experts who may become part of Trump’s security team if he is re-elected have even suggested prioritizing Asia over Europe. During her tenure as Vice President, Harris visited Southeast Asia multiple times and placed great emphasis on the Asia-Pacific. If the United States continues to view the Asia-Pacific region as an “arena for great power competition” and pushes for an Asian version of NATO—or perhaps even shifts NATO’s focus to the Asia-Pacific—it will likely exacerbate regional tensions and negatively impact peace and stability in the region.

 

U.S. Global Responsibility?

It is widely expected that major countries will demonstrate responsibility and commitment to promoting peace and development, while continuously providing public goods to the international community. In recent years, however, populism has accelerated in the United States, with localism, protectionism, xenophobia, and the prevalence of the “America First” mentality. To a large extent, these trends in U.S. domestic politics are unlikely to change, regardless of which party is in power. Influenced by domestic politics, a hegemonic mindset, and other factors, U.S. efforts to maintain its global dominance have become increasingly self-serving, bringing greater uncertainty, instability, and negative impact on the international community.

 

In terms of global strategy, the United States increasingly emphasizes a Cold War and zero-sum mentality. It has publicly stated that “the post-Cold War era has reached its end” and prioritized “great power competition” in its global strategy. Although the U.S. still places importance on addressing global challenges, it has, in recent years, repeatedly withdrawn from and rejoined several international organizations and mechanisms, a behavioral pattern that is not conducive to addressing deficits in global governance.

 

Regarding international politics and relations between major countries, the United States has characterized these relationships as driven by “strategic competition.” It seeks to organize various small alliances and promote bloc confrontations. While Washington continues to call for dialogue and cooperation among key international stakeholders, this “cooperation” appears more focused on serving U.S. domestic needs than promoting overall stability among major countries.

 

On security, the United States insists on maintaining absolute military superiority and exaggerates perceived security threats from other countries. It persistently strengthens military bases and deployments around the world, often playing a negative role rather than promoting peace talks on key conflict issues. The United States exhibits excessive “security anxiety” and even promotes the pan-securitization of economic, technological, and other issues.

 

When it comes to economics and trade, the United States has long been the largest beneficiary of economic globalization. However, in recent years, it has struggled to address internal problems such as industrial hollowing and growing inequality through domestic reforms. As a result, America has wrongly attributed the roots of these problems to economic globalization and other countries. Policies promoting decoupling, “small yards with high fences,” and de-risking reflect this logic, negatively affecting the recovery of the global economy and its system of free trade.

 

Finally, in terms of values, policymakers in Washington have promoted the narrative of “democracy versus authoritarianism,” using ideology to advance American geopolitical strategy, thereby escalating conflicts between different cultures and civilizations. The United States views itself as a “City upon a Hill” and the “beacon of freedom,” attempting to impose “American values” around the world and often disregarding the diversity of cultures and civilizations.

 

In response to the growing state of uncertainty, instability, and unpredictability in the world, the U.S. appears to favor a more closed and zero-sum mindset, taking increasingly divisive and confrontational actions. Such a worldview, if unchanged, will not help the international community address the rising global risks and challenges.

Back to Table of Contents