By Lee Jong-eun
The United States will hold its presidential election on Nov. 5. According to recent polls, the race is expected to be close, and the winner may not be confirmed on election night or even for several days afterward. Legal disputes over the results in key battleground states could arise. As with the last presidential election, the losing candidate’s refusal to concede might also spark active protests from certain supporters.
On the same day as the presidential election, the U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are also up for election. As a result, four election scenarios are possible: President-elect Harris with or without a Democrat-controlled Congress, President-elect Trump with or without a Republican-controlled Congress.
The U.S. Congress plays a vital role in shaping the president’s foreign policy, either by supporting or opposing it. Congress holds the power to fund policy initiatives, confirm nominees for Supreme Court justices and cabinet positions and ratify treaties and diplomatic agreements. Furthermore, it has the authority to investigate and impeach the president or other government officials. In today’s highly partisan political climate, a president whose party does not control Congress may encounter substantial obstacles in advancing their foreign policy agenda.
If the Democrats win both the presidency and Congress, the Harris administration would likely continue Biden’s foreign policy with increased assertiveness. However, not all congressional Democrats may fully align with Harris’ agenda. For instance, some Democrats could push her to exert more pressure on Israel for a cease-fire with Hamas or advocate for scaling back certain climate initiatives. Despite these potential differences, a Democrat-led Congress would generally support Harris in maintaining U.S. leadership in promoting a liberal, rules-based international order. Like the Biden administration’s successes with the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act, Harris could depend on Congress to pass legislation that would solidify her long-term foreign policy objectives.
If Harris wins the presidency but Republicans take control of at least one chamber of Congress, there could still be opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy. Congressional Republicans might support the Harris administration on key issues like strategic and technological competition with China, as well as foreign aid for Israel and Taiwan. However, Harris would likely encounter greater challenges in securing congressional approval for military assistance to Europe and Ukraine, as well as for international climate change initiatives. Additionally, if Republicans control the Senate, the Harris administration may face delays or outright rejections in confirming cabinet secretaries, ambassadors and other key government appointments.
Congressional Republicans’ attempts to significantly alter U.S. foreign policy would likely be blocked by Harris’s presidential veto. However, Harris might frequently face deadlock with Congress, especially on budget-related matters, and her foreign policy initiatives could become entangled in compromises on domestic issues like immigration, crime, and abortion. As with past presidents dealing with a divided government, Harris may increasingly rely on executive orders to advance her foreign policy agenda. Yet, without robust congressional support, her diplomatic leverage and credibility on the international stage could be diminished.
If Republicans win both the presidency and Congress, Trump’s second term would likely have more influence in driving foreign policy changes than his first. During his first term, the Republican-controlled Congress at times opposed or restrained him on issues such as trade, military alliances, sanctions on Russia and funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. However, with a greater number of Trump-aligned members within the Republican congressional delegation, leadership would be more inclined to align with and support Trump’s foreign policy objectives in his second term, providing him with greater freedom to implement his agenda.
Congressional Republicans may still express disagreements with Trump on certain policy issues. For instance, they could push back against efforts to dismantle longstanding U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia or temper his trade protectionist policies. However, Republicans are less likely to challenge the broader direction of Trump’s foreign policy strategy and rhetoric, and more likely to acquiesce to his decisions. This would give Trump the political initiative to set the priorities and ambitious goals for his administration’s foreign policy, with greater control over which agendas to pursue most aggressively.
In contrast, if Trump wins the presidency but lacks a Republican-controlled Congress, his foreign policy could be overshadowed by domestic political battles. Trump’s political attention may be more focused on battling the Democrat-controlled House or the Senate over domestic agendas like border control. As seen in the final two years of his first term, congressional Democrats may also carry out legislative investigations against the Trump administration.
Trump may still take significant foreign policy decisions, particularly regarding China and the Russia-Ukraine War, and his disengagement from certain global issues alone may have geopolitical consequences. However, Trump’s conflict with Congress could constrain the time and resources for his second term to proactively reshape multiple aspects of U.S. foreign policy, instead leaving many of the existing policies unchanged on an “auto-pilot.”
Which of the four election scenarios is most likely to occur? The close polls in the presidential and congressional races suggest that all four outcomes are realistic possibilities, keeping Republicans and Democrats anxious about potentially facing their worst-case scenarios. However, Republicans seem to have a stronger prospect of winning control of the Senate, regardless of the presidential outcome. If Trump wins the presidency, historical trends from the past two presidential elections suggest a “coattail effect” that could help Republicans in close congressional races.
Henceforth, a Harris presidency with a divided government or a Trump presidency with a Republican-led Congress appear to be the two most likely outcomes. For the rest of the world, such prospects signal the need to prepare for either a “liberal” U.S. administration on the defensive or a “populist” administration more aggressive in shaping U.S. foreign policy over the next four years.
Lee Jong-eun is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University.
Source link
[redirect url=’https://fastpowers.com/’ sec=’3′]