What will be the “Harris Doctrine”? Kamala Harris is now officially the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States following Thursday night’s conclusion of the Democratic National Convention and she is currently leading in most polls. We are still more than two months away from election day and her election is far from certain, but just as it is important to think about how a second Trump administration would shape U.S. foreign policy, so it is with a first Harris term.
In many ways, the task is more challenging for Harris than for Trump. We already have the record of a full four-year Trump term with which to gauge his foreign policy. Based on what has been said by him and his campaign to this point, a second Trump term would be marked by the isolationist and unilateralist leanings of his first. That likely explains why international relations scholars and experts, including a fair number that identify as Republican, by and large favor Harris over Trump.
Unlike Trump, Harris does not have a four-year body of work to analyze. While she has been vice president for the past four years, vice presidents have marginal influence on the foreign policy of a presidency. Look no further than the current president himself, Joe Biden. While serving as vice president to Barack Obama, Biden’s preference early in Obama’s administration was to significantly scale back the U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan. That didn’t happen, to Biden’s dismay.
One could turn to Harris’ time in the Senate, as the Senate records of senators who have gone on to be president have historically offered some insight into their foreign policy preferences as presidents. But even then, things can change when a senator becomes president and must call the shots and take responsibility for those calls. Similarly, looking to the writings of Harris’ potential advisers offers only indirect perspective, as what individuals write when outside of government can be very different from the policies they advocate once they are in government.
In short, there is no perfect lens to discern a potential “Harris Doctrine.” But based on what can be gleaned from Harris’ record so far, including speeches on the campaign trail, the contours of a potential “Harris Doctrine” are taking shape, and it is evident that her foreign policy approach will differ not only from her campaign rival, Donald Trump, but also from the current president she serves, Joe Biden.
Based on what she has said and done to this point in her political career, a Harris foreign policy would likely be more human rights-centered than that of either of her immediate predecessors. She told the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin last year that, as vice president, she has “consistently raised human rights, LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights and press freedom with foreign leaders,” and this emphasis on human rights has shaped her public positions on a wide spectrum of foreign policy issues, from U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia to Taiwan’s relationship with China. Indeed, one could even say that Harris favors a hawkish human rights foreign policy.
That Harris could end up being more hawkish than Biden in foreign policy would be consistent with what international relations scholars have found regarding the foreign policy approaches of women leaders in other countries.
In some areas, this would suggest a continuation of Biden’s policies, such as harsh trade restrictions towards China and bolstering U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region. But in other aspects, Harris’ focus on human rights portends a potential separation from Biden. While Harris would no doubt continue supporting Ukraine against Russia, Harris could be willing to more quickly and aggressively give Ukraine all the weapons it needs. In contrast to the Biden administration’s reluctance to give main battle tanks or F-16s to Ukraine, there would likely be no hesitation from Harris.
This hawkish, human rights-focused perspective would also mean making Latin America a bigger priority than the Biden administration has to this point. A Harris administration would likely be more engaged in assisting and intervening to relieve the refugee crisis impacting several South and Central American countries.
Most of all, a hawkish human rights foreign policy would mean stronger opposition to Israel’s current policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Like Biden, Harris is on the record as maintaining Israel’s right to defend itself. And the Biden Administration has been critical of the manner by which Netanyahu’s government has prosecuted its war effort. But unlike Biden and secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Harris has more openly emphasized ending the suffering of the Palestinians caught in the war between the IDF and Hamas.
A Harris administration could express U.S. support of Israel against direct aggression by Iran, while simultaneously expressing and maintaining a complete intolerance for harm to the Palestinian population caused by Israel’s weapons of war. It would mean saying “too bad, do better” when Israeli officials claim that it’s too difficult to fight Hamas in Gaza without harming civilians.
Aside from what a President Harris might do, emphasizing the need to relieve the plight of the Palestinians is important to current candidate Harris. While foreign policy is often a secondary issue to the wider electorate, U.S. policy towards the war in Gaza, and Biden’s handling of the war, is the major issue for Arab-American voters, almost 400,000 of which live in Michigan, a crucial swing state that was decided by just 155,000 votes in 2020. If those voters remain disillusioned, seeing neither the Democrats nor Republicans as offering a clear contrast with current U.S. policy on the issue, they may well stay home on election day.
That Harris could end up being more hawkish than Biden in foreign policy would be consistent with what international relations scholars have found regarding the foreign policy approaches of women leaders in other countries. Because male leaders have a tendency to discount the views of women leaders, women leaders often push harder in a bargaining situation, some studies have found. Other studies have found that, throughout history, women-led states, including monarchies, have engaged in war more often than states led by men.
While there are marked similarities between the foreign policies of the Trump and Biden administrations, they do show distinctions in approach. Trump and his “America First” foreign policy chafed at the strictures of international institutions, was annoyed by allies, and sought to restrict the flow of people and goods into the U.S. economy. Biden epitomized realpolitik pragmatism with an internationalist flair. Along that spectrum, a Harris’ Doctrine could well look more like Biden’s than Trump’s. In that sense, those hoping that Harris will fully “reshape” U.S. foreign policy are likely to be disappointed. But Harris’ foreign policy is not likely to be a simple continuation of Biden’s approach. Instead, Harris seems poised to be a human rights hawk.
Paul Poast is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.