On October 3, Boris Johnson shared with The Telegraph his assessment that Donald Trump would have stopped Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine—a striking indictment of the current leadership vacuum in Washington under Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. Johnson's claim should be a clarion call to any American voters who care about the West's geopolitical stability. In a similar vein, Nigel Farage, MP, the leader of the UK Reform Party, has expressed, "For the safety of the Western world, we need Donald Trump to win the election." Such voices from the US's close ally reflect a burgeoning anxiety about America's course under President Biden—and the ominous specter of a potential Kamala Harris administration looming large.
As we witness the waning days of the Biden administration, the world is decisively more perilous than it was when he first took office. Conflicts simmer and boil over, adversaries emboldened by the lack of a coherent U.S. stance find new opportunities to flex their muscles, while allies like the UK are disrespected. This geopolitical instability, largely a product of Biden's misguided policies, risks fracturing the once-stalwart U.S.-UK alliance so celebrated by Churchill, Thatcher, and Reagan. Under a potential Harris presidency, one can only imagine how this rift could deepen, prompting urgent questions: Will our allies continue to endure the fallout from America's foreign policy blunders, or can we envision a more favorable reset, say under Donald Trump?
The Biden-Harris administration's relationship with the UK has been marked by a series of ill-judged diplomatic errors. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously criticized Biden for being "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." This legacy looms large as we examine Biden's track record. His administration seems to lack a fundamental understanding of how leverage operates in international relations, particularly concerning the Middle East and Russia.
Biden's handling of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan further reinforces Gates' negative assessment of his foreign policy judgment. Described by many as "botched," the withdrawal not only abandoned allies but also weakened the perception of American resolve on the global stage. As Biden attempted to pivot from military hegemony to diplomacy, his efforts have largely failed, particularly in the Middle East, where key diplomatic initiatives have stalled. The administration has been unsuccessful in efforts to return Iran to a nuclear agreement, restart Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, or halt the civil war in Sudan.
Moreover, Biden's dismissive attitude toward Britain's desire to reclaim its sovereignty through Brexit further erodes this vital relationship. The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan showcased this neglect, treating British military partners like unwelcome guests. Biden's conspicuous absence at significant events—most notably, his snubbing of King Charles' coronation—has created a recipe for mistrust. In an era when global cooperation is essential, this neglect undermines both diplomatic relations and U.S. strategic interests.
Now, as we gaze into the abyss of a possible Harris administration, concerns mount. Her foreign policy credentials appear more like an empty résumé than a robust portfolio, especially considering the ongoing crisis at our southern border, which unfolded on her watch as border czar. With advisors like Philip Gordon, Harris' chief aide on national security—an outspoken critic of Brexit—possibly shaping her foreign policy, the prospect of further alienation from the UK becomes alarmingly real. Gordon, during his tenure in the Obama administration, warned that Brexit could harm transatlantic relations. Should Harris adopt similar views, we could expect the UK to face intensified scrutiny from an increasingly indifferent Washington.
Moreover, a Harris administration would pose additional challenges to existing U.S.-UK trade relations. Harris has previously opposed free trade agreements, citing concerns about environmental and labor protections, which could lead to more restrictive trade policies. Her potential stance against fossil fuel industries may also impact energy-related trade, further straining the economic partnership that has historically benefited both nations.
Harris's background adds another layer of complexity. While she may not harbor Biden's Irish chip on his shoulder, her worldview might still be informed by her parents' experiences with colonialism. Her father, whom The Economist called a "combative Marxist" economics professor from Jamaica, and her mother, hailing from India, could shape her perceptions in ways that complicate U.S.-UK relations. When you consider these influences, it becomes clear that personal history can, and often does, inform political decisions in ways that are not always beneficial for traditional allies.
Further complicating matters is the lingering anti-British sentiment that resonates from the Obama era. Biden's embrace of multilateralism has often meant sidelining the UK in favor of a broader European agenda, echoing Obama's infamous assertion that Britain would find itself at the "back of the queue" for trade deals should it pursue Brexit. Biden's policies have doubled down on this theme, exacerbating tensions. If Harris were to inherit the Oval Office, it is unlikely she would diverge from the predictable path laid by her Democratic predecessors, especially given her own dearth of foreign affairs experience.
As we approach the pivotal 2024 election, the implications for U.S.-UK relations could not be clearer. A victory for Donald Trump could present a unique opportunity to recalibrate this essential alliance on terms more favorable to both parties. Trump's foreign policy, marked by an unapologetic embrace of Brexit and a genuine affinity for Britain, resonates far more with British interests than the current administration's Eurocentric worldview.
In a world fraught with escalating tensions and a damaged U.S.-UK relationship hanging by a thread, a return of Donald Trump to the White House could provide the necessary reset for this vital alliance. As Winston Churchill astutely observed, "The destiny of the world is being shaped in the great struggle between the democracies and the forces of tyranny." In a race between Trump and Harris, only Trump offers the decisive leadership needed to navigate this perilous landscape. His record stands in stark contrast to the failures of the Biden administration, which have jeopardized not only American interests but also those of its closest allies. As we gird for yet another electoral battle, the stability of the global order—and the enduring U.S.-UK relationship—rests precariously in the balance.
