How did international allies react to Biden's decision versus the Trump conditions-based approach?
Executive summary
Allies generally welcomed Biden’s return to alliance-centered, multilateral diplomacy and gave higher marks to U.S. leadership under Biden than under Trump, even while criticizing specific Biden moves (notably the Afghanistan withdrawal) as poorly executed [1] [2] [3]. By contrast, international reactions to the Trump conditions‑based, transactional approach were mixed: some partners applauded a harder line on China and a focus on narrow national interests, but many expressed anxiety about unpredictability, a weaker commitment to institutions, and a more punitive, personalized U.S. diplomacy [4] [5] [6].
1. Biden’s return to alliances: relief with caveats
Many allied publics and analysts saw Biden as restoring a predictable, alliance-focused U.S. role, which boosted American standing relative to the Trump era and produced broad support for initiatives like summits of democracies and rejoining multilateral instruments [2] [7]; nonetheless partners and observers repeatedly faulted the Biden administration for execution missteps—above all the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan—which damaged confidence even among generally supportive countries [1] [3].
2. Allies’ practical embrace of continuity on China, not a romance with U.S. policy
On China, allies broadly accepted Biden’s tougher posture—Biden largely maintained Trump-era tools like tariffs and expanded export controls—which created room for coordinated action, but partners also noted that U.S. policy oscillated with domestic politics and worried about its staying power as administrations change [8] [7]. Some capitals preferred coordination on trade and tech controls rather than Washington’s framing of a binary “democracies vs autocracies” contest, which many saw as over-simplified and potentially destabilizing [9] [2].
3. Reaction to Trump’s conditions-based, transactional posture: transactional praise, strategic unease
Where Trump emphasized narrowly defined national interests, transactional bargaining, and skepticism toward institutions, a subset of governments welcomed clarity on issues like burden‑sharing or tougher economic stances [10] [5]; yet the same approach heightened allied worries about U.S. reliability and the unpredictability of personalized decision‑making, prompting fears that ad‑hoc deals could erode long-term cooperative frameworks [4] [5].
4. European and global publics: shifting preferences and strategic hedging
European publics and many non‑Western governments demonstrated a split reaction—some praised Biden’s return to multilateralism while others grew skeptical of U.S. political stability and the efficacy of its policies, and in some regions Trump’s transactional disengagement nudged countries toward deeper ties with China or a hedging strategy rather than full alignment with Washington [2] [6]. Polling and think‑tank analyses show that Biden often polled better than Trump on world affairs, yet confidence in U.S. leadership declined over time under Biden as well, reflecting disappointment on specific crises [1] [2].
5. Hidden agendas and competing narratives among allies and analysts
Allied praise or criticism has incentives behind it: European capitals that depend on U.S. security guarantees often publicly favor alliance renewal yet privately lobby for more burden‑sharing; business constituencies welcome transactionally tougher trade stances that protect domestic industry even as some diplomats warn these measures fragment global supply chains [10] [3]. Analysts argue Biden’s traditionalism sometimes limited strategic imagination, while critics of Trump warn that a Jacksonian, improvisational style risks short‑term gains at the cost of institutional erosion—both readings reflect competing intellectual agendas about the desired future shape of the international order [11] [9] [12].