International relations, accomplishments of the Biden administration
Executive summary
President Biden’s foreign-policy record (2021–2025) emphasized rejoining international institutions, rallying allies on Russia and Ukraine, and using economic tools to compete with China; his administration supplied nearly $70 billion in military aid to Ukraine and rejoined the Paris Agreement and WHO [1] [2]. Commentators praise his “economic statecraft” and NATO rebuilding while also faulting his handling of Afghanistan and the Middle East, where crises diverted attention and complicated other priorities [3] [4] [5].
1. Re-engagement with institutions: rebuilding alliances and treaties
From Day One the administration moved to reverse several Trump-era withdrawals and to reassert multilateralism: it rejoined the Paris Agreement and halted the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, announced participation in COVAX, and signaled re-engagement with the UN Human Rights Council while extending New START with Russia [2]. Analysts and parliamentary briefings characterize this as a deliberate pivot to “America is back” diplomacy and renewed commitment to NATO and G7 coordination [2] [6].
2. Ukraine and deterrence without U.S. ground forces
One of the most tangible elements of Biden’s record was the U.S. effort to rally allies and to sustain large-scale military assistance to Ukraine while refusing to put American combat troops on the ground; by early 2025 the administration had provided nearly $70 billion in military aid, and historians credit the administration with avoiding direct escalation with Russia [1]. Critics and supporters disagree on strategic outcomes—some praise the steady allied coalition, others question long-term costs—but the fact of large allied mobilization and U.S. leadership in that effort is well documented [1].
3. Economic statecraft and competition with China
Several observers argue that Biden’s longest-lasting legacy may be “economic warfare”: targeted export controls, tariffs in specific sectors, and industrial policy such as chip investments and subsidies to support U.S. manufacturing. AEI and Carnegie analysts say the administration paired restrictions on Chinese technology access with measures (like incentives for domestic chip production and EV policies) meant to bolster U.S. competitiveness, a doubled strategy of defense and industrial policy [3] [7]. This approach drew praise for strategic foresight and criticism for risking friction with allies and trade partners [3].
4. Hard choices in the Middle East and humanitarian controversy
The administration faced repeated crises in the Middle East—Israel–Gaza war after Oct. 7, strained relations with regional partners, and complex diplomacy around Iran—and Biden publicly urged Israel to reduce civilian harm while trying to broker ceasefires and hostages exchanges [1] [4]. Reporting also notes that the Israel-Hamas conflict pulled senior officials and resources, complicating other priorities and generating diplomatic costs in parts of the world where U.S. standing was affected [5] [4].
5. Afghanistan and the limits of transactional diplomacy
The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan remains the single biggest political vulnerability cited in retrospective assessments; commentators contrast the administration’s broader goals of stability and alliance repair with the practical fallout and long-term reputational effects of the exit [4]. Available sources note the withdrawal as a major test that colored public perceptions of competence in foreign policy even as other initiatives continued [4].
6. Mixed assessments from experts: traditionalism vs. innovation
Think tanks and policy journals offer competing frames. Carnegie highlights a “traditionalist” Biden approach—steady, alliance-centered, cautious on China and Russia but constrained by conventional diplomacy—while AEI emphasizes an innovation: the institutionalization of economic-statecraft as a central instrument of power [7] [3]. Both lines of commentary credit legislative achievements (e.g., investments to strengthen competitiveness) but differ on whether those will translate into durable strategic advantage [7] [3].
7. Where reporting is thin or contested
Available sources document many headline accomplishments and controversies, but they do not exhaustively resolve questions about long-term strategic outcomes, opportunity costs of diverting focus to crises like Israel-Hamas, or comparative measurements versus subsequent administrations—those remain matters of ongoing analysis and debate [5] [3]. Specific claims not present in the provided material should not be treated as established; for example, granular internal deliberations or classified impacts are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
The Biden foreign-policy era was defined by a restoration of multilateral engagement, robust support for Ukraine without U.S. ground troops, and a pivot toward economic tools to compete with China—achievements that many analysts view as durable but that were offset politically and reputationally by Afghanistan and Middle East crises [2] [1] [3] [4]. Evaluations split along analytical lines: some praise steady alliance management and new economic levers, others say traditionalism limited more ambitious strategic innovation [7] [3].