How do Joe Biden's major policies compare to past presidents on the economy and foreign policy?
Executive summary
Joe Biden’s economic record blends strong job creation and large public investment with high inflation and rising federal deficits: the administration touts “historic” post‑pandemic growth and expanded coverage (Treasury, White House, CEA) while independent fact checks record a 21.5% rise in consumer prices and shrinking real average weekly earnings over his term (U.S. Treasury/White House claims: [1]; [2]; FactCheck: p1_s1). On foreign policy, Biden restored alliances and led large aid programs (notably to Ukraine and Israel) and expanded economic tools like sanctions and industrial policy — but commentators disagree on whether that produced strategic gains or costly overreach (CNAS, Foreign Policy, AEI; [14]; [11]; [14]4).
1. Economy — “Jobs, investment and the inflation hangover”
Biden’s team and allied agencies present a narrative of a strong post‑pandemic recovery: Treasury says U.S. growth and employment outperformed peers and that inflation stabilized as the economy achieved a “soft landing” [1]; the White House’s CEA frames major laws and industrial policy as long‑term competitiveness bets in the 2025 Economic Report [2]. Independent and skeptical accounts emphasize the lived cost of price rises: FactCheck reports consumer prices rose 21.5% during Biden’s term, gasoline +31%, and after inflation private‑sector weekly earnings fell about 4% [3]. Those are the core, competing facts: large job gains and infrastructure/industrial investments versus substantial inflation and real wage erosion [1] [3].
2. Budget and debt — “Investment or profligacy?”
Administration statements claim investments reduced deficit‑to‑GDP projections and seeded future growth (White House press summaries and CEA work; [5]; p1_s5). Critics point to rising deficits and mounting debt: reporters note a $1.8 trillion deficit in 2024 and a national debt above $36 trillion, framing stimulus and spending as drivers of fiscal strain [4]. Both readings are present in the record: defenders cite long‑run returns from infrastructure and competitiveness spending; opponents treat the same numbers as evidence of unsustainable fiscal policy [5] [4].
3. Policy style — “Bidenomics vs. prior presidents”
Biden revived targeted industrial policy — CHIPS, clean‑energy incentives, and supply‑chain investments — positioning government as a partner in reshoring and technology (Reuters, Investopedia, White House pieces; [6]; [15]; p1_s8). This contrasts with the tax‑cut and deregulation emphasis of the Trump era and aligns more with mid‑20th‑century interventionist traditions, though commentators debate effectiveness and tradeoffs [6] [7]. Historical comparisons show both continuity and difference: some metrics (GDP growth in 2021, job creation) compare favorably with prior presidents, while inflation and debt levels mark distinctions critics highlight [8] [9] [3].
4. Foreign policy — “Alliances restored, forceful economic tools deployed”
Biden emphasized rebuilding alliances, support for Ukraine, strengthening Taiwan’s deterrent posture, and re‑engagement on climate — a return to multilateralism described as “America is back” by policy centers and the administration (CNAS; Miller Center; [14]; p2_s4). He also leaned heavily on economic statecraft: sanctions, export controls, and industrial measures against strategic competitors became signature tools (AEI; [14]4). Analysts underline both successes (coalitions, sanctions) and limits (messy Afghanistan exit, difficult control over conflict outcomes) — a mixed legacy that many experts call traditionalist or cautious rather than transformational [10] [11] [12].
5. Dissenting verdicts — “Was Biden different from Trump or more of the same?”
Multiple sources note surprising continuities with Trump: lethal aid to Ukraine, continuation of tariffs, and some transactional elements; others stress restored norms and diplomacy under Biden (Foreign Affairs; World Politics Review; [12]; [14]0). Domestic critics argue Biden’s policies caused inflation and weakened U.S. fiscal standing (House Budget/Republican accounts; [16]; [3]4). Independent reviewers and think tanks present a split verdict: strategic economic competition and alliance work are durable achievements, while inflation and fiscal pressures are enduring liabilities [11] [3] [13].
6. What the sources don’t settle
Available sources do not mention precise counterfactuals showing how different inflation or growth would have been under alternative policies; they also do not produce a single agreed metric weighing short‑term cost (inflation) against long‑term gains (industrial capacity) in dollar‑for‑dollar terms. Those unresolved comparisons explain why experts and partisan actors reach opposite conclusions (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: the record shows simultaneous strengths — strong job recovery and large public investments — and clear costs — high inflation, real wage declines, and bigger deficits — while foreign policy mixes alliance restoration and innovative economic coercion with operational and strategic limits; analysts disagree on whether those tradeoffs were justified or avoidable [1] [3] [14] [13].