Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did the Trump administration's foreign policy differ from the Biden administration's in 2025?
Executive summary
The Biden administration (through 2024) emphasized bolstering alliances, defending Taiwan, sustaining support for Ukraine, advancing climate commitments and centering democracy in U.S. foreign policy; observers say Trump’s second term in 2025 moved sharply toward transactional “America First” measures: questioning continued Ukraine aid, declining firm Taiwan commitments, withdrawing from agreements, and closer dealings with Russia while reinstating unilateral tools like tariffs and agency withdrawals [1] [2] [3]. Coverage is plentiful but contested: analysts note both rupture and surprising continuities, and partisan outlets frame changes either as necessary restoration of strength or dangerous retrenchment [1] [4].
1. Clear contrasts: alliances, values and climate
Biden’s foreign policy framed alliances and democratic norms as central levers—reinvesting in diplomacy, stressing multilateral responses to threats, defending Taiwan, and fulfilling climate commitments—while Trump’s 2025 posture was described as downgrading democracy promotion, downplaying climate, and treating alliances transactionally, pressing partners for greater burden-sharing [2] [1] [5]. Analysts at Center for a New American Security and Foreign Affairs emphasize this difference in rhetoric and stated priorities [2] [1].
2. Ukraine: from sustained support to skeptical recalibration
Under Biden, the United States committed significant support to Ukraine; by contrast, reporting shows the Trump administration in 2025 questioned the need to continue aiding Ukraine at prior levels and signaled that restoring Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders was “unrealistic,” a stance reflected in early Defense Department remarks [1] [6]. Commentators argue this represents one of the sharpest operational departures between the two presidencies [1] [6].
3. Taiwan and deterrence: explicit security commitments loosened
Biden publicly emphasized deterrence for Taiwan as part of a broader competition with China; multiple analyses say Trump declined an explicit commitment to defend Taiwan, favoring a less-anchored, transactional posture that unsettles allies in the Indo-Pacific [2] [1]. Forecasts and think-tank pieces identify U.S.-China competition as the dominant theme either way, but with different toolkits: Biden used alliances and tech-security measures; Trump leaned toward tariffs and bilateral leverage [7] [1].
4. Multilateral institutions and agreements: withdrawals and reversals
Pew’s early 2025 survey and contemporaneous reporting document that the Trump administration pursued withdrawal from international agreements and U.S. agencies (for example leaving WHO or ending certain bilateral programs), actions that critics say undercut U.S. soft power; supporters portray these as restoring sovereignty and fiscal discipline [3] [5]. Congressional hearings and partisan statements framed such moves as correcting “weak” Biden-era policies [4].
5. Russia, Iran and the Middle East: negotiation, realignment, and controversy
Sources report Trump seeking closer engagement with Russia to end the Ukraine war and at times offering concessions that alarmed allies, while authorizing kinetic actions in the Middle East [6] [3]. Coverage is split: some credit Trump with brokered ceasefires in the Middle East and praise from across the spectrum; others condemn deference to adversaries and erratic diplomacy [8] [9].
6. Domestic political framing and public reaction
Public polling found mixed-to-negative views of Trump’s early foreign policy moves, with more Americans disapproving of withdrawals from multilateral bodies and agency cuts; partisan divides shape whether those actions are seen as sober rebalancing or dangerous abandonment of U.S. leadership [3] [4]. Oversight hearings characterized Trump’s approach as “restoring” leadership by undoing Biden policies, reflecting strong partisan frames in Washington [4].
7. Continuities and caveats analysts flag
Despite sharp differences in rhetoric and early actions, several analysts caution that foreign policy is often constrained by institutions, Congress, military realities, and underlying strategic continuities—so observers expect more continuity beneath the surface even amid visible departures [1] [2]. Forecasts also say competition with China would remain a dominant driver regardless of who holds the White House [7].
8. Where reporting diverges and what’s not covered
Sources disagree sharply on outcomes: some see Trump’s 2025 moves as restoring strength and achieving tangible wins; others portray them as reckless and diplomatically isolating [8] [9]. Available sources do not mention granular budgetary numbers, every specific executive order text, or classified deliberations—those details are not found in current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion: The Biden and Trump approaches in this period present a contrast between alliance-based, values-driven multilateralism and a transactional, America‑First reassertion that withdraws from some institutions and recalibrates commitments; however, analysts stress both marked differences on Ukraine, Taiwan, climate and multilateralism and important limits on how much unilateral policy can change [1] [3].