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.
Foreign policy successes of Trump compared to Biden
Executive summary
Comparisons of Trump and Biden on foreign policy show both continuity and sharp contrasts: Trump’s notable achievements cited by analysts include the Abraham Accords and pressure on NATO allies, while Biden is credited with firm support for Ukraine, rejoining climate accords and restoring alliances — and with brokering or facilitating some Middle East diplomacy such as a recent Israel–Hamas ceasefire praised across the spectrum [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and commentary emphasize that many core themes — competition with China, transactional pressure on partners, and attention to Middle East normalization — run through both presidencies, producing both overlap and distinct emphases [4] [1].
1. Trump’s headline successes: transactional diplomacy and the Abraham Accords
Observers highlight Trump-era diplomatic wins framed as transactional breakthroughs: the Abraham Accords — normalization deals between Israel and several Arab states — are repeatedly identified as a clear Trump legacy that subsequent administrations, including Biden’s, sought to extend or build on [1] [4]. Commentators sympathetic to Trump also point to his posture of pressing allies for higher defense spending and employing economic leverage (tariffs and trade pressure) as central to his “America First” approach [5] [6]. Supporters argue these moves reoriented U.S. leverage in the Middle East and pushed burden‑sharing in NATO [4] [5].
2. Biden’s central wins: alliance restoration, Ukraine support, climate reengagement
Analysts credit Biden with restoring multilateralism and revitalizing alliances — notably sustained, visible support for Ukraine and a renewed emphasis on NATO and democratic coalitions — as a corrective to the prior administration’s unilateralism [2] [1] [6]. Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement and emphasized climate policy as part of foreign policy, and his administration publicly prioritized defending Taiwan and confronting systemic challenges posed by China [2] [6]. Commentators frame these actions as strengthening U.S. soft power and global standing [7].
3. Areas of continuity: China competition and some tactical carryovers
Multiple sources stress that despite different rhetoric, both administrations prioritized competition with China and used similar tools — tariffs, economic statecraft, and defensive measures in technology and trade — producing policy continuity even amid partisan contrast [4] [6]. Foreign Affairs argues there is “strange continuity” between administrations on many strategic matters, and notes Biden continued or extended some Trump-era approaches (e.g., certain economic and security policies) while diverging in tone and multilateral engagement [1].
4. Middle East: overlap, reversals, and new engagements
The Middle East shows both actors staking claims to achievement. Trump’s Abraham Accords remain a clear, widely cited accomplishment that Biden tried to extend; at the same time, Biden’s team took different positions on Yemen designations and sought deeper ties with Saudi Arabia for strategic reasons [1] [8] [4]. Recent reporting also credits Trump’s second-term diplomacy for brokering a high-profile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, a move that drew praise across partisan lines, according to a former Biden official writing in The Washington Post [3]. Sources therefore show competing narratives: Trump gets credit for discrete deals and ceasefires; Biden for alliance management and humanitarian-leaning reversals.
5. Criticisms and limits: style vs. substance and public opinion
Critics argue Trump’s transactional, sometimes erratic style undermined long-term partnerships and global standing, even where he claimed wins; proponents counter that transactional tactics produced tangible agreements and leverage [2] [5]. Public‑opinion data cited in the sources show America’s image rebounded with Biden’s transition — an indicator some analysts use to measure Biden’s foreign-policy successes — but other polling and commentary point to persistent partisan divides about presidential performance abroad [7] [9].
6. How analysts weigh “success” — rival frames and implicit agendas
Assessments turn on how “success” is defined. Realists and transactional conservatives emphasize concrete deals, leverage, and state interests (highlighting Abraham Accords, tariffs, or ceasefires) as wins for Trump [1] [10]. Liberal and multilateralist analysts measure success by alliance health, normative leadership, and collective responses (highlighting Biden’s Ukraine policy, climate commitments and NATO emphasis) [2] [6]. Commentators’ institutional homes (think tanks, newspapers) influence which metrics they foreground, shaping the visible consensus or disagreement in the record [2] [10].
7. Bottom line for readers
Available reporting shows both presidencies produced measurable foreign-policy outcomes: Trump’s record centers on high-profile bilateral deals and a transactional posture (Abraham Accords, pressure on allies), while Biden’s record emphasizes alliance restoration, sustained support for Ukraine, climate reengagement, and multilateralism — with important areas of overlap, especially on China competition [1] [2] [6]. Which record one ranks “more successful” depends on whether one prioritizes immediate bargains and leverage or alliance-building, norms and coalition-driven security; sources cited here present both perspectives and document both continuity and divergence [4] [5].