Biden’s Legacy of Unprincipled Stagnation

Joe Biden assumed the presidency repeating the bumper-sticker phrase, “America is Back,” by which he meant a “glorious restoration” of American primacy—a spirited return to the pre-Trump, post-Cold War foreign policies the world had come to expect of a benign hegemon dutifully managing its rules-based international order in the interest of the world community. The self-proclaimed essence of Biden’s foreign policy, in the words of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, was to “sustain the country’s core advantages in geopolitical competition” and “rally the world to address transnational challenges from climate change and global health to food security and inclusive economic growth.” 

Four years later, Joe Biden’s foreign policy legacy is best characterized as a series of strategic missteps and policy decisions that have diminished American influence abroad, exacerbated regional conflicts, and introduced significant risks to American national security and international stability. Biden’s foreign policy has been reactive rather than proactive, often extending conflicts rather than resolving them, as seen in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Given that Biden sold himself to the American people as a leader with half a century of experience, why might this be the case? Primarily because the Biden administration (and Biden himself) have lacked a discernible set of values or a grand strategy. Their notion of the national interest has been vague to nonexistent. This has resulted in a series of reactive decisions aimed at desperately trying to tain the status quo. Biden’s lack of strategic vision has been particularly evident in his inconsistent handling of alliances, and in the failure to robustly address the strategic challenges posed by China and Iran. Further, operational failures, such as the Afghan withdrawal, and policies like the open border initiative, not only had domestic repercussions but also affected U.S. foreign relations, signaling policy approaches that failed to effectively adapt to the evolving world order and promote American interests on the world stage. 

This reactive stance, without guiding principles or long-term goals, has left the United States lurching from one crisis to another, attempting to patch up situations rather than moving them towards a coherent end-state, thus contributing to a legacy of policy incoherence and missed opportunities. It is a foreign policy of “sterility and stagnation, of… boldness where it ought to be restrained, of… weakness where it ought to be strong, of… militarization where it is militarily useless and politically self-defeating, and of… defense of an indefensible status quo”—phrases that Hans Morgenthau used to define Dwight Eisenhower’s foreign policy in late 1958, but which more accurately describe the past four years.

The botched withdrawal operations from Afghanistan in 2021 was Biden’s first major foreign policy failure. While the decision to end the U.S. military presence after nearly two decades of conflict and the defeat of al-Qaeda was not a mistake, the manner in which the withdrawal was executed—which left the country in the hands of the Taliban—undermined its strategic logic. The Biden administration’s decision to withdraw was executed with such disarray and chaos that it left behind 13 dead servicemembers and billions in military hardware for the Taliban. This debacle not only tarnished the image of the U.S. but also left allies skeptical of American foresight and competence.

In Ukraine, the Biden administration’s policy has been one of perpetuation rather than resolution. Despite committing over $175 billion in aid—and an additional $50 billion in loans that will never be repaid, announced in December 2024—there seems to be no plausible Ukrainian victory on the horizon. This support has paradoxically fueled a war that has led to immense human suffering, strategic overextension, and a dangerous escalation of conflict with Russia, as well as dangling an absurd promise of eventual Ukrainian admission to NATO. The administration’s refusal to seek or encourage peace negotiations only adds to the narrative of a policy that is more about prolonging conflict than achieving peace. 

It is worth recalling that prominent realists called for a negotiated settlement, before the West’s efforts became not about the freedom of Ukraine but a war against Russia itself—a war that, in Henry Kissinger’s words to the World Economic Forum in May 2022, would needlessly create “upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome.” Contrary to such advice, Biden declared that “Putin cannot re in power,” with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin adding that America’s aim should be to “permanently weaken” Russia. Portraying the conflict as a stark choice between a system of shared responsibility for security versus a system of power rivalry and spheres of influence, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the administration would not discuss Russian concerns over Ukrainian membership in NATO, for “one country does not have the right to exert a sphere of influence. That notion should be relegated to the dustbin of history.” Ironically, the Biden administration continued to treat the entire world as an American sphere of influence, failing to accept limits on U.S. power after unipolarity. 

And just as his administration was nearing its end, and despite promises that he would not “send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia,” Biden authorized the use of American-provided ATACMS missiles for deep strikes inside Russia, embracing a policy of dangerous escalation in an already tense situation. (Recall that seven months into the war, the U.S. intelligence community warned of a 50 percent chance of Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons if Russian forces were on the verge of defeat in Kherson.) If that weren’t bad enough, shipments of U.S. munitions have likewise created critical shortages in U.S. stockpiles and limited our options for sending aid to other partners, like Israel and Taiwan. Additionally, the Biden administration has failed to consider the broader geopolitical consequences of its policy in Ukraine, particularly the strengthening of the Russia-China axis. Russia’s increasingly close ties with China, North Korea, and Iran are a direct result of the ongoing war and the West’s continued support for Ukraine. This has shifted the balance of power in Eurasia, making it more difficult for the United States to contain China and Russia simultaneously.

Biden’s approach to China and the broader Indo-Pacific region has been equally muddled. The administration’s frequent use of the terms “guardrails,” “red lines,” and “steering” to describe U.S.–China relations suggests a “Driver’s Manual” method for crafting indecisive American foreign policies. There has been no clear strategy beyond economic sanctions and military posturing. While there have been token mentions of economic decoupling and military competition, the administration has failed to articulate a cohesive, long-term strategy for dealing with China’s rising influence and military assertiveness. Inconsistent messaging on Taiwan has compounded the problem, as the United States has vacillated between supporting Taiwan’s right to self-defense and warning of the risks of provoking China. At the same time, the administration has failed to encourage Taiwan to significantly enhance its defense capabilities or to adopt a strategy that would make it more resilient in the face of a potential Chinese invasion. This lack of clear direction has left both Taiwan and regional allies uncertain about U.S. intentions and the credibility of American deterrence.

The Biden administration has also framed the competition with China as an ideological struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, which fails to address the more pragmatic aspects of U.S.-China relations, such as trade, technology, and military competition. By framing the relationship primarily in ideological terms, the United States risks alienating potential partners in the region, such as the ASEAN countries, that may not share Western democratic values but still view China’s rise as a threat.

In the Middle East, the Biden administration’s handling of Iran has been particularly lackluster. Attempts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, were too accommodating, granting concessions without compelling the regime to curb its destabilizing activities in the region. Despite reentering the nuclear talks, Iran’s regional influence has only grown, emboldening its proxies in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon (the so-called “Axis of Resistance”). This has left the Middle East in turmoil, with Israel facing an array of enemies. Fortunately, in the wake of the October 7 attack, Israel has demonstrated the strength that the Biden administration has not, decimating Hamas and Hezbollah and standing tough against Iran itself.

The administration’s simplistic deterrent strategy, encapsulated in the single word “Don’t” regarding Iran’s potential attacks on Israel, was predictably ineffective, necessitating significant ongoing naval operations against the Houthis to tain open sea lanes. Its inconsistent support for Israel after one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in history raised questions about America’s commitment to its core allies. Yet, the administration’s hesitant backing of Israel didn’t garner Arab support for the United States. To the contrary, Arab opinion of the United States has plummeted since October 7, while China’s reputation has soared. Specifically, survey polls conducted by Arab Barometer in the winter of 2023-24 among five diverse Arab countries (Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, and Morocco) found that fewer than a third viewed the United States favorably in four of the five countries, while more than half the respondents in all five countries held favorable views of China. 

Lastly, the Biden administration’s lack of clarity on Syria and its post-election decision to push for the fall of Bashar al-Assad further complicated an already tumultuous situation. President Trump’s immediate statement after the fall of Assad was that “the United States should have nothing to do” with the mess in Syria. “This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved.” The American people agree with those sentiments. As Mike Waltz, Trump’s nominee for national security adviser, put it: “President Trump was elected with an overwhelming mandate to not get the United States dug into any more Middle Eastern wars.”

The Biden administration has also struggled to enhance European security beyond the Ukraine conflict. While the United States has been a vocal proponent of NATO’s role in deterring Russian aggression, it has failed to address the structural weaknesses within the alliance and the issue of burden-sharing. Despite Biden’s calls for NATO unity, the United States continues to shoulder the lion’s share of the financial and military burden for European security. At the same time, the administration has failed to consider alternative security frameworks beyond NATO. The lack of a more comprehensive approach to European security, which includes non-NATO countries and new security arrangements, has left Europe vulnerable to external threats and dependent on U.S. leadership. Sooner than later, Europe must wean itself off American power and security. Wealthy U.S. allies cannot expect American taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for their dependence on U.S. military protection in an increasingly competitive post-American world.

Domestically, Biden’s open border policy has become a significant national security risk, with rampant exploitation by transnational criminal organizations and terrorists. This policy has not only fueled domestic debates but also weakened America’s position on the international stage, where border security is linked to sovereignty and national power. Biden’s inability to secure the border has left the United States vulnerable to drug and human trafficking, spillover violence, and other transnational threats, all of which have national and global implications.

The Biden administration’s energy policy has failed to fully leverage U.S. energy resources to strengthen the country’s strategic position. While the administration has prioritized clean energy initiatives and the transition away from fossil fuels, it has neglected the potential of U.S. energy independence as a tool for geopolitical leverage. The decision to restrict domestic oil production and pipeline projects, while pushing for a shift toward renewable energy, has left the United States vulnerable to supply disruptions, especially as the global energy market res heavily influenced by Russia and the Persian Gulf. By not prioritizing energy security, the Biden administration has failed to counterbalance the influence of competitors like Russia, who use energy exports as a geopolitical weapon. The sooner the United States can become energy independent, the faster it can cease to be held hostage by foreign oil producers.

The Biden administration’s foreign policy was driven by ideology over strategic pragmatism, reactive crisis management over proactive leadership that placed American interests first, and a series of policy missteps that have collectively contributed to a less secure, less influential America. The administration’s approach has been more about taining the status quo and reacting to immediate crises—while squandering the nation’s finite resources—rather than steering international relations towards a coherent, beneficial end-state for U.S. interests. This is much to the nation’s detriment and needs an immediate corrective by the Trump administration.

The Biden administration struggled to tain a strategic balance in key regions, notably in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, where its policies have been marked by inconsistency and a failure to fully address the challenges of China and Russia. In the Middle East, the administration’s lack of a clear strategy to confront Iran’s growing influence has further destabilized the region, while its response to the Israel–Palestinian conflict has been tepid and inconsistent. Domestically, policies like the open border initiative have not only undermined national security but have had broader international repercussions, as transnational criminal organizations exploit the porous U.S. border. Similarly, the administration’s energy policies, aimed primarily at addressing climate change, have failed to capitalize on America’s vast energy resources, leaving the United States more vulnerable to geopolitical maneuvering by adversaries like Russia and the Middle East.

For the new administration, Biden’s legacy is a stark reminder of the importance of a clear, principled strategy in foreign policy. It is also a reminder that states seeking to thrive must first accurately perceive their external environment. Guided by a solid grasp of the landscape, states can wisely define their core interests, assess threats and opportunities, bring power and commitments into balance, and anticipate the direction and magnitude of international change. Looking forward, the incoming Trump administration faces the daunting task of not only undoing this damage but also re-establishing an “America First” policy that truly advances U.S. national interests. 

Immediate steps might include renegotiating what America’s allies bring to our alliances, reengaging on new terms with China and Russia, securing the borders, and leveraging U.S. energy resources for strategic, long-term gains. It is important to begin assessing the foreign policy failures of the last four years in order to develop a more robust strategic approach for navigating the complexities of global politics in the twenty-first century in ways that will place the United States back on top.