US voters are primarily motivated by the issues that impact their daily lives the most – like concerns over inflation and employment – as well as by their affective political associations, whether they are in communities more likely to associate Republican or Democrat. Given these priors, foreign policy tends not to be a core election issue. But in this election cycle, a generalized sense of a world in crisis is playing a bigger role than usual. Certainly, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars are on the minds of voters, as is geopolitical competition with China. But beyond any particular conflict, the United States today is in the midst of a sustained debate about its role in the world, fueled largely by a sense of its own decline in relative power both at home and abroad. In one sense, the two candidates offer strikingly different world views. Trump has emphasized his intention to withdraw US support from allies, reduce global commitments, and strongarm allies and adversaries alike.

For Harris and her supporters, strong alliances and multilateral cooperation remain central to American leadership. At the same time, the two parties are showing striking similarities in how they view the changing course of US foreign policy. Despite highly consequential policy differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates – for example, with regard to the US’s commitment to NATO – both parties are newly grappling with how to balance domestic and international priorities. There seems to be increasing agreement across the parties that US global leadership and the resources it requires should not come at the expense of the American middle class; that the US overextended itself militarily and economically in the last two decades; and that global openness and competition need to be curbed in order to protect American interests. This view means that a certain amount of retrenchment will be part of the foreign policy of the next administration – whoever wins the White House. US allies will feel this retrenchment and will have to recalibrate their own foreign policy priorities accordingly.