How the Outcome of the U.S. Presidential Election Could Impact Europe
With the U.S. presidential election nearing, much speculation surrounds the possible outcomes for America’s future. The two candidates, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, present fundamentally different worldviews, affecting both domestic and international policies. While Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, advocate for an economic populist approach, Harris, along with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, seeks to continue the Biden administration’s policies. Each side draws significant support and concern, as the candidates’ policies and visions for the future differ significantly.
For Trump, American Independence Comes First; Harris Sees a Future in Shared Goals Many would welcome Trump’s return, though critics argue that a second Trump administration could challenge democratic institutions and international relations. Known for his direct and occasionally divisive style, Trump’s first term saw a push for economic reform aimed at international trade and U.S. economic independence. Supporters argue that these efforts showed America could operate more “independently” in the global economy, prioritizing its interests. Trump’s foreign policy, while at times confrontational or amicable, strengthened U.S. bargaining power on the world stage.
In contrast, Harris’s presidential program would likely represent continuity with the current Biden administration’s policies, emphasizing stronger international alliances and multilateral cooperation. Supporters believe her policies would reinforce the U.S. role on global issues, especially regarding climate change and human rights. Opponents, however, see her approach as too "progressive," potentially straining American social unity and stirring domestic tension. Critics worry that Harris’s reliance on international coalitions might make the U.S. overly dependent on allies, ultimately reducing its ability to act independently.
Domestic Economic Plans Trump would focus on revitalizing the domestic economy through tax cuts and business incentives. During his first term, he promoted economic growth and tax cuts that benefited middle-class families. His supporters believe these policies could positively impact job creation and economic competitiveness. However, critics argue that these measures primarily benefit wealthy Americans and may increase income inequality. His proposed import tariffs on European and other foreign goods remain a contentious issue, potentially leading to higher prices for American consumers.
Related Article: A Trump Victory Could Push Bitcoin’s Value to $92,000
Kamala Harris’s economic policy offers a different approach. Her focus would be on the middle class and social programs, such as first-time homebuyer support, paid family leave, and childcare assistance, aimed at easing burdens on families and supporting lower-income Americans. Harris has previously expressed environmental concerns over free trade agreements, with critics suggesting her policies could slow American trade, especially in markets where U.S. goods hold a competitive advantage. This aspect of her policy is perhaps the most contentious, as it risks limiting America’s access to critical trade partners.
Foreign Policy Trump’s foreign policy moves have often sparked debate, particularly concerning Russia and China. Supporters argue his "America First" stance prioritized U.S. interests in negotiations and often secured more favorable terms. Regarding the war in Ukraine, Trump promises a swift peace deal with Putin, which he believes would stabilize the region. Critics, however, fear that this approach could distance the U.S. from its European allies, weakening transatlantic cooperation.
Harris’s foreign policy plans align with Biden’s, prioritizing support for Ukraine and cooperation with NATO. However, opponents believe this approach could prove costly for the U.S. and might not directly serve national interests. Harris’s stance on trade agreements is also frequently criticized for a lack of clarity, which could lead to uncertainty among international partners. Balancing U.S. and global interests could be challenging for Harris, particularly in areas where American economic interests and global climate goals might conflict.
What Should Europe Expect? Both candidates pose distinct challenges for Europe. A Trump victory would likely require Europe to act more independently, representing its interests more assertively on the global stage. From a European perspective, Trump’s policies could jeopardize transatlantic stability, as he might make decisions on trade and security that conflict with allied interests. However, if Trump manages to broker a favorable peace deal with Putin, it could bring short-term stability to Europe.
A Harris presidency promises a more stable relationship with European nations, focusing on shared values and goals. However, European leaders might not universally welcome this scenario. Harris’s progressive policies could be challenging for conservative European leaders and might clash on issues like tighter integration and climate policy.
Contrasting Visions For Europe, the U.S. presidential election is always a significant event, given America’s influential role in global politics. Amidst the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the EU is keenly aware of the direction transatlantic relations may take and the implications for U.S. foreign policy. A Trump administration might compel the EU to strengthen its defense capabilities and seek greater energy and economic independence. Moreover, maintaining European unity would be essential for effective negotiations with the U.S.
A Harris presidency, while potentially supportive of closer transatlantic collaboration, could bring stricter climate policies and regulations in technology and trade, requiring Europe to adapt. A Harris administration would offer Europe an opportunity for closer cooperation but also necessitate new compromises to ensure mutually beneficial transatlantic relations.
Conclusion In sum, the U.S. presidential election holds high stakes for both America and the international community. While Trump’s “America First” approach prioritizes U.S. independence, Harris focuses on global alliances and shared objectives. The main question for American voters now is which future they envision for their country. Simply put, the choice is between a more independent, less globally reliant path or one that emphasizes world stability and shared values.