Biden's administration failed to earn respect in international arena Foreign Policy dissects shortcomings of past four years

The Biden administration’s foreign policy, despite its ambitious declaration that “America is back,” has fallen short of its stated goals. The 2022 National Security Strategy promised a global coalition for democracy, climate action, and prosperity, but the results have been underwhelming even by the outgoing administration’s own account. Domestically, Americans ultimately prioritized inflation over democracy, with two-thirds of voters, when asked prior to the 2024 election, believing the country was on the wrong track. Far from strengthening democracy, Biden’s presidency in the end served as a bridge between the first and second Trump terms.

Key pillars of Biden’s approach included a “foreign policy for the middle class,” prioritizing diplomacy, and revitalizing alliances. While looking back at the Biden administration’s initiatives around the world in their recent article, the Foreign Policy magazine recalls a statement made by Secretary of State Antony Blinken praising their strategy of domestic renewal paired with diplomacy, although the administration's outcomes often contradicted its rhetoric. The chaotic 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, though widely recognized to have been initiated under Trump’s 2020 deal with the Taliban, damaged Biden’s credibility as the administration refused to accept responsibility, undermining its reputation for competence.

Biden’s pronouncements also often clashed with policy realities. His statements labelling Russia’s Putin a “killer” and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a “pariah” were not backed by substantive action. Similarly, repeated promises to defend Taiwan lacked the military and public preparation necessary to deter adversaries like China. The administration's tendency to retreat under pressure further weakened its credibility, as seen when it reluctantly re-engaged with Saudi Arabia after initial tough rhetoric following the state-executed murder of Saudi exiled journalist Jamal Khashoggi who was working for the Washington Post.

Nowhere was this gap between rhetoric and action more apparent, though, than in Ukraine. While pledging support “as long as it takes,” the administration’s slow delivery of critical aid and fear of escalation hindered Ukraine’s ability to reclaim its internationally recognized territory. European allies often led on weapons transfers, shaming the US into following. This cautious approach emboldened Russia, though fears of a wider war have so far proven unfounded.

Heightened nuclear tension

The administration’s handling of nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea also highlighted its shortcomings. Iran’s nuclear breakout time, the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium (WGU) for one nuclear weapon, shrank from a full year in 2020 to mere weeks. Another nuclear threat to the USA, North Korea, managed to expand its arsenal from an estimated 10-20 warheads to around 50, with fissile material available for many more. Biden’s team largely ignored these growing threats, even giving North Korea little attention in its National Security Strategy report. Pyongyang’s increased provocations, including supplying weapons and troops to Russia, finally prompted a response, but it was reactive and limited.

Deterrence under Biden has often failed, as the administration’s visible caution emboldened adversaries. Instead of creating uncertainty about US actions, it signaled its constraints, undermining its stated goals. Despite lofty ambitions, Biden’s foreign policy has been marked by a troubling disconnect between its promises and the risks it was willing to take to fulfill them.

Defense budget cuts

It was not only the administration’s direct negotiations with other leaders that undermined their success in fulfilling their ambitious goals. Defense spending was another significant area of decline for US power, as the budget failed to keep up with inflation throughout all years of Biden’s term, causing the US military to lose ground rather than make gains. In Biden’s first year, Congress was forced to add $25 billion to his defense budget request, and in the second year, it added $45 billion. Currently, Congress is debating whether to adhere to Biden’s budget caps, as favored by the House, or increase funding by $21.5 billion to $37.4 billion, as proposed by Senate committees.

In contrast, US rivals like Russia and China have significantly ramped up their defense spending. Russia plans to allocate one-third of its national budget to defense in 2025, while China has more than doubled its official defense budget since 2015. Adjusting China’s spending to US calculation methods reveals a figure exceeding $700 billion, nearing parity with the United States. Although the Biden administration identifies China as the primary "pacing challenge," its policies have allowed China to outpace the US across nearly all measures of defense and industrial capability, undermining the administration’s efforts to maintain American military supremacy.

Somber progress with NATO

The article does point, however, that the Biden administration’s record does includes some notable successes in foreign matters, such as the country avoiding involvement in a major war. While greater deterrence and fewer concessions would have been preferable, staying out of major conflicts benefits the nation, especially amid pressing domestic challenges. Additionally, the administration preserved NATO unity through its toughest test since the 1956 Suez Crisis. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine could have fractured the alliance, but Biden’s leadership fostered a strong, unified response, including material support for Ukraine. NATO allies have also increased their defense spending, although this development is largely credited to Donald Trump’s open threats towards NATO members to withhold US military support should they not “pay their share”. 

By Nazrin Sadigova