A Retrospective on Foreign Policy: Trump vs. Biden
In 2016, the realm of foreign policy appeared to be the most unpredictable aspect of a potential Donald Trump presidency. Fast forward eight years, and he is now campaigning on a commitment to restore tranquility to a world that has become increasingly turbulent and violent under President Biden’s leadership. Many critics of Trump assume that any achievements during his previous administration were the result of the efforts of his advisers and diplomats, who acted in spite of his erratic tendencies. They fear that a return of Trump to the presidency would unleash these impulses, potentially jeopardizing U.S. alliances and global stability.
However, a notable contingent of Republican foreign policy experts argues that a second term for Trump would reflect a continuation of his initial term, blending both Trumpian principles and traditional Republican foreign policy strategies. This perspective is shared by two prominent figures in the field: Robert C. O’Brien, who served as Trump’s national security adviser from 2019 to 2020, and Elbridge Colby, who held the position of deputy assistant secretary of defense in 2017 and 2018 and played a key role in shaping the 2018 national defense strategy. I have known Colby—who is affectionately referred to as Bridge by friends and colleagues—since our college days, while this conversation marks my first interaction with O’Brien.
Our discussion has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Let’s start with a broad overview. How would you evaluate the foreign policies of Donald Trump and President Biden, and what are the key differences between the two?
Robert C. O’Brien: When we reflect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy, the prevailing theme can be encapsulated in the phrase “peace through strength.” The core belief is that a robust America serves as a deterrent to its adversaries, whereas a weakened America tends to provoke aggression. Throughout Trump’s tenure, we maintained a strong and assertive stance—one that, interestingly, aligned with an anti-war sentiment.
