Europe’s Anticipation for Kamala Harris’ Presidential Election Impact

Europe’s Reaction to Kamala Harris’ Presidential Bid

A potential victory for Democratic candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming US presidential election would likely be met with widespread approval across Europe. Analysts suggest that her election could herald a sense of transatlantic continuity on critical issues such as support for Ukraine, trade policies, and broader international relations. As millions of Americans cast their votes between Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump—who are currently in a tight race according to recent polls—European policymakers are keenly assessing the implications of this election on the continent’s security dynamics and economic ties.

“Overall, we can anticipate that, at the European level, and within multilateral frameworks, the approach would largely mirror what President Joe Biden has implemented thus far,” stated Serge Jaumain, a professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (UBL).

Support for Ukraine

Among the most pressing issues in US-EU relations under a new administration is the ongoing aid for Ukraine. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022, Washington has allocated tens of billions of dollars in military and financial assistance to Ukraine—more than any other ally. Harris has expressed her commitment to continuing the Biden administration’s policy of robust support for Ukraine, contrasting sharply with Trump, who has voiced criticisms regarding the level of US assistance directed towards Kyiv. So far, the EU and its member states have provided at least €57 billion in financial support to Ukraine, and analysts believe that a Harris victory would help sustain the current levels of US funding going forward.

Bart Szewczyk, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund, emphasized that the primary concern for both the US and Europe is to ensure Ukraine’s success by “maintaining the continuity of arms deliveries and financial assistance.” He elaborated, “That’s priority number one, two, and three.”

However, despite the favorable outlook for Europe regarding support for Ukraine under a Harris presidency, there may be challenges ahead. Experts caution that Harris could urge European nations to shoulder a larger share of the financial burden, especially if she encounters difficulties in securing substantial support for Ukraine through the US Congress.

The Trade Landscape

On the trade front, a Harris presidency would likely present a more straightforward relationship for Europe compared to a Trump administration. Trump has pledged to impose a 10% tariff on imports from all nations and a staggering 60% duty on imports from China, which would significantly disrupt EU-US trade relations. He has warned that the EU would “pay a big price” for not purchasing enough American goods if he were to win the election. In contrast, Harris would likely advocate for a business-as-usual approach, although experts suggest she could still push the EU to adopt a tougher stance against China—potentially through enhanced restrictions on advanced technology trade or increased customs duties on Chinese imports.

There are ongoing issues to resolve between the EU and the US, including tariffs on European steel and aluminum. The US has temporarily suspended the tariffs that were imposed by Trump in 2018 on these metals, and negotiations are expected to resume post-election to find a permanent resolution, as noted by Szewczyk. He added that under a Harris administration, “trade policy and the establishment of constructive trade relations with allies and partners will continue.”

Looking Ahead

While Europe remains hopeful for continuity and consistency in its relationship with the next US administration, analysts warn that the continent may also need to brace for a shift in dynamics. The US appears to be increasingly looking inwards, regardless of its political leadership. Jaumain of UBL remarked, “There is a noticeable trend in the US today towards isolationism and a stronger focus on defending American interests, often at the expense of international engagement.” He further noted the desire to gradually withdraw from several global issues to prioritize domestic concerns.