How the 2024 US Presidential Election Could Affect Europe

POLICY BRIEF: BRACE YOURSELF: HOW THE 2024 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COULD AFFECT EUROPE

  • Authors: Célia Belin, Majda Ruge, Jeremy Shapiro

  • Date: May 2023

Where Republicans and Democrats share a consensus:

Strategic Rivalry with China: Both parties categorize China as the primary national security threat and have made it a top priority in their national security strategies.

Revitalizing Domestic Manufacturing: There is a shared goal of promoting U.S. manufacturing jobs and building domestic production capacity to ensure economic strength.

Access to Strategic Technologies: Both sides prioritize securing control over and access to critical strategic technologies to maintain a competitive advantage.

Reshoring Strategic Industries: Both parties support reshoring jobs and industries from abroad, particularly from China, to reduce foreign dependence and secure supply chains.

Reducing Military Interventions: There is mutual support for shifting away from military-centric, nation-building policies—particularly in the Middle East—to focus resources on the Indo-Pacific.

Shift in Trade Policy: Both parties are moving away from neoliberal free-trade policies in favour of strategic industrial policies that prioritize domestic industrial capacity and economic resilience.

Where Republicans and Democrats typically disagree:

Support for Ukraine: Democrats generally advocate for sustained and robust military and financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, a significant portion of the Republican party emphasizes 'America First' priorities, calling for increased oversight, a reduction in aid, or a swift negotiated end to the conflict.

Climate Policy: Democrats prioritize the green energy transition through initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRAIRA). Republicans often view these as market-distorting subsidies and instead promote the expansion of domestic fossil fuel production to ensure energy independence.

Multilateralism vs. Unilateralism: Democrats emphasize the importance of traditional alliances and multilateral institutions (like NATO and the UN). Many Republicans favor a more transactional approach to foreign policy, questioning the value of international commitments that they believe disproportionately burden the U.S.

Trade Implementation: While both move away from neoliberalism, they disagree on execution. Democrats focus on labor and environmental standards within trade agreements, whereas Republicans frequently favour broader, more aggressive tariff regimes to protect domestic industry.

Social and Domestic Governance: Issues such as abortion rights, immigration enforcement levels, and the role of the federal government in education remain sharp points of domestic division that influence their international messaging.

The Republican Party's foreign policy is internally divided between two main ideological schools of thought, characterized by different approaches to global engagement:

Primacists

  • Factions: Primarily composed of Neoconservatives and Social Conservatives. They advocate for the maintenance of U.S. global primacy through active leadership and a robust military presence. They generally support interventionist policies to spread democratic values and ensure international order.

Restrainers

  • Factions: Includes Nationalists, Libertarians, and Moderate Conservative Realists. They favour a strategy of "restraint," prioritizing "America First" and domestic interests. They argue for a reduced military footprint, avoiding nation-building, and scaling back foreign entanglements.

Main differences between realists, leaders, and progressives in the Democratic Party 

Leaders (Liberal Internationalists) 

  • US role: Active global leadership 

  • Alliances: Central to US power 

  • Ukraine: Defeat Russia strategically 

  • Institutions: Tools for US leadership 

  • View: US must lead to preserve world order 

Realists (Moderate conservative realists – can exist in both parties) 

  • US role: Limited, interest-based engagement 

  • Alliances: Useful but should do more 

  • Ukraine: Seek negotiation and exit strategy 

  • Military force: Sceptical of escalation 

  • View: US power is finite; multipolarity is inevitable 

Progressives 

  • US role: Should be redirected away from militarism 

  • Alliances: Secondary to justice and equity 

  • Ukraine: Support economic aid; wary of heavy militarisation 

  • Institutions: Need reform; often hypocritical 

  • View: Focus on climate justice, inequality, and social issues 

Main Advice for Europe: How to "Brace Itself"

Increase Defense Autonomy: Given the bipartisan consensus on shifting resources to the Indo-Pacific, Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security and reduce its long-term reliance on the U.S. military umbrella.

Prepare for "Trump-proofing": Even if a Democrat remains in power, the strong "Restrainer" faction in the GOP suggests Europe should institutionalize support for Ukraine within European structures to protect against potential U.S. policy shifts.

Respond to Economic Protectionism: With both parties embracing industrial policy and reshoring (e.g., the IRAIRA), Europe should develop its own competitive industrial strategy to avoid being sidelined by U.S. economic nationalism.

Avoid Partisan Entanglement: European leaders should avoid appearing to take sides in U.S. domestic politics, as this could alienate future administrations given the deep polarization.

Hedging on Climate and Trade: Prepare for a potential rollback of climate cooperation and an increase in aggressive tariffs if a Republican administration takes power, necessitating a more robust and independent European trade policy.