How Will Gaza and Ukraine Shape the 2024 US Presidential Election?

Foreign Policy in the 2024 Presidential Campaign

In the upcoming presidential election, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will almost certainly be the respective Republican and Democratic candidates, having easily won enough delegates to gain their parties’ nomination. Given their ages — Trump is 77 and Biden is 81 — there is a possibility that health issues, accidents, or even death could affect their participation in the race. Despite his May 30 conviction, Trump remains a candidate and could theoretically run for and serve as president, even if he is incarcerated.  

The candidates are familiar figures, both having served as president. Biden has also enjoyed 25 years of involvement in foreign policy as a senator and vice president. Indeed, both Biden and Trump have long and detailed foreign policy track records, which they will be expected to defend during their campaigns.

The importance of foreign policy in the run-up to the election remains uncertain. Historically, presidential campaigns have been dominated by domestic issues rather than foreign policy. This year, the economy – particularly inflation – is likely to be the primary issue for voters. Other key issues include immigration and crime (primarily for Republicans) and abortion and health care (primarily for Democrats). However, foreign policy seems to be playing a more prominent role than usual.

Some of this prominence may reflect the very distinct approaches each candidate takes to foreign policy. Biden is a traditional liberal internationalist, advocating for cooperative global engagement. He emphasized his alignment with the U.S. internationalist tradition, dating back to World War II, in his speech at the D-Day 80th anniversary commemoration in Normandy and his interview with Time Magazine. In contrast, Trump employs a zero-sum approach to international negotiations and shows disdain for multilateral organizations such as NATO. And, as always, Trump remains an unpredictable and contradictory figure when it comes to foreign policy (and much else). 

Two specific issues — the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war — have propelled foreign policy to the forefront of this year’s election. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2022, and Hamas launched its attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Both conflicts are ongoing and have severely tested Biden and his foreign policy team. 

Where Biden and Trump Stand on Ukraine

Biden initially enjoyed strong bipartisan backing for his support of Ukraine against Russian aggression. However, the war has since descended into a stalemate with no end in sight. The much-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive of 2023 failed, and Russian attacks have pushed back Ukrainian forces at great cost to both sides. Meanwhile, U.S. popular support for Ukraine has declined, particularly among Republicans. Indeed, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives delayed new aid for Kyiv for months, only relenting when Trump implicitly endorsed the package. 

Trump — not known for the modesty of his language — has declared that he will end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Some reports suggest that as president, he might urge Ukraine to make territorial concessions to Russia to achieve peace. At the very least, he is expected to adopt a more pro-Russian stance in the conflict. 

Trump’s admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin dates back to the beginning of his presidency. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, he even described Putin as a “genius.” Kyiv, therefore, is alarmed at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Yet should the war linger on, Biden may suffer from being associated with an expensive, seemingly endless conflict.

Political Impact of the Israel-Hamas War

The other burning foreign policy issue of the day is the Israel-Hamas war. The conflict, which began with a bloody attack on Israel, has led to tens of thousands of casualties, primarily among Palestinians, including many women and children. 

Biden’s strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has sparked protests across the United States, particularly at elite college campuses. Indeed, the political left has routinely criticized Biden’s support for Israel’s campaign against Hamas. This poses a political problem for Biden: Many of those who object to his Gaza policy are potential Democratic voters, including young people and Muslim-Americans in swing states such as Michigan. 

Biden has grown weary of Netanyahu’s policies and has urged him to ease military operations and allow more relief supplies into Gaza. Intense ceasefire talks are ongoing, but even if a ceasefire deal is struck, Gaza will still be devastated, lacking basic security and a clear political future. 

Some Republicans have accused Biden of turning on Israel, and Trump has even said that Jews should “have their heads examined” if they support Biden. To date, there is no evidence of a substantial move by Jewish voters away from the Democratic Party. However, continued pro-Palestinian demonstrations with strong anti-American sentiments, especially if they turn disruptive, could alter this dynamic. 

Biden and his team are particularly concerned about the possibility of violent protests at the Democratic National Convention in August. The president — who is old enough to remember the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago that descended into chaos because of antiwar protesters — is wary of a repeat scenario. Today’s political situation may be a far cry from the turmoil that reigned in 1968, but the potential for unrest is concerning for an already vulnerable Biden. 

A High-Stakes Path to the 2024 Election

When it comes to the 2024 election, Biden has little room for error. He faces extremely low approval ratings, and while polling data is mixed, it suggests a very close race that could hinge on a handful of swing states. The Democratic National Convention is two months away, and the general election is just a few months after that. A lot can happen in Gaza and Ukraine before either, and Biden is keeping a close eye on both as he struggles for his political survival. 

Acknowledgment 

This commentary was prepared with the research assistance of Baker Institute intern Antonia Bonnis.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.