Harris or Trump? The world isn’t changing for them

Whether it’s Kamala Harris in pearls or Donald Trump's suspiciously orange hue, the next President inherits a world in flux, no matter their grand plans for reshaping it.

Across the globe, people are tuning into today’s election as if they, too, get a ballot in this spectacle. With the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and, now, Lebanon, a volatile global economy and a climate emergency, the world is anxiously awaiting the verdict. asking: “What will the American election mean for us?”

America may no longer hold undisputed sway, but for now, the world still hangs on our every move. And the whole planet seems to be whispering the same thing: “Let’s hope whoever wins knows they’re picking up a global mess that needs more than one-size-fits-all solutions.”

The next U.S. president—regardless of who crosses the finish line—will step into a multipolar, increasingly unpredictable world. Gone are the days when America called all the shots and expected everyone else to fall in line. This new era demands diplomacy as complicated as a Rube Goldberg machine—not just because China and Russia loom larger, but because allies are no longer so willing to let the U.S. take center stage without question.

The candidates couldn’t be more different in their foreign policy approaches. In one corner, we have Vice President Kamala Harris, known for carefully measured words and coalition-building. In the other, Donald Trump, former president and unyielding “America First” champion, with a foreign policy vision that bulldozes treaties like speed bumps on the way to Mar-a-Lago.

In a world through Harris-colored glasses, America reclaims its moral high ground by bringing a handpicked set of allies to the table—European partners, Pacific democracies, and others willing to admit climate change is real. Her vision hinges on coalition-building, mending fences, and reinforcing global norms that, she hopes, will compel the world to choose order over chaos. Idealistic? Absolutely. Practical? Well, that’s up for debate. Her coalition might sign on to the mission of saving the planet, but each member seems to have a different timeline for it.

Her “lead-by-example” diplomacy might even raise eyebrows at home. How will this carefully curated global harmony fare when confronted by allies who enjoy the security blanket of U.S. power but also love to grumble about it? There’s a poetic assumption here that America can lean back into its role as the “rational” actor—especially when Harris may find herself facing as many contradictions and reluctant allies as her predecessors.

Then there’s Trump’s “let’s make a deal” foreign policy, in all its bold and transactional glory. Where Harris dreams of alliances bound by shared values, Trump’s strategy is a straightforward blackjack table: stack the odds in America’s favor, let everyone else play catch-up, and don’t be surprised if the dealer frowns. His focus is clear: allies need to pay up, adversaries need to back down, and anyone else should keep their calls brief.

There’s an irony in Trump’s America First ethos. For a president who demands loyalty, Trump isn’t exactly everyone’s ideal dinner guest. His admiration for strongmen is famous (and famously awkward), and his aversion to multilateralism often leaves allies feeling like sidekicks in his one-man show.

The next U.S. president will face a world fundamentally transformed—a complex, multipolar landscape where America’s traditional dominance is not guaranteed but must be earned through deft diplomacy, strategic restraint, and multilateral cooperation. The world may be anticipating which candidate claims victory, but world events aren’t waiting to see which way the U.S. will swing. Once the unchallenged heavyweight, America now faces a world divided into multiple centers of power, a reality that has only deepened. Russia, China, and even regional players like India and Brazil are charting their own paths, often at odds with U.S. interests. Even our allies in the Gulf and Asia are recalibrating their alliances as Uncle Sam wavers on commitments.

Harris is more the candidate of continuity, leaning into cooperative alliances claiming a moral high ground. Her policy architects picture a world where America reclaims leadership by emphasizing climate, trade, and digital security agreements. She’s not shy about using a strong hand, especially with Russia, but her approach is quieter

Trump, however, views alliances as mainly transactional. His foreign policy is less about cooperative frameworks and more about making America the star—everyone else can play supporting roles or exit stage left. Multilateralism? He sees it as a flimsy excuse to bog down American power. In Trump’s worldview: America pays, so America plays—or it doesn’t play at all.

But no matter how forcefully they wave the flag, neither approach will shift the world’s course by much. China is out for global tech dominance and geopolitical influence, Russia’s posturing shows no sign of mellowing, and countries from Southeast Asia to the Middle East are asserting their autonomy. These aren’t issues that “America First” or “World in Harmony” slogans alone can solve.

Ironically, China is one area where both candidates see the same rival, albeit through different lenses. To Trump, China is both the ultimate competitor and a favorite target for his tariff-driven economic approach. His plan is to escalate the trade war that began during his first term, expand restrictions on Chinese tech, and position China as the adversary in a global showdown, uniting GOP hawks and even some union Democrats under one familiar banner.

Harris’s stance is similarly hawkish but far subtler. In her vision, the U.S. stands its ground through alliances, working with the EU, Japan, and Australia to establish international norms that hold China accountable on issues like AI and trade. She’s likely to lean on collaboration rather than direct confrontation, a strategy rooted in counterbalancing rather than clashing head-on.

But neither approach will easily alter Beijing’s trajectory. China is playing a long game, with deep stakes in global finance and technology. America, meanwhile, is committed to policy pivots that vary by administration and temperament. For all the noise about tariffs and alliances, China’s staying power remains strong.

For all the stark contrasts between Harris’s diplomacy and Trump’s bulldozer approach, the world they’ll face remains the same. The U.S. will continue to navigate a multipolar world reluctant to defer to American leadership, global rivals exploiting America’s own rifts, and a league of rising powers asserting their independence. Whether it’s NATO allies questioning the U.S. commitment or emerging markets demanding fairer trade terms, the next president will find themselves juggling the same global realities as their predecessors—just with a new stylistic flair.

No matter their grand dreams—whether to restore American greatness or redefine it through diplomacy—both Harris and Trump will wake up to a world less interested in following Washington’s lead. The biggest takeaway? The world’s ambitions—not America’s—will be the ultimate plot driver. Different actors, same unyielding script.