Where is the Harris doctrine?

Harris’s DNC speech, though emotionally charged, did little to separate her from the shadow of Biden’s foreign policies.

The Democratic National Convention is the political equivalent of Hollywood’s red carpet—lots of glam, a few surprises, and enough rehearsed spontaneity to keep the pundits buzzing. This year, as Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic nomination, one couldn’t help but wonder: Are we witnessing the birth of a “Harris Doctrine,” or is this just another political mirage, where the scenery is elaborate, but the story remains unresolved?

Let’s start with what we do know. Harris's speech was a masterclass in polished rhetoric. Her ability to navigate the minefield of the Israel-Palestine conflict was particularly notable, balancing empathy for both sides while making it clear she wouldn’t stray far from the Biden administration's playbook.

Her stance on Israel’s right to defend itself was firm, yet her acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering was unusually candid for a U.S. politician. In an era where the binary choice between supporting Israel or Palestine has been the norm, Harris seemed to suggest that maybe, just maybe, there’s room for a more nuanced stance. But does this hint at a distinct Harris Doctrine?

Well, not exactly. Harris’s speech, though emotionally charged, did little to separate her from the shadow of Biden’s policies. She might have sprinkled in a bit more on human rights—perhaps foreshadowing a foreign policy that’s more hawkish on those issues. Her criticism of Israel’s handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, for instance, was a bit of a curveball from the usual U.S. rhetoric, hinting at a willingness to hold allies accountable.

Yet, despite these flourishes, we still don’t have a clear vision of what a Harris-led America would look like on the world stage. The DNC was more about showing that she’s ready to lead rather than outlining how she would lead differently.

And herein lies the irony. As much as Harris distanced herself from Biden’s rhetoric, she remains tethered to his policies. There’s a sense that she’s trying to please everyone—pro-Israel Democrats, pro-Palestinian activists, European and Asian allies — without fully committing to a new direction. It’s a clever strategy, perhaps, but one that leaves us questioning whether a "Harris Doctrine" can truly emerge from this political balancing act before voters go to the polls.

Over the past four years, Harris has been dutifully executing President Biden’s foreign policy, sticking to his script like a seasoned understudy. She’s quietly been building up her own international cred, tweaking her views as she goes. But let’s be real—this was never going to be a time for her to break out and riff on her own.

At significant events like the Munich Security Conference, she has delivered a strong condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and pledged unwavering support to NATO’s Article 5. This tough rhetoric contrasts with her nuanced approach toward China, where she balances confrontation with cooperation. While she’s been present at key moments, there’s a lingering question: Is her involvement more about optics than outcomes?

One might argue that Harris’s emphasis on human rights and her cautious divergence from Biden’s approach in some areas signals the early stages of a new doctrine. Her first real test came as the presumptive Democratic nominee courtesy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. Harris has been internally pushing for more pressure on Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire and improve conditions in Gaza—positions that don’t exactly line up with Biden’s play-it-safe approach. The visit was her chance to start drawing those crucial lines in the sand, especially with young voters, progressives, and Arab and Muslim Americans who are tired of the U.S. being too close to Israel.

Her criticism of Saudi Arabia's human rights record, despite the strategic importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, also suggests that she might be more willing to confront allies over ethical issues. However, even here, the distinction is faint.

In her acceptance speech, Harris vowed not to “cozy up to tyrants and dictators,” sending a clear message that she wouldn’t entertain the kind of autocratic flattery that former President Trump seemed to relish. This hawkish note, boasting that she would maintain “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” and warning she would strike back at any Iranian-backed attack are comments traditionally reserved for Republican candidates.

At a convention that prominently featured veterans, Harris vowed solidarity with Ukraine, denouncing Trump’s threats not to defend NATO allies if he feels they are not paying enough. The challenge of overcoming the perception of female leaders as inherently weaker suggests that Harris’s explicit commitment to defense is crucial to her narrative.

Harris’s emphasis on the suffering of Palestinians, coupled with her promise to work so they “can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination,” garnered her the biggest applause lines during her foreign policy segment. Her use of the term “self-determination” marked a significant reframing of the U.S. stance, recognizing that Palestinians have rights and should have a say in their own future—something Biden has urged, though not with the same level of emphasis.

Harris has been steadfast in supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, echoing Biden’s commitment to NATO and European security. However, her emphasis on the humanitarian aspects of the conflict, and her push for increased aid to Ukrainian civilians, suggests a slight shift toward integrating human rights more deeply into security concerns. Yet again, it feels more like an evolution of existing policies rather than a revolutionary change.

World leaders are approaching Harris's candidacy with a mixture of cautious optimism and strategic hedging. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have expressed admiration for her strong stance on NATO and support for Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has highlighted her continuity with Biden’s policies, while also hinting at the need for Europe to step up its security investments. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders, particularly those aligned with Netanyahu, are scrutinizing Harris's stance on the Gaza conflict. Her criticisms of Israel’s actions have been met with apprehension, with some Israeli officials worrying about a potential shift away from Biden's more supportive policies.

Her comments on foreign policy thus far aren’t the stuff of a bold new doctrine, but at best a subtle recalibration of existing policies. A Harris presidency might indeed bring a more hawkish human rights agenda, but without clear ideological breaks from Biden’s policies, it’s difficult to see fully-fledged policy shifts in the making.

So, can we say there’s a Harris Doctrine? Not quite. If one exists at all—it might be more of a work in progress than a defined strategy. Like Biden, Harris is unlikely to abandon the core principles of U.S. foreign policy: support for Israel, engagement with China, and standing against autocracy.

What we can say, however, is that Harris is carefully crafting her own narrative within the larger Democratic framework. It’s a narrative that leans on her prosecutorial background, her empathy, and her ability to navigate complex issues with finesse. Whether that narrative evolves into a distinct foreign policy doctrine is still an open question. For now, Harris seems content to let us wonder if and when she’ll step out of Biden’s shadow to carve her own path.

But now that she is in the spotlight, the clock is ticking. If Harris can define her own worldview before her critics do it for her, she might just manage to serve up some continuity with Biden while fixing what’s been broken. She’s going to need that if she wants to seal the deal come November.

In the end, the DNC gave us a glimpse of what might be, but not enough to declare the dawn of a new era in U.S. foreign policy. For that, we’ll have to wait and see if Kamala Harris can turn her rhetorical flourishes into concrete actions that set her apart. Until then, the Harris Doctrine remains an intriguing possibility rather than a definitive reality.