12 mins read
This polarization, which refers to a state in which the opinions, feelings, behaviors or interests of a group or society become more bimodal and the two modes move further apart, is not merely reshaping domestic politics, it undermines the United States’ capacity to act as a stabilizing force in global affairs as a result. Concurrently, U.S. leadership on the international stage has become increasingly volatile, with large foreign policy swings between presidencies. This volatility and unreliability have caused disruption to the liberal international order, where international regimes could not be maintained, as in the case of the Iran nuclear accord, or the U.S. defaulted on its assurances, as in the case of Afghanistan. What might appear as an intentional recalibration of global engagement is instead a manifestation of domestic turbulence undermining strategic coherence.
The second Trump presidency amplifies these concerns, threatening a further erosion of democratic norms and institutional stability, both at home and abroad, in my view. Anti-establishment elites and voter sentiment have given the president elect much more leeway to promote erratic foreign policy measures that seemed unthinkable two decades ago, such as withdrawing from NATO or supporting a one-state solution in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Polarization, therefore, represents not just an internal challenge but a structural constraint with profound implications for American foreign policy, particularly toward Russia, where consistent U.S. engagement is critical for the maintenance of international security and the rule of law.
Over the past two decades, political polarization has steadily eroded the continuity and stability of U.S. foreign policy. Empirical studies indicate a significant decline in congressional bipartisanship on international issues, driven by widening ideological gaps among lawmakers. This divide complicates efforts to secure the congressional majorities necessary for ratifying treaties and establishing durable international agreements, thereby undermining the reliability of U.S. commitments.
This polarization among political elites regarding U.S. foreign policy is equally reflected among voters. Americans not only feel increasingly negative about politics; they are also sharply divided along partisan lines about federal government power, global warming and the environment, education, abortion, foreign trade, immigration, gun laws, the government’s role in providing healthcare and income tax fairness. Combined, this has resulted in a state where elite and public polarization increasingly runs along an affective, identity-based cleavage, which is less grounded in facts and substantial debates about policies.
The ramifications of this polarization extend beyond institutional dysfunction. The erosion of bipartisanship weakens America’s usable power, resulting in greater volatility in foreign policy goals and instruments. Moreover, domestic divisions project an image of vulnerability, emboldening adversaries who perceive these fractures as an indication of diminished resolve. The weakening of the “rally-around-the-flag” effect—a once-reliable mechanism for generating bipartisan support during crises—further constrains presidential efforts to mobilize the nation in response to external threats. Instead, presidents are often forced to conduct U.S. foreign policy unilaterally, without congressional approval, further contributing to polarization. The result is a more partisan foreign policy that follows polarization among the public regarding support for U.S. allies, international organizations, foreign aid or defining national security threats, where presidents try hard to push through an ideologically coherent agenda to please the base and upend the predecessor’s legacy. In fact, public opinion polls continuously reveal that voters who align with the president’s party hold drastically more favorable views of the president’s performance compared to a president from the opposing party, regardless of issue area. Hence, presidents are more inclined to utilize foreign policy issues to drive a wedge into the political opposition, further weakening institutional constraints to their power. Consequently, U.S. foreign policy has become increasingly fragmented, where strategic coherence is often subordinated to partisan considerations.
This erosion of strategic coherence challenges longstanding assumptions about the strengths of democratic governance in foreign affairs. David Lake’s concept of democracies as “powerful pacifists” captures their historical strength in maintaining international norms and orchestrating collective action. Democracies, constrained and held accountable by their societies, dedicate substantial resources to security, command robust domestic support for their policies, and are adept at forging formidable coalitions to counteract expansionist autocracies. This capacity, however, is being compromised by the destabilizing effects of polarization.
Daniel Drezner highlights how the deliberative processes that traditionally ensured robust democratic decision-making are being undermined by populist-authoritarianism and negative partisanship, as we can observe in the U.S. These forces distort accountability mechanisms and disrupt the institutional checks that historically facilitated effective democratic governance in both foreign and domestic policymaking. Populist leaders, such as Donald Trump during his first presidency, often bypass institutional constraints, viewing such structures as impediments to their ideological agendas. As a result, decision-making becomes less grounded in reasoned deliberation and more prone to unilateral action, weakening cooperative behaviors and undermining international agreements. Populists frequently prioritize private goods—narrowly defined political victories and rent seeking—over public goods, such as stability, welfare and international collaboration.
Donald Trump’s presidency disrupted traditional U.S. foreign policy, rejecting liberal internationalist norms in favor of isolationism and economic nationalism. His populist style mobilized emotional appeals and crisis narratives, resonating with disillusioned voters but creating dissonance between campaign promises and policies. This shift highlights how populism and polarization undermine strategic coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In addition, scholars identified a rise in populism among members of Congress to the detriment of so-called foreign policy entrepreneurs—more senior, experienced foreign policy policymakers who favor prudent policies over partisan agenda.
These tendencies exacerbate the challenges posed by polarization and undermine the United States’ ability to project consistent and credible leadership on the global stage. Nowhere is this more evident than in the legislative struggles over recent U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine, where partisan divisions have hampered timely and coherent responses to Russian aggression.
Key manifestations of this disruption include:
The legislative dynamics surrounding U.S. policy on Russia and Ukraine exemplify how polarization shapes foreign policy outcomes. In the summer of 2023, Congress found itself at the center of a contentious debate over military aid to Ukraine. Deep divisions along party lines emerged, with some Republicans echoing former President Donald Trump’s view that foreign aid should be structured as loans rather than grants. Others tied their support for Ukraine to unrelated domestic issues, such as stricter border security measures. By February 2024, these debates culminated in the Senate’s rejection of a bill that paired aid to Ukraine with new powers to curtail illegal border crossings. Although a pared-down version of the bill eventually passed the Senate, the House, under Speaker Mike Johnson, refused to bring it to a vote due to internal divisions within the Republican Party.
The delays in passing critical aid legislation had tangible consequences. Ukraine, deprived of essential military support, faced ammunition shortages that hindered its ability to resist Russian advances, while Moscow leveraged the delay to secure weapons from Iran and North Korea. These developments illustrate the broader impact of domestic polarization on the U.S.’s ability to respond effectively to international crises.
Despite these obstacles, moments of bipartisan agreement emerged. In April 2024, following Iran’s attack on Israel, the House passed the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act with significant bipartisan support. While this resolution marked a rare instance of unity, it also highlighted how external shocks, rather than internal consensus, often drive U.S. foreign policy decisions in a polarized environment.
Legislative activity related to U.S.-Russia policy provides a microcosm of the broader challenges posed by polarization. In the 117th and 118th Congress, proposed bills addressing Russia and Ukraine revealed stark partisan divides:
Polarization’s impact on congressional dynamics extends beyond simple partisanship to intra-party divisions that further complicate policymaking. For instance, factions within the Republican Party—ranging from traditional hawks to isolationist Trumpists—frequently clashed over priorities, diluting the effectiveness of unified action against adversaries like Russia. Such divisions reflect the ripple effects of polarization, which not only impede legislative efficiency but also weaken the United States’ credibility as a global leader.
Polarization extends beyond elite politics to the broader electorate, further complicating the foreign policy landscape. Public opinion on the Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrates pronounced partisan divides:
In March 2022, 74% of Americans believed the U.S. was providing not enough, or about the right amount of aid to Ukraine. The sentiment that Ukraine was not receiving enough support from the U.S. was highest amongst Republicans (49%) and shared by 38% of Democrats. By April 2024, nearly half of Republicans (49%) believed U.S. support has been too much, a sentiment only expressed by 16% of Democrats.
These disparities reflect broader divisions in attitudes toward U.S. international commitments, including NATO. Support for the alliance, a cornerstone of U.S. strategy in Europe, remains significantly higher among Democrats than Republicans, and even lower among Trump voters, further complicating efforts to craft a coherent and unified foreign policy.
The partisan polarization of public opinion has critical implications for the accountability of political elites. In a less divided polity, public preferences act as a constraint on extreme policy choices. However, in today’s polarized environment, audience preferences are increasingly filtered through partisan identities, allowing more extreme or inconsistent foreign policy approaches to gain traction. This dynamic weakens the ability of the electorate to serve as a stabilizing force in U.S. foreign policy. With the emergence of a Trump constituency among Republican voters, this trend towards what I see as more erratic foreign policies will be more pronounced in the future, lowering incentives among legislators and members of the executive branch to be accountable to a larger share of the electorate.
The interplay between domestic polarization and foreign policy raises critical questions about U.S. ability to lead in an increasingly fragmented world. While bipartisan unity occasionally emerges in response to acute crises, it is insufficient to counterbalance the broader destabilizing effects of polarization. The polarization within and between the political parties, as well as the electorate, inhibit the U.S. from countering Russia and supporting Ukraine in the way the situation deserves.
I expect the second Trump administration to intensify these concerns. The erosion of democratic norms—including institutional checks, mutual tolerance and procedural forbearance—would likely accelerate, further diminishing U.S. reliability as an ally and emboldening adversaries seeking to exploit internal divisions. Most significantly, in a polarized environment, political elites are less accountable to the broader public when conducting foreign affairs and instead incentivized to politicize international politics for domestic political gains. As a result, support for Ukraine, reforming the global trading order, maintaining alliances, or stabilizing failed states are less a matter of principle and rather an opportunity to achieve short-term electoral goals. In Eastern Europe, where U.S. leadership is critical for deterring aggression and bolstering democratic resilience, these dynamics pose significant risks.
The implications extend beyond post-Soviet Eurasia. Polarization weakens the United States’ ability to form and sustain coalitions, undermining multilateral efforts to address global challenges such as climate change, human rights abuses and international trade. Adversaries like Russia and China are likely to exploit these weaknesses, leveraging America’s internal divisions to advance their own strategic objectives. The long-term consequences could include a diminished liberal international order and a world increasingly shaped by authoritarian norms.
Gordon M. Friedrichs is a senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. He specializes in international relations and comparative foreign policy analysis, with research published or forthcoming in leading journals such as The European Journal of International Relations, International Studies Review, Foreign Policy Analysis, International Politics, Journal of Global Security Studies, International Relations and Globalizations.
Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. Photo by AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite.
The author would like to thank Frederike Kanschat for research assistance.
3 mins read
A key player in coordinating U.S. military aid and marshaling international support for Ukraine has left the Pentagon just days before DONALD TRUMP takes the White House and puts its own imprint on the war.
12 mins read
There’s an unusual tradition in Florida courts: a judge deciding on a motion will sometimes ask each party to submit their own version of the ruling. Then, the judge will simply sign one. That’s how Judge Robert Pegg’s July ruling against 20 of America’s leading journalists imported the unusual capitalization that is part of the House Style of Trump lawsuits, in this case repeated, deadpan references to the “Russia Collusion Hoax.”
3 mins read
MOSCOW, Dec 27 (Reuters) – Russia’s point man for arms control cautioned Donald Trump’s incoming administration on Friday against resuming nuclear testing, saying Moscow would keep its own options open amid what he said was Washington’s “extremely hostile” stance.
