Update: Bernie Sanders announced on April 8, 2020, that he was suspending his campaign.  Is the second time the charm? Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders certainly hopes so. Back in 2016, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist gave heavily favored Hillary Clinton a surprisingly tough run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders and many of his followers are convinced that if the Democratic Party leadership and its campaign rules hadn’t been tilted so heavily in favor of the former First Lady he would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump in the general election. If Sanders does make it to the White House he would, at seventy-nine years of age, be the oldest person elected president. (Ronald Reagan currently holds the record; he was nearly seventy-four when he was elected to his second term.) He would also be the first Jewish American elected president. And, of course, he would be America’s first democratic socialist president. The Basics Name: Bernard (Bernie) Sanders   Date of Birth: September 8, 1941 Place of Birth: Brooklyn, New York Religion: Jewish Political Party: Independent   Marital Status: Married (Jane O'Meara) Children: Levi (49); and three stepchildren: Heather (48), Carina (45), and David (44) Alma Mater: Brooklyn College, University of Chicago (BA) Career: Mayor of Burlington, Vermont (1981-1989); U.S. Representative (1991-2007); U.S. Senator (2007-present) Campaign Website: https://berniesanders.com/ Twitter Handle: @BernieSanders Sanders’s Announcement Sanders announced his second run for the White House in an interview with Vermont Public Radio on February 19. He released his official announcement video later that morning. Sanders called for a grassroots movement of one million volunteers to support his campaign and to take on special interests. He said he is running so he could tackle a long list of challenges facing the United States, including wealth inequality, voter suppression, inadequate childcare, a regressive tax system, healthcare, student debt, immigration, and gun violence. He called Trump “a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction.” Unlike most of his Democratic presidential rivals, Sanders mentioned foreign policy in his announcement video. He said America needs “trade policies that reflect the interests of workers and not multinational corporations” and he called for “a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy, and world peace. The United States must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism, and global wealth inequality.” Sanders’s Story Sanders grew up in Flatbush, Brooklyn, in a lower-middle class. He was the son of Jewish immigrants. His father’s family came from Poland, his mother’s from Russia. His father was a paint salesman and his mother a homemaker. Much of his father’s family was killed during the Holocaust. He says that made him recognize at an early age the importance of elections because “an election in 1932 ended up killing fifty million people around the world.” Sanders attended Brooklyn College for a year and then transferred to the University of Chicago. There he joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Student Peace Union, and the Congress on Racial Equality, where he protested the segregation of university-owned housing and Chicago public schools. After graduating from Chicago in 1964 with a degree in political science, Sanders bounced from job to job, first in New York City, then in Vermont. He was variously a freelance writer, filmmaker, carpenter, aide at a psychiatric hospital, preschool teacher, and researcher for the Vermont Department of Taxes. Sanders moved to Vermont in 1968. He ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1972 and 1976 and for the U.S. Senate in 1972 and 1974 on the Liberty Union ticket. He then lowered his sights and ran for mayor of Burlington in 1981 as an independent. He won and served for four terms. But his desire for higher office didn’t abate. He ran and lost a gubernatorial election in 1986 and a U.S. House race in 1988. Sanders’s losing streak for higher office came to an end in 1990 when he won Vermont’s at-large congressional seat running as an independent. He served eight terms in the House before being elected to the Senate in 2006. He was reelected in 2012 and 2018. Sanders sought the Democratic nomination in 2016. He won twenty-three primaries and caucuses, ultimately losing to Secretary Hillary Clinton. Not bad for someone who wasn’t a member of the Democratic Party. Sanders sits on four Senate committees: Budget; Environment, Energy, and Health; Education, Labor, and Pensions; and Veteran’s Affairs. He is also a member of the Democratic leadership, despite not being a Democrat. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in U.S. history. Sanders’s Message Just like in his 2016 campaign, Sanders is seeking to establish a grassroots movement that demands that the government work for all and not just the few. He believes multinational corporations exercise too much political power, and he regularly attacks Wall Street, health-insurance companies, Big Pharma, the fossil-fuel industry, and the military-industrial complex. He believes Americans are “inherently entitled” to health care, education, a clean environment, and decent paying jobs. Sanders says that his calls for progressive policies that were once considered “too radical,” like Medicare-for-all, a $15-an-hour-minimum wage, and free college tuition, are now supported “by a majority of Americans” and a part of the “political mainstream.” So his 2016 campaign “began the political revolution. Now it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.” When asked about what he will do differently in 2020, Sanders has simple answer: “We’re gonna win.” Sanders’s Foreign Policy Views Foreign policy has never been Sanders’s passion. He has sponsored very few foreign policy bills in his nearly three decades on Capitol Hill. He generally avoided foreign policy issues back in 2016. For five months after he declared his candidacy, his campaign website didn’t have a section dedicated to foreign policy. When he did address foreign policy he often struggled to explain his positions. His lack of interest was so striking that a group of Democratic-leaning former government national security officials signed a letter criticizing his “continued lack of interest in and knowledge of essential foreign policy and national security issues.” Sanders made it a point to burnish his foreign policy credentials in time for his second run for the White House. In 2017, he hired his first full-time Senate foreign policy advisor. He then gave two major foreign policy speeches outlining what a progressive foreign policy would look like. The first speech was in September 2017 at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. That’s where Winston Churchill gave his famous "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946. The second was last October at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Both speeches were long generalities, short on actionable specifics. At Westminster, he stressed: The goal is not for the United States to dominate the world. Nor, on the other hand, is our goal to withdraw from the international community and shirk our responsibilities under the banner of “America First.” Our goal should be global engagement based on partnership, rather than dominance. This is better for our security, better for global stability and better for facilitating the international cooperation necessary to meet shared challenges. His SAIS speech stressed what he sees as “a troubling trend in global affairs”: There is currently a struggle of enormous consequence taking place in the United States and throughout the world. In it we see two competing visions. On one hand, we see a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy, and kleptocracy. On the other side we see a movement toward strengthening democracy, egalitarianism, and economic, social, racial, and environmental justice. This struggle has consequences for the entire future of the planet—economically, socially, and environmentally. Neither speech talks much about what Sanders would do as president. That’s perhaps not surprising given that it can be easier to identify a problem than to figure out how to solve it. As Sanders told the New Yorker, “Look, this is very difficult stuff.” He added, “I should have prefaced everything by saying I most certainly do not believe I have all the answers or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you’re dealing with so much—my God.” (Sanders told the Intercept something similar: “Anyone who thinks there is a simple solution in dealing with all of the horrific and longstanding conflicts in the world would be mistaken … Where we’ve got to be radical is to understand we cannot continue with simply using military as a means of addressing foreign policy issues.”) Of course, presidents are the ones responsible for figuring out the details. Sanders followed up his Westminster College and SAIS speeches with an article in June for Foreign Affairs on counterterrorism policy and ending America’s “forever wars.” He argued that “we need to rethink the militaristic approach that has undermined the United States’ moral authority, caused our allies to question our ability to lead, drained our tax coffers, and corroded our own democracy.” He thinks that endless wars “draw attention away from economic corruption” that has a bigger impact on people’s lives. As with his two major foreign policy speeches, Sanders’s Foreign Affairs article said little about what specifically he would do as president. Sanders’s main message on foreign policy is that the United States should rely less on its military and more on it its diplomacy. Like many of his fellow Democratic candidates, he supports withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Syria. However, he opposes the Trump administration’s unilateralist approach in both countries. Sanders says the withdrawals need “to be done with our allies, not through tweets.” And unlike many of his Democratic rivals, he won’t commit to getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan before the end of his first term in office. He instead says that he “would withdraw U.S. military forces from Afghanistan as expeditiously as possible,” adding that “withdrawing troops does not mean withdrawing all involvement, and my administration would stay politically engaged in these countries and do whatever we can to help them develop their economy and strengthen a government that is responsible to its people.”  Sanders has been a leading Senate critic of U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. He co-sponsored the resolution that would have ended that support. However, Trump vetoed the bill and the necessary votes don’t exist in Congress to override that veto. Sanders also opposes Trump’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal, calling it “the latest in a series of reckless decisions that move our country closer to conflict.” He says he “would re-enter the agreement on day one of my presidency and then work with the P5+1 and Iran to build upon it with additional measures to further block any path to a nuclear weapon, restrain Iran’s offensive actions in the region and forge a new strategic balance in the Middle East.” Sanders has no problems with Trump’s effort to negotiate with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. He further agrees with Trump that the United States needs to "put all of the pressure that we can" on North Korea, both economically and politically. He is willing to give North Korea some sanctions relief if Pyongyang agrees to dismantle some of its nuclear arsenal. He would then pursue additional negotiations aimed at “the eventual elimination of all North Korean nuclear weapons.” Many Democratic presidential candidates have recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela. But not Sanders. When asked earlier this year if Nicolas Maduro, who has presided over the impoverishment of Venezuela and the destruction of its democracy, should step down as president, Sanders refused to say yes or no. He has said that “the United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination for the Venezuelan people,” but seems more worried that “the United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again." Sanders has a record of being sympathetic to Latin American dictators who profess to be socialists. Back in the 1980’s he called Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega “an impressive guy” and praised Fidel Castro for having made “enormous progress” in “improving the lives of poor people and working people.” Sanders is one of Trump’s harshest foreign policy critics, but shares his disdain for U.S. trade policy. Sanders strongly opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and supported Trump’s decision to exit the deal: I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone. For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals—including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others—which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers. Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. Sanders doesn’t think TPP is salvageable and “under no circumstance would we rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership under a Sanders administration.”  Sanders’s support for parts of Trump’s trade agenda is not surprising. Sanders has proudly opposed every trade agreement presented during his time in Congress. But the basis of his disdain for America’s trade agreements differs from Trump’s. The president thinks U.S. trade deals have given too much to America’s trade partners; Sanders thinks they have given too much to multinational corporations at the expense of American workers. That’s why he supported Trump’s decision to renegotiate NAFTA and then opposed the deal Trump struck. In his view, “a re-negotiated NAFTA must stop the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, end the destructive race to the bottom, protect the environment, and lower the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. Clearly, Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 does not meet these standards and I will strongly oppose it in its current form.” Sanders similarly both supported and criticized Trump’s tariffs on aluminum and steel. He was fine with “imposing stiff penalties on countries like China, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam to prevent them from illegally dumping steel and aluminum into the U.S. and throughout the world.” And he says “of course” he would use tariffs as a negotiating tool. However, he objected to imposing tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from Canada and the European Union, calling the policy “haphazard and reckless” and “an absolute disaster.” Why the difference? Sanders says “it simply makes no sense to start a trade war with Canada, the European Union and others who are engaged in fair trade, are not cheating and where workers are paid a living wage with good benefits.” More broadly, he thinks Trump’s use of tariffs “is totally irrational and it is destabilizing the entire world economy.” Last week, Sanders unveiled his plan to combat climate change, which he also calls the Green New Deal. He proposes to spend $16 trillion dollars to eliminate fossil-fuel use in the United States by 2050. To put that number in perspective, the annual U.S. GDP is $21 trillion. Joe Biden puts a price tag of $1.7 trillion on his climate plan, and Elizabeth Warren has pledged to spend $2 trillion to promote clean manufacturing and exports. More on Sanders Since the 2016 election, Sanders has written Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In, Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution, and Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance. The New York Times Magazine profiled Sanders back in 2007, calling the then freshman senator “an awkward fit in the chummy realm of Capitol Hill. He is no pleaser or jokester by anyone’s prototype.” Politico Magazine profiled Sanders back in 2015, describing his life before elected office as one of a “radical and an agitator in the ferment of 1960s and '70s Vermont, a tireless campaigner and champion of laborers who didn’t collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old.” Back in 2015 the New Yorker explored the appeal of Sanders’s populist message, concluding that “though Sanders is steadfastly earnest, the youthful enthusiasm for him often partakes of irony. Whimsical buttons feature the slogan ‘Feel the Bern,’ and Tumblr is full of memes that play up the contrast between Sanders’s age and his popularity with hipsters.” Last year, the New Yorker assessed Sanders’s legacy on progressive politics, saying that “since the 2016 election, the Sanders movement has been tricky to pin down—at times it has seemed to embody the Democratic future and at others to be disappearing quickly into the past.” Last November New York Magazine tagged along as Sanders mulled over whether to make a second run at the White House and found that his advisors were split—some “think his path to the White House has never been clearer. But other friends warn him there’s a good chance that if he enters the race, his first day will be his best day.” Sanders appeared on a CNN Town Hall back in April. Earlier this month Sanders spent an hour on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Sanders answered eighteen questions for the New York Times. When asked where he would go on his first international trip as president, he answered: “I have no idea. There are a lot of hot spots around the world.” CFR asked Sanders twelve foreign policy questions. When asked to name America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment he named two—the Marshall Plan and the creation of the United Nations. He named the war in Iraq as America’s greatest foreign policy blunder. Corey Cooper, Elizabeth Lordi, and Aliya Medetbekova assisted in the preparation of this post. 

Update: Michael Bennet announced on February 11, 2020, that he was ending his campaign for president. Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer among American men. One in nine American men will be diagnosed with it during their lifetimes. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet is one of them. He learned of his diagnosis this past March. Calling himself “fortunate” because the cancer was detected early, he underwent surgery in April. His spokesperson said the operation was “completely successful and he requires no further treatment.” Rather than abandoning his plans to run for the presidency, Bennet went ahead with them, explaining that "this unanticipated hurdle only reinforces how strongly I feel about contributing to the larger conversation about the future of our country, and I am even more committed to drive that conversation in a positive direction." Bennet is not the first presidential candidate to have been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Then-Sen. John F. Kerry was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2003 during his presidential bid and took several weeks off from campaigning for treatment. The Basics Name: Michael Farrand Bennet Date of Birth: November 28, 1964 Place of Birth: New Delhi, India Religion: Unaffiliated, spiritual Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Susan Daggett (m. 1997) Children: Caroline (19), Halina (17), Anne (14) Alma Mater: Wesleyan University (BA), Yale Law School (JD) Career: Businessman, lawyer, U.S. senator from Colorado Campaign Website: https://michaelbennet.com/ Twitter Handles: @MichaelBennet & @SenatorBennet Bennet’s Announcement Bennet announced his candidacy on May 2 on CBS This Morning. He told host John Dickerson that “this country faces two enormous challenges, one is a lack of economic mobility and opportunity for most Americans and the other is the need to restore integrity to our government.” The Bennet campaign supplemented the CBS appearance with a video and an essay posted on Medium. The video is titled “7,591 words,” the number of words in the Constitution. Bennet portrays himself as a workhorse rather than a show horse, saying he “didn’t go to Washington to get attention but to pay attention.” As a “pragmatic idealist” he vows to fix healthcare, pass a tax-cut that benefits working-class Americans, and invest in education. He didn’t discuss foreign policy other than to say that money spent on “tax cuts for the wealthy and wars in the Middle East” could have been used to rebuild America’s infrastructure, address climate change, and improve public education. The Medium essay elaborated on Bennet’s proposals for cleaning up politics and improving domestic policy. Foreign affairs received only passing mention when he criticized President Donald Trump for pursuing “a foreign policy that drops our proud tradition of encouraging democracy and trade in order to start trade wars with our allies and play patsy to dictators.” Bennet’s Story Bennet was born in New Delhi, India, where his father was working as an aide to the U.S. ambassador to India. Although he was born outside of the United States, he is considered under U.S. law to be a “natural-born citizen” and eligible to be president. Bennet’s mother was born in Warsaw in 1938 and survived the Holocaust as a child in the Warsaw Ghetto before emigrating to the United States in 1950. Bennet was raised in Washington, DC. He struggled with dyslexia and repeated the second grade. He recalls being upset that friends like future National Security Adviser Susan Rice moved on to the third grade without him. He attended St. Alban’s day school in Washington, where recorded a lot of B’s and his friends called him “Flobie.” He went to Wesleyan University, the same college as his father and grandfather. (His father was president of Wesleyan from 1997 to 2005.) He flourished there. He was elected president of the student government and graduated in 1987 with an honors degree in history. Bennet spent his first year after college on a public affairs fellowship in New York City studying city government. He then served as a personal assistant to Ohio Governor Richard Celeste, who had worked with his father at the U.S. embassy in New Delhi. Bennet says he “learned an unbelievable amount from Dick Celeste. I didn’t realize how much I had learned until I started running for office myself.” Bennet then went to Yale Law School, graduating in 2003. He did well for himself during his time in New Haven, becoming editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. He then clerked for the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Baltimore. He took a job at a prestigious Washington law firm, Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, but quickly decided it wasn’t for him. He left to serve as a special assistant to the deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration. After that came a stint as a special assistant to the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. In 1997, Bennet moved to Denver with his wife, a fellow Yale Law grad, who had accepted a job there. A Yale law degree is a pretty good credential, and apparently so is attending Wesleyan. A well-connected Wesleyan alumnus put Bennet in touch with Denver billionaire Phil Anschutz. Bennet quickly had a job as managing director of an investment firm even though he admitted during his interview that he wasn’t good with numbers. The Wesleyan connection proved helpful again in 2003 when Bennet became an adviser to fellow Wesleyan alum, John Hickenlooper, who was running to become Denver’s mayor. Hickenlooper won the race and named Bennet his chief of staff. Bennet was obviously committed to helping Hickenlooper succeed; he left behind as much as $7 million in unvested compensation when he moved over to City Hall. Hickenlooper repaid that loyalty. In 2005, he appointed Bennet, who had no training in education policy, superintendent of the Denver Public Schools. In 2009, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar resigned his seat after President Barack Obama nominated him to be secretary of the interior. The betting money was that Colorado’s governor would ask Hickenlooper to fill the seat. He instead appointed Bennet, who had never before run for public office. For someone with no experience, he was pretty good at campaigning. He won election in 2010 and reelection in 2016. Bennet currently serves on the Agriculture, Finance, and Intelligence committees. Bennet’s younger brother James is the editorial page editor for the New York Times. When Michael announced his candidacy, James recused himself from all opinion coverage of the 2020 campaign. The senator says he feels “terrible” that his decision to run for president affected his brother’s job and joked that “I don’t think that he’s secretly hoping that I’ll drop out, but you never know.”  Bennet gained national attention in January when he took to the floor of the Senate to denounce Texas Senator Ted Cruz for shedding “crocodile tears” over the government shutdown, noting that back in 2013 Cruz had helped engineer another government shutdown that had harmed Bennet’s home state of Colorado. The clip of Bennet’s remarks is the most watched Senate floor speech in C-SPAN’s history. Bennet’s Message Bennet’s campaign slogan is “Building Opportunity Together.” At the core of his agenda is addressing stagnant wages, rising costs, and economic inequality. He attributes these challenges to globalization, automation, and unfair competition with China. Bennet also hopes to distinguish himself in a crowded Democratic field by touting his moderation and bipartisan record. He argues that “it is possible to write policy proposals that have no basis in reality, and you might as well call them candy.” He’s convinced “that’s not where people are. I don’t think believe that stuff. I think they want to see a serious approach to politics and a serious approach to policy.” Bennet’s Foreign Policy Bennet looks to be a liberal internationalist at heart. Rather than emphasizing how the United States should do less of overseas, as many of his Democratic presidential rivals are doing, he wants to “reclaim U.S. global leadership on security, fair economic competition, and freedom.” He would do that by working to “re-engage our allies and build coalitions of partners to protect against current threats, prepare for security challenges of the future, and advance American interests.” The question that Bennet and all liberal internationalists have to grapple with, of course, is whether the appetite for U.S. global leadership exists, either at home or abroad, especially after four years of America First. Bennet believes that “Russia, not China” is the greatest threat to U.S. national security “because of what they've done with our election.” He favors imposing additional sanctions on Russia for its election interference. Last week, in a bid to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to pass election-security legislation, he released a book titled Dividing America: How Russia Hacked Social Media and Democracy. As the subtitle indicates, it examines how Russia used social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to influence the 2016 presidential election. Bennet is asking his supporters to buy a copy to be sent to Senator McConnell. So far nearly 3,000 people have agreed to do just that. Bennet hasn’t said nearly as much about how he would deal with Russia on other foreign policy issues. He hasn’t said much either about his approach to dealing with China. Like most of his Democrat rivals, he argues that Trump is right that China is a problem, especially when it comes to trade, but that his policies are backfiring. He thinks the smart strategy would be “to mobilize the whole world. Because basically the entire world has the same interests that we do, vis a vis China, in terms of trade.” Most of the other Democratic presidential candidates have staked out similar positions. Like them, Bennet hasn’t provided details on what he wants Beijing to do or how he would get Beijing to do it. Likewise, Bennet argues that China is “supporting a surveillance state” with its Belt and Road Initiative. His solution is to “forge strong alliances with people all over the world.” He hasn’t said, however, what the United States should offer others to convince them not to follow Beijing’s lead. One solution that has been offered to blunt China’s ability to write the rules of the global economy is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Bennet’s track record on TPP is mixed. Unlike, say, Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren, he voted back in 2015 for the trade promotion authority that made the TPP negotiations possible. A year later, in the midst of his re-election campaign, he said he couldn’t vote for the deal as is. He hasn’t said whether he would have the United States join a revised TPP. Like his rivals for the Democratic nomination, Bennet opposes the so-called Forever Wars. Back in 2010 during his first race for Senate, he said that the United States should commit to leaving Afghanistan as early as July 2011. His view hasn’t changed in the intervening nine years. He says that he will have U.S. troops out of Afghanistan before his first term in office ends: “If you’re a kid in college or you’re 18 or 19 years old, you’ve only known us being at war. We’ve spent $5.6 trillion in the Middle East. It’s time for us to come home from Afghanistan.” Bennet is like his fellow presidential candidates in another way. He hasn’t made the case that Americans will like the consequences of leaving Afghanistan behind. Bennet opposed the Trump administration’s April 2018 airstrikes on Syria, arguing that “President Trump risks pulling the United States into a broader conflict with this military action.” He further argued that, “the decision to use military force against the Syrian government must be made in pursuit of a comprehensive objective and with authorization from Congress.” A President Bennet could find himself disagreeing with Senator Bennet, much as President Obama disagreed with Professor Obama. Like the other Democratic senators running for president, Bennet has voted to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. He parted company with them, however, on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from of Syria. Back in January, they all voted against a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senator McConnell offered arguing that “the precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from either country could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.” Although the resolution implicitly rebuked Trump for announcing a sudden U.S. troop withdrawal, Bennet was the lone Senate Democratic presidential candidate to vote yes. Bennet supported the Iran nuclear deal and thinks that Trump was “reckless” to withdraw the United States from the deal. He says his “strategy would be to, first of all, reconstitute the Iran deal or a version of the Iran deal.” He believes that “if we can make it stronger, we should certainly make it stronger.” He hasn’t said precisely how he would strengthen the agreement or how he would get Tehran to agree to tougher terms. Bennet has been more cautious than many of his fellow Democrats in his remarks about Trump’s handling of relations with North Korea. His standard line is that “North Korea’s nuclear program poses a grave threat to the international community.” He believes that “any American president deserves support for pursuing a diplomatic approach toward the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But North Korea’s track record requires all parties to be cautious about any agreements made by its leader.”   Bennet agrees with all of the Democratic challengers that climate change threatens American security and prosperity. He proposes to “reduce emissions in line with the most aggressive targets set by the world’s scientists and achieve 100 percent clean, net-zero emissions as soon as possible, and no later than 2050.” To achieve this goal he would create a “Climate Bank” that will administer $1 trillion in federal funding over ten years for private sector innovation and infrastructure investment. Bennet says he will “work with allies and partners to develop a plan to meet the needs of the millions of individuals already displaced by the effects of climate change” and to prepare for political conflicts that arise from climate change. In April, Bennet joined a bipartisan group of senators to introduce the Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance and Development (VERDAD) Act. The bill endorses U.S. support for opposition leader Juan Guaido, authorizes $400 million of new humanitarian assistance, and removes sanctions on officials who defect from the Maduro government. Bennet has worked on immigration issues during Senate career. Back in 2013 he was part of the so-called Gang of Eight that drafted a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He thinks it continues to offer a way forward. More generally, Bennet does “not think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States. I do think our broken immigration system is a major problem.” He disagrees with his fellow presidential candidates who argue for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and he favors increased border security funding. More on Bennet Bennet has two books out this year. One is Dividing America. The other is The Land of Flickering Lights: Restoring America in an Age of Broken Politics. Released in June, the ad copy says that it  “lifts a veil on the inner workings of Congress to reveal ‘through a series of actual stories—about the people, the politics, the motives, the money, the hypocrisy, the stakes, the outcomes—the pathological culture of the capital and the consequences for us all.’” Shortly after The Land of Flickering Lights was published, Bennet discussed the book and his run for the presidency with Colorado Public Radio. Back in 2017, Bennet went on the Ezra Klein Show to discuss why he frequently despairs over how the Senate does—or perhaps more accurately, doesn’t—do its job. The Atlantic profiled Bennet back in March when he was considering a presidential run and called him “the Democrat who wants to stop the rage.” Bennet appeared on a CNN Town Hall back in May and said, among other things, that his first three phone calls would be to the America’s European allies, the prime minister of Israel, and the heads of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Bennet sat down with the New Yorker’s “Politics and More” podcast to discuss his presidential campaign. Bennet met with the Washington Post editorial board in July to discuss his vision for America. Bennet sat down with both Mother Jones and the Vergecast last week to discuss what he hopes to accomplish by releasing Dividing America. Bennet answered eighteen questions for the New York Times. When he was asked where he would go on his first international trip as president, he said “I probably would go to Europe to reassert that the alliance is strong.” Brenden Ebertz and Aliya Medetbekova assisted in the preparation of this post.

CFR invited the presidential candidates challenging President Trump in the 2020 election to articulate their positions on twelve critical foreign policy issues. Candidates’ answers are posted exactly as they are received. View all questions here. 1. How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China? China’s abysmal human rights record must feature prominently in our policy toward the country. We can’t ignore China’s mass detention of more than a million Uighur Muslims in “reeducation camps” in the Xinjiang region, or its widespread abuse of surveillance for political and religious repression. We can’t ignore Beijing’s failure to respect the rights and autonomy of Hong Kong’s people and the Hong Kong government’s excessive use of force against peaceful protestors. President Trump has consistently turned a blind eye to these abuses in hopes of earning a ‘win’ in his trade war, all to no avail.   Under my administration, we will cooperate with China on global issues like climate change, but we won’t allow human rights abuses to go unchecked. The United States must reclaim our own moral authority and work with like-minded nations to stand up forcefully for human rights in China and around the world. 2. Would you rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? What changes to the existing agreement, if any, would you require before agreeing to rejoin the accord? Yes. President Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from an agreement that was verifiably preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – against the warnings of our closest allies, and without any plan for what comes next – was beyond reckless. Since then, we’ve seen nothing but escalations from both sides. Either the Trump Administration is angling for another disastrous war in the Middle East, or it has spent two years saber-rattling with no endgame.   Based on where things stand now, I would plan to rejoin the JCPOA so long as Iran also returned to verifiable compliance. At the same time, I would seek negotiations with Iran to extend and supplement some of the nuclear deal’s existing provisions, and work with our partners to counter Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region, including with regard to its ballistic missile program. 3. Would you sign an agreement with North Korea that entailed partial sanctions relief in exchange for some dismantling of its nuclear weapons program but not full denuclearization?  Let me start by saying this: I guarantee you I won’t be exchanging love letters with Kim Jong-un. President Trump has handed Kim one PR victory after the next, all without securing any real concessions, so the next president will have serious work to do.   Ultimately, we can’t accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. But it’s clear that simply demanding complete denuclearization is a recipe for failure; we must work closely with our allies to contain and reverse the short-term threats posed by Pyongyang as we work toward that long-term goal.   In any negotiations with North Korea, we must proceed with great skepticism given our past experiences. I would consider targeted sanctions relief to improve the lives of the North Korean people if the regime were to take serious, verifiable steps to roll back its nuclear program. And that relief would have to be immediately reversible were they to renege on their commitments. 4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? In both Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has used military force to seize territory and undermine democratically elected governments. Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea is a severe violation of the international norms that have guided the world since World War II – as are Russia’s support for combat operations in eastern Ukraine and its cyber-attacks. Thousands of people have died because of Russia’s aggression, including 298 civilians killed when a Russian missile shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014.   As president, I would continue to support Ukraine and ensure the U.S. is unequivocal in affirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I would also prioritize working with the government of Ukraine to build out its military, strengthen its civil society, and combat corruption, while working closely with our European partners on a diplomatic solution. And unlike the current occupant of the White House, I will consistently stand up to Putin in defense of democratic values, human rights, and the international rule of law. 5. Would you commit to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of your first term, or would you require certain conditions be met before doing so? As I have said many times, this war in Afghanistan must come to an end. I was honored to visit with our brave troops and national security professionals there last year, and I’ll do everything in my power to achieve a political solution – if one hasn’t been reached already – that allows us to bring them home responsibly in my first term.   Nobody can predict what President Trump will do between now and 2021, so as soon as I take office, I will bring together our military leaders, national security advisers, and top diplomats to coordinate and implement that withdrawal plan. I fully recognize the importance of diplomacy and development to success in Afghanistan, and I want to ensure that the country is on a path to stability, that we protect the gains that have been made for Afghan women and others, and that it never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.   6. Given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the civil war in Yemen, what changes, if any, would you make to U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia? First of all, we need to end U.S. support for the catastrophic Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has driven the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. I voted to do just that earlier this year. I also voted to block the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia that only help continue this atrocity. Unfortunately, President Trump vetoed both of those measures. He has stood in lockstep with Riyadh, even turning a blind eye to the heinous assassination of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi.   The United States and Saudi Arabia still have mutual areas of interest, such as counterterrorism, where the Saudis have been strong partners. And we should continue to coordinate on that front. But we need to fundamentally reevaluate our relationship with Saudi Arabia, using our leverage to stand up for American values and interests.   7. Do you support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, if so, how would you go about trying to achieve it? Israel is a critical ally and friend and its security is a top priority.  I absolutely support a two-state solution because it is the best way to ensure the existence of a Jewish, democratic, and secure Israel. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity, just as Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people.   While all Americans have an interest in a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the fact remains that peace can only be achieved if the parties themselves come to an agreement. The U.S. can – and should – serve as a constructive partner in the process. Unfortunately, while, in the past, the U.S. has been viewed as an honest broker with a strong desire for peace in the region, Trump’s actions have inflamed tensions in the region, diminished U.S. credibility and influence, and undermined the prospects for peace. As President, I would start by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity, while simultaneously working to rebuild the broken relationship between the United States and the Palestinians. Among all of our international partners, the U.S. is uniquely positioned to facilitate negotiations toward peace, but for that to have any chance of success, we have to start by re-engaging in honest, respectful dialog with both sides.   8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? Make no mistake – Nicolás Maduro is a repressive and corrupt dictator who is responsible for an unfathomable humanitarian crisis. The Venezuelan people deserve the support and solidarity of the United States. We should start by immediately extending Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans who’ve fled Maduro’s brutality, which President Trump has refused to do.   We should also provide additional aid to international humanitarian organizations to be disbursed to Venezuelan residents and refugees. And we should continue to support multilateral diplomatic efforts toward a peaceful transition to legitimate new elections, which must be the ultimate goal.   Finally, we should take U.S. military intervention off the table. National Security Adviser John Bolton would have us believe that the choice in Venezuela is between indifference and invasion. That is a false choice, and I reject it.   9. By 2050, Africa will account for 25 percent of the world’s population according to projections by the United Nations. What are the implications of this demographic change for the United States, and how should we adjust our policies to anticipate them? The African continent is dynamic, diverse, and full of potential, with the youngest, fastest growing population in the world. There are so many important interests at stake in Africa, from bolstering global security to fostering shared prosperity.  The United States must engage now and build strong diplomatic and economic partnerships with these nations or illiberal countries like China and Russia will fill the gaps.   Unfortunately, President Trump is damaging U.S. relationships and opportunities in this important region.  His description of African nations as “sh*thole countries” was not only deeply offensive; it was flat-out wrong. He has undermined U.S. diplomacy and undercut work to strengthen security, prevent pandemics, support democratic institutions, and increase U.S. investment.    As president, I will focus on advancing relationships in Africa that President Trump has let languish – and I will do so in a way that is consistent with American values.  We need to stand up for democracy, human rights, and economic freedom and development.  I will reinvigorate American diplomacy throughout the continent, support economic growth, and deepen security engagements with African partners.   10. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership? As I’ve long said, I will oppose any trade deal that doesn't look out for the best interests of American workers and raise environmental standards, and unfortunately the TPP didn’t pass either test. I also raised concerns at the time about the lack of transparency in the process.   In my administration, labor and civil society groups will always have a seat at the table to ensure that trade agreements do achieve these important objectives. And I think that’s exactly what we need – pro-labor, pro-environment trade deals – because it’s clear Donald Trump’s protectionist approach has been a disaster. His trade war is crushing American farmers, killing American jobs, and punishing American consumers.  I would work with our allies in Europe and Asia to confront China on its troubling trade practices, not perpetuate Trump’s failing tariff war that is being paid for by hard-working Americans.    11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries? First, I would rejoin the Paris Agreement, so that the world understands America is serious about meeting the most complex, far-reaching challenge of our time – climate change. If we’re going to be successful, then countries, states, and cities need to transition away from the dirtiest sources of fuel on the planet. Governments around the world should be bringing dangerous coal-fired power plants offline, not bringing new plants online, and underscoring that necessity should be front and center in every one of our bilateral relationships.  In addition to applying diplomatic pressure, the U.S. can better assist partners around the world in making the necessary energy transition by providing technical guidance, policy support, and access to capital.   We should also play a leadership role in compelling international institutions to use their leverage to end subsidies for dirty fuel.  And we should invest heavily in clean energy R&D and advanced energy storage and bringing the transformative technologies that have already been developed right here in the U.S. to scale around the world.   12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? The greatest U.S. foreign policy accomplishment has been the post-war community of international institutions, laws, and democratic nations we helped to build. For generations, presidents from both parties established a network of stalwart partners. These countries have contributed to our prosperity and worked with us in war and peace to deal with some of the toughest international crises and to confront a number of generational challenges. Our biggest mistake has been to jeopardize all that progress and accomplishment by engaging in failed wars that have cost lives, destabilized the regions in which they have been fought, and undermined our leadership in the international community. To make matters worse, the current president seems intent on inflicting further damage to U.S. credibility by disregarding diplomacy, withdrawing from international agreements and institutions, shunning our allies, siding with dictatorships over democracies, and elevating sheer incompetence in his decision-making processes.   This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates

Update: Pete Buttigieg announced on March 1, 2020, that he was ending his campaign. Fact can be more interesting than fiction. In 2000, a high school senior won the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library’s annual Profiles in Courage essay contest by extolling the virtues of the country’s only independent member of Congress, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. To the student, the self-described socialist was an “inspiring example” of a political leader willing to “eschew political and personal comfort and convenience because they believe they can make a difference.” Nineteen years later, Peter Buttigieg found himself standing next to now-Senator Sanders in a Democratic presidential debate. But the South Bend mayor wasn’t there to praise his high school idol but to upstage him. When asked whether voters should take age into account when deciding whom to support given the forty-year gap between the two men, Buttigieg graciously allowed that “I don’t care how old you are. I care about your vision.” He then added, “I do think it matters that we have a new generation of leaders stepping up around the world.” If Buttigieg wins next November, he will be the youngest person ever to become president, and at thirty-nine years and one day the first thirty-something to take the oath of office. The Basics Name: Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg Date of Birth: January 19, 1982 Place of Birth: South Bend, Indiana Religion: Episcopalian Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Married (Chasten Glezman) Children: None Alma Mater: Harvard (BA), Pembroke College of the University of Oxford (MA) Career: Naval intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve (2009-2014), Mayor of South Bend (2012-present) Campaign Website: https://www.peteforamerica.com/ Twitter Handle: @PeteButtigieg Buttigieg’s Announcement Buttigieg officially kicked off his campaign in South Bend, Indiana, on April 15. He did so in what was once a Studebaker car factory and now a tech hub. That was a fitting setting for a speech that plugged the potential for America’s economic revival. Buttigieg said that he is offering “something totally different” than those who use “resentment and nostalgia” to reach communities like South Bend and sell “an impossible promise of returning to a bygone era that was never as great as advertised.” Buttigieg calls for forward thinking and innovation to replace the “politics of the past.” He didn’t suggest what a Buttigieg foreign policy doctrine might look like. Buttigieg’s Story   Buttigieg is the son of two University of Notre Dame professors. His father, an immigrant from Malta who died this past January, was a literary critic. His mother is a linguist. Buttigieg inherited their academic abilities. He was his high-school valedictorian, went to Harvard, and then was named a Rhodes Scholar. Oh, and he speaks eight languages. (He taught himself Norwegian so he could read a favorite writer without having to rely on an English translation.) After graduating from Oxford, Buttigieg worked as a consultant for McKinsey and Company from 2007 to 2010. He joined the U.S. Navy Reserves in 2009, served until 2017, and reached the rank of lieutenant. He was summoned to active duty in 2014 and spent six months in Afghanistan. He worked on efforts to disrupt Taliban and al-Qaeda financial support networks in the country. Buttigieg took an unpaid leave from his day job, being the mayor of South Bend, to serve on active duty. He was first elected to that post in 2011. He was just twenty-nine at the time and the youngest mayor of any city with at least 100,000 people. He was re-elected in 2015. To put the size of Buttigieg’s constituency in perspective, he won roughly 19,500 votes in his two elections combined, or less than one quarter of the seats in Notre Dame Stadium. In comparison, Bill De Blasio won more than 725,000 votes when he won re-election as New York’s mayor in 2017. In May 2015, Buttigieg wrote an essay for the South Bend Tribune announcing that he is gay. He says he decided to come out because he wanted “to have a personal life” and because Mike Pence, who was Indiana’s governor at the time, had signed a bill to give businesses the ability to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on religious grounds. In 2018, Buttigieg married Chasten Glezman.  Buttigieg’s Message Buttigieg stresses three core principles: freedom, security, and democracy. He argues that there is more to freedom than “freedom from” government; there is also “freedom from” corporations and “freedom to” live one’s full life. When he discusses security he stresses cybersecurity and what he considers the “great security issue of our time,” climate change. And he wants to reinvigorate America’s democracy by tackling electoral reform, voting rights, money in politics, and gerrymandering. But Buttigieg’s talk about freedom, security, and democracy comes with a second message: he is young and “it’s time for a new generation of American leadership.” While he said at the July Democratic presidential debate that he doesn’t care how old the candidates are, he deftly finds ways to make the case that his generation didn’t create the problems that America faces but it is the one that can fix them. He is calling for “a fresh start for America” and says he will carry out generational change. He says he is driven “by the awareness that we face not just another presidential election, but a transition between one era and another, a fact of which the current presidency is as much as symptom as a cause. I believe that the next three or four years will determine the next thirty or forty for our country and our world.” Buttigieg’s Foreign Policy Views Back in June, Buttigieg gave a major foreign policy speech at Indiana University. He took pains near the start of the nearly hour-long address to lower expectations by insisting, “I do not aspire to deliver a full Buttigieg Doctrine today.” The mayor was good to his word. The well-crafted, occasionally inspirational speech hit mostly broad themes and generally avoided specific policy questions, such as how he would respond to the threat he says China poses or whether he would seek to revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The thrust of the speech was to make the case for revitalizing American global leadership and the liberal international order, though he didn’t use that phrase. He instead put it this way: “My central purpose is to argue that the world today needs America more than ever—but only if America can be at her best.” If Buttigieg didn’t provide an exact accounting of how America can be at its best or what sacrifices Americans need to make that happen, he did mention a few specifics. He said he would fight to “repeal and replace” the 2001 congressional authorization of the war in Afghanistan that successive presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have used to justify U.S. military counterterrorism operations around the world. (He didn’t say, however, what he would replace it with.) He also vowed to recommit the United States to the Iran nuclear deal, saying that “whatever is imperfections, this was perhaps as close to a true ‘art of the deal’ as it gets.” He likewise vowed to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, noting that he was one of more than four hundred U.S. mayors who had committed their cities to honor the agreement’s goals. Buttigieg has addressed some foreign policy specifics outside of his Indiana University speech. Like pretty much all of his Democratic rivals, he has argued “that there has to be an end to endless war.” Unlike many of his Democratic rivals, however, he hasn’t committed to removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan before the end of his first term. He says that “the hard part is figuring out whether we can get out well, or whether we’re going to get out poorly.” Buttigieg thinks it is unrealistic to expect quick denuclearization in North Korea. He favors instead “striking an initial freeze agreement that would have North Korea cease production of fissile material and end nuclear and missile testing, all verified by international inspectors, in exchange for targeted sanctions relief, which could be reversed if the North Koreans did not uphold their end of the bargain.” He hasn’t said what his alternative would be if Pyongyang isn’t interested in what he has to offer. Buttigieg looks to be seeking middle ground on trade. He opposes rejoining TPP, arguing like most of his Democratic rivals that it “lacks critical trade provisions on labor, environment, and the digital economy, and does not align closely enough with the needs and interests of American workers.” On the other hand, he says it is a “fool’s errand to think that you’re gonna be able to get China to change the fundamentals of their economic model by poking them in the eye with some tariffs.” And he acknowledges that trade can create “good jobs, they pay well” and that it gets blamed for too many of America’s economic woes: “I mean, NAFTA happened a while ago. And a lot of the jobs that were lost then, it would be very hard to bring back no matter what because of automation.” Buttigieg’s solution is to “insist on policies that ensure that working families in cities like mine can play a more appealing role in the story of globalization than the role of victim.” What those policies are remains to be seen. Given Buttigieg’s relative youth and modest government resume, the question of whether he is ready to be commander in chief has come up. He has a ready-made answer: he has “more military experience than anybody who has arrived in that office on day one since George H.W. Bush.” He adds that the fact he was called to active duty in Afghanistan gives him a unique perspective on foreign policy. “It was one thing to learn about foreign policy when I was a student at Oxford, it’s another thing to learn about foreign policy when sent to a war zone on the orders of a president. You understand at a very deep and personal way what is at stake.” Reporters who press Buttigieg on whether a Midwest mayor is prepared to handle international questions should expect pushback. When The View put that question to him, he responded: “I felt pretty involved in international questions when I was deployed to Afghanistan.” More on Buttigieg Buttigieg recently published his first book, Shortest Way Home: One Mayor's Challenge and a Model for America's Future. The Washington Post noticed Buttigieg back in 2014 when it called him “the most interesting mayor you’ve never heard of.” The Washington Post Magazine profiled Buttigieg back in January, describing him as “a combination Boy Scout and lovable dork” and labeling him “the longest of 2020 presidential long shots.” Buttigieg’s appearance at a CNN Town Hall in March helped propel him from unknown small city mayor to the upper half of the Democratic field. New York Magazine followed Buttigieg as he campaigned in April and concluded that even by the standard of presidential candidates he “is still unusually controlled. Even his modulations are the same from speech to speech and interview to interview. In most of them, he uses the phrase “theory of the case,” meaning his belief that defeating Trump—and Trumpism—is a job for someone who understands the folks who put him in office well enough to convince them that there’s another way.”  Buttigieg sat down with Vox back in May to discuss everything from his qualifications to be president to his economic plans to his belief that America should “play a special role” in world politics. Politico Magazine analyzed Buttigieg’s transformation from “a virtual unknown with a puzzling last name and a lane to the presidency that most pundits considered notional at best” to top tier candidate. Politico attributes the rise to Buttigieg’s ability to position himself “as both a groundbreaker and traditionalist, a norm-breaker and rule-follower: He’s an openly gay candidate who proclaims the virtues of marriage; the mayor of a midsized Midwestern city and an Afghanistan combat veteran and practicing Episcopalian who is observant enough that he gave up alcohol for Lent.” The New Yorker explored what it sees as the paradox of the Buttigieg candidacy: “He has placed himself in a performative role, without the benefit of a performative personality.” That is, he comes across “as more prosaic political character—he has a habit of giving answers in numbered sequence, and he uses phrases like ‘pathway to peace.’” The Atlantic thinks that Buttigieg looks more to Harry Truman than to Barack Obama on foreign policy. (Buttigieg named one of his dogs “Truman.”) Last month the New York Times asked why Buttigieg waited until he was thirty-three to come out as gay and concluded that “he may have waited far longer than most young gay men today. But ever the overachiever, he made record time in setting a new bar. In less than four years he went from being single and closeted to being married and out as a gay candidate for president. Buttigieg answered eighteen questions for the New York Times. When he was asked where he would go on his first international trip as president, he answered that he had “probably better become president before finalizing that decision.” CFR asked Buttigieg twelve foreign policy questions. He believes “America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment has been our leadership of global efforts to promote the values that animate our own and other great democracies, to the benefit of the security and freedom of our people.” He thinks that America’s greatest foreign policy mistake “has been the failure to use our leadership more vigorously in key areas of international change: to bend the benefits of globalization more equitably to improving the everyday lives of poor and middle-class citizens, especially women and minorities, in our own and other nations; to combat climate change and nuclear proliferation; and to stand strong against the recent surge of anti-democratic forces around the world.”  Corey Cooper, Elizabeth Lordi, and Aliya Medetbekova assisted with the preparation of this post.  

CFR invited the presidential candidates challenging President Trump in the 2020 election to articulate their positions on twelve critical foreign policy issues. Candidates’ answers are posted exactly as they are received. View all questions here. 1. How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China? China’s oppression of the Uighurs including the detention of a massive number in internment camps is a gross violation of their human rights. A fundamental component of American foreign policy must be to promote human rights and democracy. That means having a president who has the moral authority to encourage our allies to share in the job of speaking up and hold China accountable for these human rights violations. We must speak out about any nation’s abuse of its minority populations or infringement upon the civil liberties of its citizens. The U.S.–China relationship is complex and touches security, trade, human rights and climate change. We need to confront China on both human rights and unfair trade practices, while at the same time pursuing our mutual interests on combatting climate change. A foreign policy that prioritizes working with our partners and allies will put pressure on China to improve its treatment of the Uighurs and ensure that it keeps its word to the people of Hong Kong. 2. Would you rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? What changes to the existing agreement, if any, would you require before agreeing to rejoin the accord? Yes. I would rejoin the JCPOA, if it is still an option by January 2021. A nuclear Iran would further destabilize the entire Middle East and we must prevent it. I would work closely with our European allies and collaborate towards our common goal of a non-nuclear Iran and a Middle East that can work toward peace and prosperity without the constant threat of nuclear conflict. 3. Would you sign an agreement with North Korea that entailed partial sanctions relief in exchange for some dismantling of its nuclear weapons program but not full denuclearization?  Any agreement with North Korea must include credible commitments – and verifiable progress - toward significant reductions in its nuclear weapons arsenal. North Korea is an irresponsible    regime whose nuclear capabilities pose a threat to not only the security of the United States and our allies, but to every nation around the globe. A nuclear North Korea would pose an immediate and existential threat to our security if left unchecked, and that’s why we must work with our regional allies to ensure that this situation is properly monitored and managed. While President Trump has legitimized the Kim regime in North Korea and on the international stage without anything in return, I would work to ensure that North Korea provides more than hollow promises but demonstrates real progress towards denuclearization. 4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? Russia’s unwarranted and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine demonstrates its lack of regard for the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors and the extent to which it is willing to go to maintain its so-called “sphere of influence.” Such action has set a dangerous precedent for several of our allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and we must work closely with these allies to ensure that they have the necessary military capabilities to deter future Russian aggression. We must coordinate with our NATO allies to ensure there is adequate military preparation and readiness in the case of such an incident, particularly in the Baltic region. Simultaneously, we must also continue, in coordination with our allies and partners, effective sanctions against entities connected to the ongoing occupations of Crimea and the Donbas to make it explicitly clear to Russia that its unlawful infringements of Ukrainian sovereignty is unsustainable and counter to its long-term interests. 5. Would you commit to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of your first term, or would you require certain conditions be met before doing so? There are young men and women entering military service this year who weren’t even born on 9/11. We’ve been entangled in the region for too long, and it’s time to reassess our posture. I want our brave servicemembers to come home as soon as possible. The only way to end the Afghan war in a meaningful and lasting way that respects the sacrifices of our service members will be through diplomacy, and I’ll do everything in my power to make that happen by the end of my first term. We must also ensure that this solution would also uphold fundamental human rights, such as women’s rights, and the rights of minorities, and that they will be respected after we depart. 6. Given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the civil war in Yemen, what changes, if any, would you make to U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia? The Trump Administration has not held Saudi Arabia accountable either for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi or its conduct of the war in Yemen. While the U.S. has important interests in its relationship with Saudi Arabia, it does not serve U.S. interests to allow the Saudis to act with impunity against its own citizens or in Yemen. There needs to be a credible investigation of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the U.S. should press the Saudis to improve press freedom and the treatment of journalists. The U.S. should stop its direct support for Saudi Arabia’s reckless war in Yemen, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians with millions on the verge of starvation. Our priorities must be to facilitate the peace process between the warring parties and to deliver humanitarian aid and relief to the people of Yemen. 7. Do you support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, if so, how would you go about trying to achieve it? I support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict which would provide Israel with security and the Palestinian people with a better future. Under the Trump Administration, efforts to reach a two-state solution have reached a standstill as the U.S. negotiating team does not have credibility with both parties. I would use the fresh start of a new Administration to reinvigorate efforts to get Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table and consult closely with regional partners whose support would be necessary to implement a final status agreement. 8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? Venezuela has gone from one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America to one of the poorest due to decades of governmental incompetence, corruption, and indifference towards the suffering of its own people. Maduro is a dictator whose regime has lost legitimacy in the eyes of both the Venezuelan people and the world. His corruption and abuse of human rights are completely unacceptable. The U.S. must support Juan Guaidó as the Provisional President of Venezuela and his National Assembly colleagues as they advance a constitutional transition that includes new elections and the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. As part of that support, the U.S. must work closely with our allies and partners to apply diplomatic and economic pressure on the Maduro regime in order to facilitate that transition. 9. By 2050, Africa will account for 25 percent of the world’s population according to projections by the United Nations. What are the implications of this demographic change for the United States, and how should we adjust our policies to anticipate them? Many African nations are still embroiled in poverty, sectarian violence, and the inability to provide basic services to its citizens. Africa is also the continent with the largest youth population on the planet. The U.S. must provide African nations with the tools they need to meet this impending demographic challenge. The U.S. should work to foster entrepreneurship programs and encourage the growth of locally-owned and operated businesses to ensure that there will be employment opportunities available come 2050. Additionally, the U.S. should encourage governments across the continent to make the necessary reforms in sectors such as governance and the rule of law, so that their countries can be stable places for foreign direct investment and to increase the economic opportunities of a quarter of the world’s future population. 10. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I will not sign any free trade agreement that doesn’t require high labor standards, leverage improved environmental conservation, and that isn’t accompanied by significant efforts to ensure that American workers are not left behind. By those standards, I would not have entered the TPP as it was originally written. If the agreement were improved, I would consider joining the CPTPP under the right circumstances. Before joining the CPTPP, I would seek enforceable environmental and labor standards. Additionally, joining an effective CPTPP has the potential to be an important element of a comprehensive U.S. strategy for pushing back against growing Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region and globally. 11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries? The more important thing we need to do is return to the Paris Agreement so we can be part of the international elements of climate change solutions. We simply can’t lead if we are not a part of the Agreement. The World Bank has predicted that 143 million people would be internally displaced without action, just in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Building more coal plants in these countries is not the answer. Instead we must work with the IPCC and other multi-lateral organizations to promote international investments in energy production that are balanced with carbon capture and re-use, re-forestation, and other strategies that will bring other nations toward our shared priority of carbon-neutrality by 2050 at the latest. Fifty years ago, American ingenuity put a man on the moon – a feat no other country has matched. Today, America can and will lead the way in solving the challenge of climate change. In my administration, Commerce, Energy, State, and the Export-Import Bank all will play a larger role globally in helping other countries to consider and adopt U.S.-engineered carbon-free energy technologies. 12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? The greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II has been the construction of the post-war liberal world order through our establishment of a system of alliances and institutions. It was this U.S.-led order that facilitated a peaceful end to the Cold War and created an international economic system that has led to unprecedented flourishing. This system has proven its resilience over the past 70 years and has been an indispensable tool for ensuring global peace and prosperity. As President, I will continue to invest in this system and work closely with our allies to further its legacy. The greatest mistake of American foreign policy since the end of WWII has been the Iraq War. This conflict was started based on the naïve belief that the U.S. could overthrow a regime in the Middle East and democracy would naturally ensue. Rather than a stable democratic regime in Iraq, this war produced a massive amount of instability in an already volatile region. This conflict, which was initiated without all but one of our allies, was doomed from the start. The U.S. sacrificed over a trillion dollars and over 4,500 lives for virtually nothing in return. As President, I will ensure that we work closely with our allies and not take such drastic and unnecessary unilateral actions.   This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates