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? To address complex global challenges—climate change chief among them—we need smart, principled engagement with China. But we don’t do ourselves, or our relationship with China, any favors by not being forthright about our core values. Chinese oppression of the Uighur minority is a human rights disaster, and the United States should not only be condemning their detention and surveillance, but should be leading an international effort to pressure China to relent. Likewise, the people of Hong Kong should have no doubt about where we, as Americans, stand in their struggle to preserve democracy against increasing efforts by the Chinese government to undermine it.  These issues are not—and should not be seen as—separate from other strategic interests we pursue in the broader relationship with China. Our values are assets, not liabilities, in the global competitive environment. Indeed, we are more likely to achieve our other objectives with China when China upholds its human rights obligations, including its promises to respect Hong Kong’s independence.  Navigating the wide range of trade, security, climate, and human rights interests we have with China requires skillful and patient diplomacy, something that is sorely lacking in the current administration. Like all nations, China will act in a way that it believes is consistent with its interests. As President, I will seek to engage China around mutual interests, like climate change, where our countries should be cooperating to build the global green economy.    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, as President, I will rejoin the JCPOA, conditioned on Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the agreement. President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA was short-sighted, reckless, and against the recommendations of both the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities. The nuclear agreement was not perfect—no negotiated agreement can be—but it significantly advanced American interests and was succeeding in blocking Iran’s pathway to achieving nuclear capability. Moreover, our sudden withdrawal has made the United States and our allies less safe and weakened our credibility as a good-faith negotiator for subsequent dealings with Iran and other regimes.  As President, I will reverse these policies. I will restore US credibility, and use the agreement as a starting point for future negotiations, along with our allies, aimed at reigning in Iran’s most destabilizing behavior in the region, limiting Iran’s ballistic missile capability, and ensuring that Iran never becomes a nuclear weapon state.  President Trump’s reckless and cavalier saber-rattling is moving us closer to a military confrontation with the Iranian regime. As President, I will put an end to this irresponsible approach. I will work with our allies in Europe and in the region to tackle the serious challenges posed by the Iranian regime and restore our commitment to the hard work of diplomacy. 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 nuclear negotiations process with North Korea should be judged by its ability to deliver verifiable progress toward eliminating the regime’s nuclear weapons program. By that metric, President Trump’s policy has been a complete failure. In return for providing Kim Jong Un with the propaganda and legitimacy that comes with multiple presidential summits, President Trump has gotten nothing for the United States. North Korea’s nuclear stockpile continues to grow. It continues to fire missiles into the Sea of Japan. Even the delivery of American Korean War veteran remains has come to a stop. As President, I would be open to a deal that provided partial sanctions relief for a partial rollback of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. But for such an agreement to be in America’s interest, North Korea would have to commit to a mutually agreeable definition of denuclearization, vigorous international inspections, and provide a full accounting of its nuclear program. Any sanctions relief would have to have strong “snap back” provisions. In all these efforts, I will place a high value on working with our allies in the region, South Korea and Japan, each of which shares our interest in a peaceful and denuclearized peninsula. 4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine violated the post-World War II international consensus that states cannot expand their territory through military force. In addition to Russia’s direct military aggression against Ukraine, Russia continues to try to destabilize Ukraine through disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and threatening its energy supply. By cozying up to Putin and running down NATO, President Trump invites this kind of hostile behavior from Russia.  As President, I will support Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself against Russian aggression. Key among those efforts is helping Ukraine build institutions that will stabilize its democracy. A free and prosperous Ukraine sitting on Russia’s doorstep would not only better deter Putin’s aggression, it would undermine the political narrative Putin relies on for power. The Ukrainian people and their newly-elected government have an opportunity now to adopt reforms that will strengthen the legal, economic, and political architecture supporting democratic progress—and root out corruption—for the long haul. As President, I will encourage these steps and will leverage American finance, particularly through the promotion of renewables, to help Ukraine become energy independent from Russia. Finally, we now know that Putin has used Ukraine as a laboratory to test disinformation and cyber tactics that it later deploys elsewhere, including in the US. I will be prepared to sanction Russian officials who engage in activities aimed at undermining American democracy, and I will place a high priority on safeguarding our elections by investing in cybersecurity systems and risk-limiting audits for ballots. 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? Yes, I will commit to withdrawing all U.S. service members by the end of my first term. Seventeen years into America’s longest war, we are no closer to achieving our original objectives than we were in the beginning. Enemy-initiated attacks are on the rise, as are Afghan military and civilian casualties. Corruption and poppy production are stubbornly persistent.  The status quo approach to Afghanistan—including our current deployment of 14,000 troops—is not serving America’s interests. It is time for a fundamental change. As President, I will be committed to a new approach to Afghanistan, one that responsibly ends our military operations there and shifts our priorities to bringing all parties to the table, putting the Afghan people in the driver’s seat to envision their own future.  There is no question that withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan poses risks, and our plan—including the timing of when and how to bring Americans home—must be part of a broader risk management strategy. Working with our allies and partners, I will phase troop withdrawal to minimize known risks, while at the same time doing what we can to ensure a sustainable peace, including prioritizing participation by Afghan women in the peace process and reintegrating former fighters into the new Afghan society. 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? Trump’s failure to impose consequences for the murder of a U.S. resident, his refusal to comply with a congressionally-mandated review of Saudi behavior, and his veto of bipartisan legislation that would have blocked arms sales, have given the Saudis latitude to set a new normal in the bilateral relationship in which the range of American interests is reduced to maintaining the kingdom as a consumer of American weapons.  This must change. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia should be grounded in a clear expression of American interests and values. Otherwise, the Saudis will continue to believe that our security relationship is a blank check for their destabilizing behavior—fueling war and a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, kidnapping the prime minister of a sovereign nation, assassinating an American resident. These abhorrent actions—not U.S. forthrightness about its values—weaken the bilateral relationship and threaten the international community.  As President, I will call for an end to the repression of women’s rights activists, impose Global Magnitsky Act sanctions on those responsible for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, respond to the clearly-articulated desire of the American people to end US involvement in the war in Yemen and halt arms sales to the kingdom until it commits to a cessation of hostilities and peace negotiations. A constructive US-Saudi relationship is worth preserving, but only if Riyadh is willing to engage in a significant course correction. 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? A two-state solution that realizes the aspirations of the Palestinian people and addresses Israel’s legitimate security concerns is the only way to guarantee peace and the human rights and dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians. Our strong relationship with Israel is key to achieving that outcome, and as President, I will support and sustain it.  Leaders on both sides continue to take steps that make negotiating a two-state solution more difficult, including Netanyahu’s embrace of the far-right in Israel and Abbas’ ineffectual leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Ultimately, peace will require bold and principled leadership from both parties. But the United States also has an indispensable role to play. Far from fulfilling that role, President Trump’s reckless and inflammatory actions have added fuel to the fire. As President, I will leverage the unique position of the United States in the region to cultivate a foundation on which negotiations can take place. That will include holding both sides accountable for unjustified acts of violence, whether it be rocket attacks from Gaza, or disproportionate use of force from Israel. Palestinians and Israelis have the right—and deserve the opportunity—to live lives free from violence and depredation. In my administration, I will prioritize rebuilding the foundation for the best way to achieve that outcome: a two-state solution.  8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? Venezuela has collapsed. The illegitimate regime of Nicolás Maduro has plunged the Venezuelan people into a nightmare of chaos and deprivation; more than four million of whom have fled because they cannot survive at home. As President, I will take urgent action to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and work with regional allies to support a lasting solution to Venezuela’s political and economic collapse.  First, I will reverse the Trump administration’s politicization of humanitarian aid, which has prevented support from reaching Venezuelans who need it most, particularly women and children. By supporting the efforts of neutral humanitarian agencies like the International Committee of the Red Cross to deliver life-saving food, medicine, and protection, we will ensure that aid reaches the most vulnerable. I will also immediately grant Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans already in the United States, something President Trump has refused to do. Second, to foster a democratic transition away from the Maduro regime to Juan Guaido, the legitimate president under the Venezuelan constitution, I will support efforts by opposition and regime officials to negotiate a political settlement, while using targeted measures like asset seizure and supporting criminal indictments to increase pressure on regime officials. To reverse Venezuela’s economic collapse, I will lead an international effort to provide financial assistance to stabilize the post-Maduro Venezuelan economy and enable the Venezuelan people to rebuild their lives.    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 implications of population growth in Africa and elsewhere will be shaped by the changes in climate that have already begun. These changes will have a profound impact on the continent. From rising sea levels, to the expansion of deserts like the Sahara, climate change is altering where and how populations can safely live. Africa’s young, growing population will be forced to confront the effects of climate change. When population centers become uninhabitable, we will witness significant migration and perhaps the biggest set of refugee crises the world has ever seen. Moreover, the wealth in these countries will become more limited and a host of other issues, including violent fights for resources, may arise. Population growth will only exacerbate these conflicts. We have already seen the consequences of violence and instability abroad impacting our southern border, and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to mitigate future crises. As President, I will mobilize $5 trillion to combat climate change by investing in innovation, our infrastructure, and our communities. I will also take bold steps to cut pollution and reach the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. And working with the international community, I will re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond. 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? The United States should only enter trade agreements that benefit American workers and consumers. As President, I will not support joining the CPTPP unless we are able to negotiate substantial improvements to protect workers, the environment, and human rights.  I will also demand that any agreement include effective enforcement mechanisms. 11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries?  The best way for the United States to confront climate change is through an ambitious national project at home and by rejoining the Paris Climate Accords to spur a clean energy transition abroad. The United States should lead by example, showing other countries it is not only viable, but economically advantageous, to make transformative investments in green energy. That’s why I have proposed a comprehensive, $5 trillion plan to fight climate change through investment in infrastructure, innovation, and American workers and communities. We cannot credibly call upon developing nations to reduce climate emissions unless we do the same.  But many countries need more than an example from the United States. They need technical and financial assistance to transition away from fossil fuels. While developing countries contribute the least to climate change, they have the least financial capacity to mitigate its catastrophic effects. Instead of leading the world in a green energy transition, President Trump has gutted U.S. funding for institutions like the Green Climate Fund and Global Environmental Facility - programs that are crucial to helping developing countries shift to sustainable energy. As President, I will restore assistance to these vital institutions and reestablish American leadership in the global fight against climate change. 12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? The pinnacle of American leadership in foreign affairs was our role in shaping the global order following World War II. Having defeated the greatest threat to peace the world has ever known, our leadership in developing institutions to secure peace like the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system, our commitment to rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan, and the creation of NATO helped to ensure that the second half of the 20th century was among the most peaceful and economically beneficial periods in world history. As President, I will be committed to replicating the successes of our past by investing in aid to regions like Central America to promote peace and economic growth and reaffirming our commitment to NATO in the face of increased Russian aggression. Our greatest foreign policy mistake was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The negative consequences of that war have been lasting and profound. The decision to topple Saddam Hussein and our occupation of Iraq damaged our alliances and cost nearly 4,500 American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, all while making our country less safe. The vacuum created by toppling Hussein led to the spread of al-Qaeda, and later, ISIL over significant portions of the country, which left us further entangled in a quagmire of our own creation. As President, I will end our “forever wars,” repair our strained relationships with our traditional allies, and make the decision to put our service members in harm’s way only when absolutely necessary.    This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates

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? The treatment of the Uighurs in China is unacceptable, and we need to be a part of the chorus of voices across the world calling the situation out for what it is. It’s also troubling to see China take a more aggressive stance throughout the region, whether towards Hong Kong, Taiwan, or in the South China Sea. China obviously has great ambition, and their system of government is becoming increasingly authoritarian as they develop more technologies that allow them to monitor and control their population. It’s important that we work with our allies to combat the spread of this authoritarian capitalism, and provide a model for democratic capitalism. By providing a model and engaging in international work to help developing nations, we can show the world a better way to engage in governing their nations. We should help developing nations to liberalize, and work with them to diversify their economies. Trade and exporting US technologies to these countries can help us build alliances throughout the world as more countries modernize and liberalize. We need to make sure China isn’t stealing our IP or exporting their authoritarianism to other countries, and we must ensure that we have reliable access to rare earth metals. But the current trade war is just hurting both sides. An ascendant China isn’t a direct threat to the United States, as long as we are strong at home and project that confidence to developing nations, to show them a superior path to the one China is offering. 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? Iran is a destabilizing force in the region, and the JCPOA gave us both short-term victories in stabilizing the region through minimizing their influence, and inroads to further discussion to find a solution that would work over a longer period. Leaving the JCPOA was a massive strategic mistake, and one that only served to increase the likelihood of armed conflict in the country. The American people have no desire for armed conflict with Iran, which would lead to another multi-decade engagement that would spread throughout the region and have no clear benefit for the American people. We need to work with our allies that are still party to the agreement to negotiate a new JCPOA, with longer terms and delayed deadlines to reflect the time wasted with Trump and Bolton’s posturing. We need to get Iran back in compliance with the limitations placed on them under the agreement on nuclear materials and enrichment capabilities. Then, we need to build on the agreement to get Iran to stop destabilizing the region, attacking our allies, funding terrorist organizations, and causing conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. 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?  Yes. You can’t find solutions to problems if you’re not willing to talk. I would engage with North Korea without preconditions in order to find a path towards complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. We can’t leave any options off the table, and we need to accept incremental gains in order to reach our eventual goal. 4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine? Russian aggression in Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law, and we have the obligation to work with our allies to act. We need to echo the chorus of our allies in stating that Russia must return to its borders, and we won’t recognize any expansion they have into neighboring territories. Russian aggression is a destabilizing force, and we must work with our allies to project a strong and unified face against Russian expansionism. Even though Ukraine is not a NATO member, that relationship is an important one, and I’d work with our NATO allies to reaffirm and expand our security coordination with Ukraine. It was encouraging to hear Pres. Zelensky’s words during his visit to NATO headquarters. Helping Ukraine will also help us prepare for Russian aggression. The Russian interference in Ukrainian elections was a precursor to their interference in US elections. By helping neighboring states to Russia defend themselves, we’re also learning how to defend ourselves. Finally, we need to expand sanctions against Russia, and Putin and members of his government specifically through the Global Magnitsky Act, in order to pressure the country to play by international rules. 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? America has been in a constant state of war for over 18 years. We have people who can vote in elections who have known nothing but war. We need to do everything in our power to end our current conflicts and prevent ourselves from getting embroiled in future open-ended conflicts with no clear benefit to the US. That’s why I’ve signed the pledge to End the Forever Wars. The US people are sick of paying trillions of dollars and seeing thousands die without feeling any safer. We need to get our combat troops out of Afghanistan. By utilizing our diplomatic options, we can bring our troops home during my first term. However, we have to continue our involvement in order to ensure that the rights of individuals - in particular, women and young girls - are protected, and that terrorist organizations can’t reform and organize within the borders. We can do this through helping the country to diversify its economy and maintaining diplomatic ties. 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 off, the United States should be providing no aid to Saudi Arabia in its assault on Yemen. It’s creating a humanitarian crisis that ranks amongst the worst of all time. We should end all support for this situation - logistics, arms sales, refueling efforts, intelligence. The United States must take action against Saudi Arabia given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. That violent and illegal action against someone living in the United States must not go unanswered. It also hints at the larger conflict of values between our two countries. While we must be pragmatic in our foreign policy in recognizing that we will often have to deal with countries that have bad values, we should also be sure to always let our values lead us. A reset of the relationship with Saudi Arabia under this understanding would prevent us from getting involved in another conflict like the one in Yemen by centering our diplomacy around our values and ideals. 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? The only acceptable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves a two-state solution that allows both the Israeli and Palestinian people to have sovereign land and self-determination. Israel has been an important ally to the US, and it will continue to be an important ally. It is a democracy in a region where that is rare. I disagree with some of the policies of the current Israeli administration, but I believe the relationship is fundamentally strong and will continue to be. I don’t want to prescribe the specifics of a two-state solution, as the Israeli and Palestinian people both need to be leading any conversation, and I look forward to engaging with all stakeholders to come up with confidence-building measures, such as a ceasefire and an end to the expansion of settlements, as we look towards building a sustainable peace. Coming together to provide aid to those suffering in Gaza can also be an opportunity for all parties to work together to handle a humanitarian crisis that is causing untold suffering. The US should also restore our USAID programs for Palestinians that have been ended by this administration. 8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela? The United States must promote free and fair elections in Venezuela to determine their next leader. The most recent elections were obviously marred by fraud, intimidation, and voter suppression. While Maduro’s actions of undermining democracy are inexcusable, we should not get embroiled in military action to remove him from power. The United States must push with our allies for Maduro to step down, through diplomacy, and through sanctions targeted at Maduro and his supporters. We must also work with Guaido, and with him consider amnesty for some of Maduro’s military support to entice them to support Guaido as President of the National Assembly and interim President. We should continue to support the Venezuelan people with humanitarian aid, and also assist our regional allies in dealing with the crisis of the massive number of refugees. And we should signal that we will provide aid to Venezuela after a transition to a new and democratically elected government. 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? Africa’s youth population is driving the adoption of new technologies at awesome speeds. Cell phones are now prevalent on a continent where wired phones never took hold. Adopting renewable energy now will allow Africa to avoid the shortfalls that come from having a centralized grid. The United States should serve as a partner to the African nations. We should be driven by the motto “African solutions for African problems.” We should facilitate American entrepreneurs to partner with African entrepreneurs in technology - especially energy, agriculture, civil society, and beyond. We need to ensure that the African nations view the United States as an ally and model. We can also learn a lot from the continent, as they’re adopting technologies that aren’t in widespread use in the US and we can see their impact and push to adopt the ones that have the largest benefits. We also must recognize that China is heavily investing in African infrastructure and technology, oftentimes exploiting natural resources with no tangible benefit for the local communities. We need to outcompete China in technological advancement, economic growth, and in the establishment of sustainable social and environmental practices. We need to restructure our trade agreements to offer attractive investment opportunity and to expand markets: by going beyond manufacturing and goods to include services, intellectual property, fair labor practices, and sustainable environment standards. 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? Trade deals have inarguably hurt a large number of Americans. By outsourcing American jobs - particularly manufacturing jobs to China - we’ve devastated communities and placed large amounts of financial stress on families. However, studies show that only 20% of manufacturing job loss is due to trade with China. The other 80% can be attributed to automation. While we need to take steps to ensure that our trade deals work for all Americans, automation is the bigger threat. I would reenter the TPP in conjunction with policies to ensure the benefits are widely shared, like a VAT, border-adjustment tax, and the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income of $1,000/month for all American adults. We need to increase our influence and alliances across the Pacific, so I believe we need to either enter the TPP, or negotiate a similar deal to combat the rising influence of China in the region. We should take this opportunity to renegotiate labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property and data protection, specifically in the tech sector. 11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries? The first step to any action on climate change is to rejoin the Paris Accords so that we have the moral authority and allies in order to fight the existential threat that is climate change. In order to combat the development of fossil fuel power expanding to developing countries, we have to provide a viable alternative. China is currently using its Belt and Road Initiative to invest in projects in developing nations to create economic and cultural bonds between their countries; we have to provide a cleaner and more democratic alternative. Climate change, while a threat, is also a massive opportunity for the United States to regain its position as an innovator while relocating the energy sector within our borders. By providing grants, investments, and tax incentives, we can develop clean energy and carbon capture technologies, and then help the rest of the world get their energy from clean, American-made sources. The whole world should be using US solar panels, turbines, and other renewable technologies. By engaging in this work, we can not only make the world cleaner and more sustainable, but we can develop relationships with developing countries and push them towards a more democratic future. 12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake? Global economic development has been our greatest foreign policy accomplishment. This success started with the Marshall Plan, providing billions in economic aid to rehabilitate European economies regardless of which side of the war the countries fought on. This initiative resulted in the promotion of free trade, modern technologies, the spread of democracy, and stronger allies to partner with the US in our global initiatives. We have continued to promote sustainable economic development across the globe by working closing with and empowering international development organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. When our global initiatives promote open markets, in turn, we promote freedom everywhere. The biggest mistake was not investing in and becoming a global leader in renewable energy technology. Climate change is a destabilizing force in a world that could use more stability. A lot of our primary antagonists have economies based largely on oil exports, and the sale of oil has also been used to fund terrorism. Infrastructure programs focusing on energy generation have allowed other countries - especially China - to form relationships with countries, often by exporting dirty energy technology. If the United States had invested heavily in renewables over the past few decades and engaged in an aggressive policy of exporting it to the rest of the world, particularly developing nations, we could have slowed or reversed climate change, cut off a funding source for regimes that we’ve ended up fighting wars with, and made it much harder for terrorist organizations to fund themselves.   This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. View All Candidates

Update: Tim Ryan announced on October 24, 2019, that he was ending his campaign. Niles, Ohio, is one of the few places in the United States that can say it is the birthplace of a president. America’s twenty-fifth president, William McKinley, was born and raised in the town, which is located just northwest of Youngstown. If Tim Ryan gets his way, Niles will become the birthplace of two American presidents. The Democratic presidential candidate was born in Niles one hundred and thirty years after McKinley. One downside for the town in having a second presidential son would be finding a way to recognize the accomplishment. Niles already has a monument to McKinley, a replica of the house he grew up in, and a public library and high school named after him. The Basics Name: Timothy John Ryan Date of Birth: July 16, 1973 Place of Birth: Niles, Ohio Religion: Roman Catholic Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Married (Andrea Zetts) Children: Brady (4); Stepchildren: Mason (16) and Bella (15) Alma Mater: Bowling Green State University (BS); University of New Hampshire School of Law (JD) Career: Lawyer; Ohio State Senator (2001-2002); U.S. Representative (2003-present) Campaign Website: https://timryanforamerica.com/ Twitter Handle: @TimRyan Ryan’s Announcement Tim Ryan announced his candidacy on ABC’s “The View,” where he said he is running as someone who speaks to the problems of rural and Rust Belt America. He distinguished himself from President Trump by saying that the president “wants to go back to the old economy; he’s talking about old steel mills and old coal mines. I am saying where are our kids going to work and how do we come together.” Ryan released a video introducing his candidacy. It highlights how he grew up in a factory town and how his family members worked in factories. He says that “a lot of people have been left behind” in America and that he wants “to be there for them.” He adds that Americans “aren’t looking for liberal solutions or conservative solutions, they’re asking for real-world solutions.” The announcement video didn’t mention foreign policy. Ryan’s Story Ryan’s parents divorced when he was seven and he was raised by his mother, who was a courthouse worker. He was the star quarterback at John F. Kennedy High School in Warren, Ohio. He went to Youngstown State University to play football, but a knee injury derailed that plan. He transferred to Bowling Green University with the aim of becoming a teacher. But then he landed an internship in Washington, DC, and his career plans turned toward politics. He earned his law degree from the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Ryan worked as an aide to Ohio Democratic Congressman James Traficant in the 1990s. Ryan then returned home and won a seat in the Ohio state senate. In 2002, Traficant was expelled from the House after his conviction on bribery and racketeering charges. Ryan saw his opportunity. He defeated several better known candidates on his way to winning Traficant’s old seat. He credits his opposition to NAFTA as a major factor in his victory. Ryan was just twenty-nine when he was elected. He has won reelection seven times since. He is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He chairs the Legislative Branch subcommittee and is a member of the Defense and Military Construction subcommittees. He was previously a member of the Armed Services Committee. Ryan made a name for himself in 2016 when he unsuccessfully challenged Nancy Pelosi to be the House Democratic Leader. After the 2018 midterm elections, he initially opposed Pelosi’s bid to return as House Speaker. That challenge failed as well and he ended up voting for her. Ryan says he has challenged Pelosi because he is tired of Democrats losing legislative seats and he thinks that the Democratic House leadership needs more Midwestern representation. Ryan’s Message Ryan is positioning himself as the defender of America’s forgotten workers. He says that he decided to run for president when his daughter told him, “You have to do something” after her friend’s father lost his job when the local GM factory shutdown. (He has also told a version of the story in which the plant closure forced the friend’s father to transfer jobs.) He believes that a mix of bad policies and neglect has “destroyed the middle-class, forcing our economy into crisis and pushing the American Dream out of reach.” He wants to change that. Ryan calls himself a “reform-minded Democrat.” He believes in free-enterprise and argues that “the progressive agenda is what’s best for working families.” He is confident that most progressives will see him as someone who can win the Midwestern states necessary to beat Trump. He also sees himself as a uniter—“a leader with the courage, strength, and experience to put partisan politics aside.” Ryan believes that there is a “quiet revolution happening in our country” and that if we “put our shoulder into it, it’s going to happen.” Ryan’s Foreign Policy Views Given Ryan’s focus on rejuvenating industrial and rural America, it’s not surprising that he frequently talks about the economic challenge that China poses to the United States. In the first Democratic debate back in June, his answer to the question of the biggest geopolitical challenge facing the United States was “China, without a question. They’re wiping us around the world, economically.” Elsewhere he said that China is “cleaning our clock” and taking it to America around the globe: China is coming at us. They are in Africa. They are locking down long-term deals in Africa for raw materials. They’re building islands in the South China Sea. They’ve got very detailed, long-term programs like their One Belt, One Road, where they’re connecting Asia to the Middle East. They’ve got a Make It In China 2025, where they’re really trying to take over manufacturing in the world. They’re investing hundreds of billions of dollars in artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing, wind, solar, high-speed rail. And we aren’t even acting like we’re in a competition with them. How does Ryan propose to turn back the China challenge? To begin with, he supports Trump’s use of tariffs because “China's been cheating for years, and they've been dumping products artificially, lowered the prices…And it's wiping out steel across the country, not to mention what they do with intellectual property and a variety of other things.” But while Ryan wants to be as tough as possible as he can on China, he also said that “we don't want a trade war.” He hasn’t explained how his use of tariffs would be more effective than Trump’s or produce less collateral damage for the industries he is trying to help. Ryan has been clear, however, on what he wouldn’t do to meet the China challenge—join a revised version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes it “has been negotiated under the cover of darkness, it does nothing to protect American workers or lift the standards of workers abroad and further erodes sovereign protections that countries have to hold companies accountable for bad actions abroad.” Ryan criticizes the Trump administration for not having a long-term strategy to compete with China, saying “you go to China, they have their defense department, their infrastructure plan, their soft power plan within the context of their state department. You look at their research, you look at their development. Everything is pushing in one direction on how do you dominate industries. And right now we have no plan.” Ryan hasn’t outlined what his plan would look like let alone present an integrated set of policies that link means to costs to objectives. However, he has praised now former Secretary of Defense James Mattis for putting together “really the only comprehensive long-term plan for acquisition, technology, and readiness within, and creating a lethal force within the National Defense Strategy.” Ryan sees “having people in the State Department” and “having a long-term, sophisticated, diplomatic operation, being in touch with China, continuing to talk to them and having a relationship with them in the long term” as part of the solution. He goes on to say that “having an economic strategy of our own in that region of the world, making sure that we are competing globally, we're not retreating from, you know, NATO and our relationships that we have militarily and diplomatically in that region, and letting our friends and allies know that we are going to be with them and compete in this global economy” is essential and that “there's none of that going on right now in the Trump administration.” Ryan supports Trump’s efforts to increase defense spending because that “funding helps us keep our position as a leader on the world stage.” He also favors getting America’s allies to spend more on their own defense, and sees it as a way to reduce U.S. defense costs: People say well, what the hell do we need to be friends with this country or that country. Well, if you peel the onion back one layer, you realize well, they’ve got five submarines and they help us in Iraq, and they help us in Syria, and they help us here and they help us there. Those are costs and expenses we don’t have to incur, because we have friends. And so yeah, we’ve got to build more submarines, because we are falling behind. But we also have to make sure we keep those relationships with our allies, because we utilize their material and their weapon systems, too. Ryan attributes the surge of migrants and refugees along the U.S.-Mexico border to Trump’s “laziness,” saying that the president “has failed to address the issues in Central America…He doesn’t read his presidential daily briefing. He ignored this problem. We want presidents to deal with the root of the problems. Central America is a mess and we are doing nothing to stabilize that region.” Climate change doesn’t come up in Ryan’s public remarks as much as it does with many other Democratic presidential candidates. He believes that to meet the challenge “we need the magic and innovation of our free enterprise system to be a big part of this.” He is optimistic that if we “align the environmental incentives with the financial incentives, that we can actually do it a lot quicker than most people think.” Ryan parts ways with many of his Democratic rivals when it comes to U.S. troop deployments overseas. In the first Democratic debate, he supported maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He acknowledged that “nobody likes it” and that “it’s long. It’s tedious.” But he argued that if the United States retreated “the Taliban will grow. And they will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts.” He does hope, however, to bring the bulk of U.S. combat troops home from Afghanistan by the end of his first term in office. Ryan supported the Trump administration’s airstrikes against Syria in 2017 and 2018. He described the attacks as sending a “message that our nation and our allies will not stand by while international law is broken by the use of chemical weapons against innocent men, women, and children.” He nonetheless has criticized the president for not consulting with Congress about the strikes and for not having developed a strategy for dealing with Damascus. One U.S. military operation Ryan opposes is support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. He believes that the United States “cannot continue to be complicit in the killing of innocents and we cannot be tied to crimes of the Saudi government.” Ryan missed the votes the House held in February and in April calling for an end to the U.S. support for the Yemen operation. Ryan supported the Obama administration’s decision to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. He has criticized Trump for exiting the agreement, calling his decision “completely reckless.” However, he doesn’t think it is possible to re-enter the agreement as is. He wants to negotiate a new version of the deal that “extends restrictions even further into the future." More broadly, Ryan believes that costs of withdrawing from the world outweigh the costs of having an active presence in it: “We must have our State Department engaged. We must have our military engaged to the extent they need to be. But the reality of it is, this president doesn't even have people appointed in the State Department to deal with these things, whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan. We've got to be completely engaged.” More on Ryan Ryan has two books to his credit. A proponent of meditation, he wrote a book originally published in 2012 and titled A Mindful Nation. It was re-released in 2018 as Healing America: How a Simple Practice Can Help Us Recapture the American Spirit. His second book, released in 2014, was The Real Food Revolution: Healthy Eating, Green Groceries, and the Return of the American Family Farm. It promotes healthy eating. POLITICO Magazine profiled Ryan last year, pointing out that roughly forty-five thousand of Ryan’s supporters in 2016 also voted for Trump. Ryan attributes this to their similar stances on China and their willingness to take on the establishment. Time Magazine noted that Ryan has been a member of the NRA and opposed abortion rights during his career and concluded that “he is banking his potential in booting Trump from the White House will be more important that deviations from what is now party orthodoxy.” In a second piece, Time Magazine explored his chances of winning the nomination, saying that “the party is fielding its most diverse group of contenders in history, including firebrands, pioneers and coalition builders,” which leaves little room for a “little-known Midwestern Congressman who was against abortion rights until 2015 and has made rebuilding the party’s connection with blue collar voters the centerpiece of his campaign.” Ryan answered eighteen questions for the New York Times earlier this summer. One of the questions was where he would take his first international trip. His answer? “Europe.” CFR asked Ryan twelve foreign policy questions. He cited the creation of “a world order that has led to the proliferation of democracy, democratic ideals and the raised standard of living for every human being alive today” as America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment” since World War II and “moves since 9/11 including the war in Iraq” as the biggest mistake.  Corey Cooper, Brenden Ebertz, Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.

Update: Kirsten Gillibrand announced on August 28, 2019, that she was ending her campaign. It has been a while since Americans have elected successive presidents from the same state. Not since November 2, 1880, in fact.* That’s when Republican James A. Garfield of Ohio won the right to succeed fellow Republican and Ohioan Rutherford B. Hayes. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand hopes to break that streak next November 3, one hundred and fifty years and one day after it began. She, like President Donald Trump, hails from New York. Her election would allow New York to boast being the home state of six presidents. Only Ohio (seven) and Virginia (eight) can claim more. And, of course, Gillibrand would also be the first woman elected president. *Democrat Grover Cleveland of New York succeeded Republican Chester Arthur of New York as president in 1885. However, Arthur wasn’t elected president. He became president after Garfield’s assassination in 1881. The Basics Name: Kirsten Elizabeth Gillibrand Date of Birth: December 9, 1966 Place of Birth: Albany, New York Religion: Roman Catholic Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Married (Jonathan Gillibrand) Children: Theodore (15) and Henry (10) Alma Mater: Dartmouth College (BA); University of California, Los Angeles (JD) Career: Lawyer; U.S. Representative (2007-2009); U.S. Senator (2009-present) Campaign Website: https://2020.kirstengillibrand.com/ Twitter Handle: @SenGillibrand Gillibrand’s Announcement Gillibrand appeared on the “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” in mid-January to announce that she had formed a committee to explore a possible presidential run. Two months later, she gave her formal announcement speech. Her choice of venue? In front of the Trump International Hotel in New York City. After quoting the final line of the Star Spangled Banner, she asked, “Will brave win?” Her answer: “The truth is, brave hasn't always won. And brave isn't winning right now.” She accused President Trump of “tearing apart the moral fabric of this country” and called his hotel “a shrine to greed, division and vanity.”  Foreign policy got only the briefest of mentions in the thirty-minute speech. She said: “We need to repair our relationship with allies and stop fawning over our adversaries. We need to leverage our diplomatic tools to make Americans more prosperous and more secure, and always treat military force as the last resort. We must bring an end to our endless wars. America's commander in chief is not a dictator, and the decision to deploy our troops can never be made lightly or unilaterally without Congress.”  Gillibrand also released an announcement video that parallels her announcement speech and is titled, “Brave Wins.” It says she is running for president because America needs a “leader who makes big, bold, brave choices.” Gillibrand cited her top priorities as universal health care, paid-family leave, ending gun violence, a Green New Deal, and getting “money out of politics.” Foreign policy didn’t merit a mention. Gillibrand’s Story Gillibrand was born into a political family. Her grandmother was the president of the Albany Democratic Women’s Club and the long-time confidante of Erastus Corning II, Albany’s mayor for forty-one years. Her parents were lawyers. Her father worked as a lobbyist. Her nickname growing up was “Tina.” She attended the Emma Willard School, an all-girls boarding school in Troy, New York, that counts among its alumnae Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Gillibrand majored in Asian Studies at Dartmouth, where she was a varsity squash player. She also studied abroad in China and Taiwan. She says she still “speaks a little bit of Mandarin” and she has introduced herself to at least one news crew in Mandarin. After graduating magna cum laude from Dartmouth, she earned her law degree from UCLA. Gillibrand started her legal career as an associate at the New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. She then spent a year clerking for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Albany. She returned to Davis Polk & Wardwell, where she spent much of her time defending Philip Morris, the tobacco producer. Her policy career began when she spent the last year of the Clinton administration as special counsel to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where she worked under future New York governor, Andrew Cuomo. After moving over to another Manhattan law firm in 2001, Gillibrand relocated to Albany to plan a run for Congress. She decided against running in 2004 on the advice of Senator Hillary Clinton, who had become her mentor after she worked on Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2000. It was good advice. In 2006, Gillibrand defeated a four-term Republican incumbent for the right to represent New York’s 20th Congressional District, which is centered on Albany. She won reelection easily in 2008. Senator Clinton’s decision to join the Obama administration as secretary of state created an opportunity for Gillibrand. Lots of high profile names were discussed for the open seat, but New York’s governor decided Gillibrand would succeed Clinton until a special election could be held. She was elected to the seat in her own right in 2010 and then re-elected in 2016. Because she is not up for re-election until 2022, she is not putting her Senate seat in jeopardy by running for president. Upon joining the Senate, Gillibrand made it a priority to push for repeal of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Gillibrand portrays herself as pivotal in securing the legislation’s passage. Many of her fellow lawmakers credit her with raising the issue’s visibility but disagree that her role was pivotal. During her time in the Senate, Gillibrand has devoted considerable effort to combating sexual harassment and assault. She created a stir in 2017 when she said that Bill Clinton should have resigned over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. One Clinton staffer called her a “hypocrite” for taking advice and support from the Clintons for two decades. Shortly thereafter, Gillibrand became the first senator to call for Senator Al Franken’s resignation after he was accused of sexual harassment. That decision rankled some fellow senators and Democratic Party donors. Gillibrand sits on the Agriculture, Armed Services, and Environment and Public Works committees. She also sits on the Special Committee on Aging. Gillibrand’s hobbies include baking and tennis. She admits that she curses a lot, so much so that one year she vowed to give up the habit for Lent. In 2017, she dropped an “f-bomb” in the middle of a speech as she criticized Trump. She told Stephen Colbert that she’s “gonna definitely try” not to swear on the campaign trail. She says that the word she will miss the most rhymes with “duck.” Gillibrand’s husband, Jonathan, is a British venture capitalist. They met on a blind date in 2001 when she was at Davis Polk & Wardwell and he was studying for his MBA at Columbia University. After meeting Kirsten, he shelved his plans for returning to England. Gillibrand’s Message Gillibrand’s slogan is, “Brave Wins.” Her pitch is that she is the candidate who will fight the tough battles and make bold decisions. As part of that strategy, she is branding herself as a “young mom” who is going to “fight for other people's kids as hard as I would fight for my own." Her focus is on the economic issues facing families. She promises to fight for healthcare as a right, better public schools, higher wages, and accessible job training. Her campaign website calls her a “fighter for families, equality and justice.” Gillibrand touts her history of transparency and her battle against the corrupting influence of money in politics. She announced last year that she will no longer accept donations from any corporate PACs. Gillibrand, perhaps more than any other candidate, is putting women’s issues at the center of her campaign. She has been referred to as the #MeToo Senator. She is highlighting her work in combatting sexual assault in the military, drafting and sponsoring legislation for equal pay and paid family leave, and campaigning for women candidates. Gillibrand is also positioning herself as the anti-Trump senator. She has voted against Trump's nominees and policies more than any other member of Congress. At the same time, she highlights her bipartisan record in Congress. Gillibrand’s Foreign Policy Views Gillibrand laid out her foreign policy worldview in a July speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. She is, not surprisingly, critical of Trump’s America First policies. She believes that “We need to restore our leadership in the world with strength and compassion, not fear and hate” and that “we need a strong and strategic foreign policy, not endless wars.” She says her administration would “work with—not alienate—our allies, maintain international commitments and leverage diplomatic and humanitarian strategies before resorting to military ones.” Gillibrand hasn’t spoken in detail about how she would handle relations with China and Russia or whether she agrees with claims that we have entered a period of renewed great power competition. China and Russia may be the two countries with the greatest ability to help or hinder U.S. foreign policy, and Gillibrand may have spent her youth studying China, but she mentioned them only in passing in her formal remarks to the Chicago Council. During the question and answer session she said that China “is certainly an adversary but there’s enormous potential in that relationship.” She says we “will do far better through intense engagement than through isolation.” She added that as president she would “stand up to Russia.” Gillibrand has been far clearer about her stance on military interventions in the Middle East. She’s generally against them. She ran for Congress in 2006 as an opponent of the Iraq war. In 2011, she supported “limited” U.S. involvement in Libya in 2011, saying “the President has been clear, this is a limited action in coordination with a broad coalition of allies, including those in the Arab world, who have asked for help in protecting civilians.” She feels differently about current U.S. military operations. She criticized the April 2017 airstrike on Syria. Her objection, however, wasn’t to punishing the Assad government for using chemical weapons but the fact that Trump ordered the strike on his own initiative: “Unilateral military action by the U.S. in a Middle East conflict causes grave concern, given the lack of any Authorization for Use of Military Force from Congress and the absence of any long-term plan or strategy to address any consequences from such unilateral action." She took the same view when the president ordered another round of airstrikes a year later: “Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people was evil. However, President Trump has no legal basis for this strike. He does not have an authorization for the use of military force against Syria.” Concerns about the legal basis for military actions overseas show up in Gillibrand’s assessments of other U.S. military operations abroad. She doesn’t think that the president has the authority deploy U.S. troops to northern and eastern Syria. She argues that “we should be drawing down our troops not only in Afghanistan, but the remainder in Iraq and in Syria. And then give Congress the opportunity that if they believe we should be in combat missions in any of these countries that we actually file a new Authorization for Use of Military Force.” She hasn’t discussed what the likely consequences of such withdrawals would be or how she sees the subsequent state of affairs better serving U.S. interests. Like all of the Democratic presidential candidates, Gillibrand opposes U.S. support for the Saudi-backed war in Yemen. Last December, she tweeted “Thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed by the Saudi-led bombing campaign—and millions are suffering the effects of hunger and disease because of the war. The Senate must do everything it can to end this humanitarian crisis.” The president vetoed a bill that Congress passed that would have ended U.S. support for the Yemen war. Gillibrand is like all of the other Democratic candidates in another way. She thinks that the United States is better off being a part of the Iran nuclear deal rather than withdrawing from it. She supported the deal when it was inked back in 2015, acknowledging its limitations but concluding that the United States had “no viable alternative” for stopping an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Her views didn’t change with the passage of time. She says that “President Trump needlessly broke with our European allies when he unilaterally withdrew the US” from the deal, thereby “putting America at a level of risk we have not seen in years.” When Trump announced that he was withdrawing the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Gillibrand joined other Democratic senators in criticizing the president for “abandoning generations of bipartisan U.S. leadership around the paired goals of reducing the global role and number of nuclear weapons and ensuring strategic stability with America's nuclear-armed adversaries." In January, she joined with Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic senators in sponsoring the Prevention of Arms Race 2019 Act. The bill would prohibit the Defense Department from procuring, flight-testing, or deploying any missiles that would be banned under the INF treaty unless a range of conditions were met. Gillibrand was supportive when Trump announced he would meet with North Korea dictator Kim Jong-Un in Singapore. She saw it as “a positive step in the right direction because we're talking about engagement of diplomacy and political solutions as opposed to military ones. She remained optimistic in the immediate wake of the summit, saying: “I am grateful that he is making the effort to try diplomacy and to try to bring people together towards a peaceful resolution.” As months passed and North Korea took no irreversible steps to reduce its nuclear or missile capabilities, she changed her tune slightly. While continuing to say she is “grateful” that Trump is trying diplomacy, she has called the Hanoi Summit “a political stunt” and urged the president to tackle the issue “in a different way, with the support of allies, with the support of the world community, with the support of experts as opposed to…shoot from the hip.….I don't think the way he's tried to do it is the most effective.” One topic on which Gillibrand agrees with Trump is Venezuela. She supported the administration’s decision to recognize Juan Guaidó as the country’s interim president. She supports using economic sanctions against the Maduro government. She opposes sending U.S. troops to Venezuela. Like all of her Democratic rivals, Gillibrand believes that addressing climate change should be a top priority. She would “pass a Green New Deal” and “put a price on carbon.” Trade issues haven’t been a major focus of Gillibrand’s Senate career. Like most of her Democratic rivals, she portrays trade deals as harming American families and workers. Back in 2015 she voted against granting the Obama administration fast-track authority for negotiations on what became the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). She opposed the TPP when it was negotiated, and now she opposes entering its successor agreement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) unless it is modified to incorporate a list of labor, environmental, and enforcement conditions. The odds that the CPTPP’s eleven members will agree to all those conditions are low. Like most other Democrats, her criticisms of Trump’s policies focus more on his tactics than on his objectives. She says Trump’s strategy toward China “has been a complete failure and extremely disruptive.” She would like to rewrite Trump’s rewrite of NAFTA, calling it a “bad trade agreement.” She thinks it is a “give away to drug companies,” should include more environmental protections, and provide better terms for New York’s dairy farmers. Gillibrand also says she would penalize companies that outsource jobs overseas. She has co-sponsored the Level the Playing Field in Global Trade Act of 2019. It would require future trade agreements to include enforceable wage, workplace, and environmental standards. The United Auto Workers, the Communications Workers of America, the United Steelworkers, and the AFL-CIO have endorsed the bill. Back in 2017 Gillibrand voted against waiving the law that would have barred General James Mattis from serving as secretary of defense because he had not been retired from the military for at least seven years. She called Mattis “an extraordinary general,” but argued that “civilian control of our military is fundamental to the American democracy.” The waiver passed and Gillibrand was the only senator to vote against Mattis’s confirmation. More on Gillibrand Back in 2014, Gillibrand wrote a book called Off the Sidelines: Speak Up, Be Fearless, and Change Your World. She also released a children’s book last year titled Bold and Brave: Ten Heroes Who Won Women the Right to Vote. New York Magazine wrote in 2009 that Gillibrand’s “folksiness comes with a sharp edge” and quotes an unnamed Democratic activist saying “she’d run you over with a train if you got in her way.” In 2010, Vogue described Gillibrand as “nothing if not genuine,” with a style that is “folksy and earnest” and “radiates kindness,” but who nonetheless manages to be “direct and no-nonsense.” A 2013 New Yorker profile examined how Gillibrand succeeded to Clinton’s Senate seat and argued that she has ”a near-evangelical confidence in the prospect of bipartisanship, in the restoration of the Senate, and in herself” and that “she is prone to near-rote recitations of her talking points. She is vanilla, but she’s strong vanilla.” A 2017 profile in the Intelligencer identified one of Gillibrand’s strengths as having a “nose for where her constituents, and the country, are headed. Through some combination of happenstance and remarkable political instincts, she often manages to show up there early.” In 2017, Politico Magazine profiled how Gillibrand came to take the lead in the Senate on stopping sexual assault in the military. She points to watching The Invisible War, a 2012 movie that highlighted military efforts to cover up the scale of the problem, as a galvanizing moment. The movie’s director called Gillibrand’s questioning in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on sexual assault “superhero stuff. She was unrelenting.” But, Gillibrand has been criticized by some of her colleagues and by military officials who found it “dangerous” that “a senator who hasn’t served in the military” is pushing for these changes. CBS’s 60 Minutes pressed Gillibrand in February 2018 on why she changed her position on issues like guns and immigration when she moved from the House to Senate. She said she really “didn’t take the time to understand why these issues mattered because it wasn’t right in front of me. And that was my fault. It was something that I am embarrassed about and I’m ashamed of.” In May, Politico Magazine examined why Gillibrand’s presidential campaign had languished and concluded that she had been too careful, mistakenly believing that “she can’t afford to alienate one bloc of voters.” Gillibrand sat down with the New York Times in June to answer eighteen questions. One of the questions was where she would take his first international trip. Her answer? “I would go to Israel, and I would travel throughout the Middle East. CFR asked Gillibrand twelve foreign policy questions. She cited “strong alliances that the United States has nurtured” as America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment since World War II. She declined to cite a single greatest foreign policy mistake and instead opted to say that the United States “has too often remained embroiled in battle beyond its time.” Corey Cooper, Brenden Ebertz, and Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.

Update: Cory Booker announced on January 13, 2020, that he was ending his campaign. Is America ready for a president who is single and a vegan? Cory Booker, New Jersey’s junior senator, certainly hopes so. The fifty-year-old former Rhodes Scholar would be the first bachelor elected president since a never-married Grover Cleveland won back in 1884 and just the third ever. (James Buchanan, who makes every list of America’s worst presidents, was the first bachelor to make it to the White House.) No sitting U.S. president has ever been a vegetarian, let alone a vegan, though Bill Clinton adopted a mostly vegan diet after he left the White House. So the jelly beans, cheeseburger pizzas, and pork rinds that made their way to the Oval Office in past presidencies aren’t likely to be found in the White House during a Booker presidency. The Basics Name: Cory Anthony Booker Date of Birth: April 27, 1969 Place of Birth: Washington, DC Religion: Baptist (Raised Methodist) Political Party: Democratic Party Marital Status: Single Children: None Alma Mater: Stanford University (BA, MA); Oxford University (MA); Yale University (JD) Career: Lawyer; Member of the Newark City Council (1998-2002); Mayor of Newark (2006-2013); U.S. Senator (2013-present) Campaign Website: https://corybooker.com/ Twitter Handle: @CoryBooker Booker’s Announcement Booker announced his presidential run back in April at a rally in his hometown of Newark, New Jersey. He touched on a wide range of subjects in his thirty-minute speech, including stagnating wages, the decline of family-owned farms, and legalizing marijuana at the federal level. Foreign policy got two brief mentions. The New Jersey senator complained of “decades of unjust policies that have destroyed our economy and extracted money from our commonwealth and plowed into tax cuts for the wealthy and wars overseas we didn’t have to fight.” He also vowed “to meet the crisis of climate change because we have no other choice.” Booker also released an announcement video titled “We Will Rise.” The video draws a distinction between Booker and everyone in the race. He lives in Newark, so he is "the only senator who goes home to a low-income, inner city community." The announcement video doesn’t mention foreign policy at all. Booker’s Story Cory Booker was born in Washington, DC. His parents—Cary and Carolyn—were civil rights activists and executives at IBM. They moved to Harrington Park, New Jersey, just months after Cory was born. They succeeded in buying a house in the overwhelmingly white suburb only by arranging for a white couple to bid on the property. When Booker’s father showed up at the closing with a lawyer, the seller’s real estate agent punched the lawyer and sicced a dog on the elder Booker. Booker was a great student and star football player in high school. He made USA Today’s All-USA Team his senior year. Coaches from around the country, including legendary Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz, traveled to Harrington Park to recruit him. Former President Gerald Ford called to urge him to become a University of Michigan Wolverine. He opted to attend Stanford and play for Jack Elway, father of Hall-of-Fame quarterback John Elway. Booker’s college football career didn’t meet the expectations that many people had for him. He never started a game and didn’t play in one until he was a junior. He finished his career as a tight end with just twenty catches and one touchdown. His best game, though, came when it mattered most. In his senior season, he caught two passes as Stanford upset number-one ranked Notre Dame in South Bend. While Booker didn’t shine on the college gridiron, he excelled in the classroom and on campus. He earned a bachelor’s degree in political science in 1991 and was senior class president. He added a master’s degree in sociology in 1992. He was awarded a Rhodes scholarship and earned another master’s degree in history. He then attended Yale Law School, graduating in 1997. After earning his law degree, Booker moved to Newark where he provided legal services to low-income families in the city. He was elected to the city council in 1998 when he was twenty-nine. While a councilman, he went on a hunger-strike to protest living conditions in a Newark housing project. He ran for mayor for the first time in 2002, but lost to a longtime incumbent. The documentary Street Fight tracked that unsuccessful election bid. Booker ran again for mayor in 2002 and won. He was thirty-seven. Booker’s mayoral style was defined by his social media savviness and his rapport with the city’s historically underserved communities. His policy priorities were bringing investments to the city, education reform, and fighting crime. He was also a hands-on mayor. Among other things, he shoveled an elderly man’s driveway, took in a dog left outside on a frigid night, and carried a neighbor out of a burning house. In 2013, Booker won a special election for the Senate after the incumbent officeholder died. The victory made Booker New Jersey’s first African-American senator. He won a full term in 2014. Booker is the only one of the seven Democratic senators running for the presidency whose term ends in 2020. If he fares poorly in the first formal nominating events, he will face the decision of whether to drop out of the race to pursue a second full term in the Senate. Booker sits on the Environment and Public Works, Foreign Relations, Judiciary, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship committees. Booker had his last non-vegan meal on Election Day 2014. For the previous twenty-two years he had been a vegetarian. He stopped eating meat when he was at Oxford. He says that he simply felt much better eating a vegetarian diet. Although many meat-eaters seem threatened by vegans, he doesn’t think being a vegan will hurt him at the polls. “I remember somebody teasing me when I was getting ready to run for mayor in Newark: ‘There’s no way a black city is going to elect a vegetarian!’ But people did.” Booker is a big Star Trek fan. He particularly liked The Next Generation. He also likes The Big Bang Theory. Booker’s Message Booker’s campaign slogan is “We Will Rise.” He stresses the importance of working together. He says “The lines that divide us are nowhere near as strong as the ties that bind us. When we join together and work together — we rise together.” He is calling for a “revival of civic grace.” He says he has experience bringing people together: “I grew up knowing that the only way we can make change is when people come together.” Booker’s Foreign Policy Views Booker believes that climate change is, along with nuclear proliferation, the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States. When President Trump announced he would be withdrawing from the Paris climate deal, Booker said that the decision “is a vicious blow to American leadership in the world and to our future. When it comes to addressing an issue as urgent as climate change, President Trump is just plain wrong.” He pledges to rejoin the Paris agreement during the first hours of his presidency. But he worries that people expect presidents to be “saviors.” The reality is that “it’s not going to be one person in one office” that solves the problem. “We need to do it in partnership with others on the planet.” One of Booker’s chief foreign policy complaints is that the United States has overused its military in recent years, and as a result, made itself and others less secure. Unlike many of his Democratic rivals, however, he refuses to set deadlines for withdrawing U.S. troops from combat zones overseas. He says that “we cannot have forever wars.” However, he thinks that “it is a mistake in presidential campaigns to start putting timelines on our military.” He supports having “a debate and vote on an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS.” The challenge, of course, is coming up with authorization language that satisfies a majority of both houses and the White House. The flip side of Booker’s concern that the United States has overused its military is that it has underused its diplomats. Booker opposed the Trump administration’s effort to slash the State Department’s budget, saying, “It is outrageous to me that you have an administration on one side of their mouth want to talk about being tough against ISIS and against terrorism,” adding “I would say, if you're looking at a toolbox, one of the most critical assets we have is the activities being done to diplomacy, to USAID and through other CVE (countering violent extremism) efforts that are not about a military.” Booker has criticized the Trump administration’s policy toward Saudi Arabia, saying “We need to reexamine that entire relationship.” Booker said of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder last October, “I’m worried that this has been skewed from the start. I’m worried about efforts to cover this up and I’m worried about our administration willing to just go along and get along because of a lot of the financial interests that we might have,” adding, “I hope that whoever ever holds that presidential office stands as a moral leader nationally and globally and not somebody that would compromise for arms sales.” He also connected Khashoggi’s case with the “humanitarian disaster” in Yemen. Booker has long cited Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen as the reason he opposes U.S. arms sales to Riyadh. “There are better ways for America…to fight for peace and security in that region…and I fear that what’s happening now is contributing to the crisis in the region, contributing to an environment that creates fertile ground for terrorists to thrive.” Booker has criticized U.S. policy toward Syria. He argued that the April 2018 U.S. airstrikes against Syria for using chemical weapons were taken “without any comprehensive strategy or the necessary congressional authorization.” He called Trump’s December 2018 vow to withdraw U.S. troops quickly from Syria as “reckless and dangerous.” However, like all of the other senators running for president except for Michael Bennet, Booker voted against a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Mitch McConnell offered expressing concern that a “precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Syria “could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.” Iran is another issue where Booker parts from the Trump administration. Booker agrees that Iran threatens the United States and its allies. He cosponsored a 2013 bill that toughened sanctions on Tehran. He had reservations about the deal that President Obama struck to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, but ultimately supported it. He explained his decision this way: “It is better to support a deeply flawed deal, for the alternative is worse.” The same reasoning explains his opposition to Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal. Booker staunchly supports Israel, especially when it comes to self-defense: “I support Israel’s right to defend itself. Full stop.” He was one of the few Democrats in 2017 to support the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which bars U.S. companies from joining an international boycott of Israel. However, he created a stir in August 2018 when he was photographed holding a sign, created by a group that supports the boycott, divest, and sanctions movement, that said: “From Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go.” Booker’s spokesman said that the senator “didn’t realize it had anything to do with Israel. He hopes for a day when there will be no need for security barriers in the State of Israel, but while active terrorist organizations threaten the safety of the people living in Israel, security barriers are unfortunate but necessary to protect human lives.” Booker joined with all other Senate Democrats in opposing the nomination of David Friedman to be U.S. ambassador to Israel, saying that Friedman “would damage the prospects of finding a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians, the only path to a lasting peace that would bring true security and Middle East stability.” Booker believes that the Trump administration has it exactly backward with its hardline approach to the migrants coming to the United States from the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. “Donald Trump isn't solving this problem. We've seen under his leadership a surge at our border. We solve this problem by making investments in the Northern Triangle to stop the reasons why people are being driven here in the first place, and we make sure we use our resources to provide health care to affirm the values and human dignity of the people that come here, because we cannot sacrifice our values, our ideals as a nation for border security. We can have both by doing this the right way.” Polls may show that Democratic voters favor free trade. Booker, however, isn’t pushing a free-trade agenda. He wants “to be known as a pro-fair trade Democrat” and has tweeted that trade deals need to be “much more fair to U.S. companies.” He voted against the fast-track legislation that authorized Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). When pressed recently on whether he favored renegotiating TPP or doing away with it, he declined to give a clear answer. He instead said: “I’m saying that if we are going to win in Asia, we need to bring together the allies that we have there, and do a deal that works for us to counter and check China in a substantive way.” More on Booker Booker has written one book, United: Thoughts on Finding Common Ground and Advancing the Common Good. It was published in 2016. Booker is good friends with fellow 2020 contender Kirsten Gillibrand. When Booker entered the race, Gillibrand tweeted “Congratulations and welcome to the race to one of my closest friends, @corybooker! I'll be cheering you on—just, you know, not TOO hard.” Booker said running against Gillibrand and Kamala Harris will be like a “sibling rivalry.” Booker sat down with the Atlantic last December for an interview on why he talks so frequently about love. His answer? “My faith tradition is love your enemies. It’s not complicated for me, if I aspire to be who I say I am. I am a Christian American. Literally written in the ideals of my faith is to love those who hate you.” Jonathan Van Meter wrote in New York Magazine that “Cory Booker’s got a lot of love to give, and he’s betting that’s what it will take to win in 2020.” Vogue profiled Booker in 2012 when he was the energetic, tweeting mayor of Newark, saying “His heroics aren’t merely expressions of physical courage—though they certainly are that. They’re applications of a theory of civic revitalization, which says that a single leader, visibly doing the right thing, can influence a whole community’s behavior.” POLITICO Magazine asked “Is Cory Booker for Real?” and argued that he “has wrestled throughout his career with what it means to be a black politician who came of age in a white-dominated world, and how to extrapolate his unique experience in Newark with the larger concerns of the nation.” Booker sat down with the New York Times in June to answer eighteen questions. One of the questions was where he would take his first international trip. His answer? “I’ve given a lot of thought to that, and it’s not something I am going to be telling the New York Times about right now.” CFR asked Booker twelve foreign policy questions. He offered up the “peaceful spread of democracy around the world” as America’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment since World War II. The Iraq war was his choice as America’s greatest foreign policy mistake. Corey Cooper, Brenden Ebertz, and Elizabeth Lordi assisted in the preparation of this post.