As the United States approaches its 2025 presidential inauguration, the potential impact on US foreign policy is under close examination, particularly concerning the Global South. The countries in these regions—spanning across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia—face unique challenges and opportunities based on whether the next US president will be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The candidates’ distinct approaches to international relations, trade, security, and diplomacy will shape the Global South’s future in numerous ways.
A Trump administration would likely return to a more protectionist economic stance, with substantial tariffs potentially imposed on imports, particularly from China, and possibly affecting goods from other countries as well. This shift could disrupt trade relations for several countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America that heavily rely on exports to the US Industries such as textiles, electronics, and agriculture, which serve as crucial economic pillars in these regions, could face significant challenges due to supply chain disruptions and reduced US demand. This outcome might lead to a slowdown in economic growth, a reduction in job opportunities, and increased economic volatility.
Conversely, Kamala Harris is expected to uphold many of the Biden administration’s “Worker-Centric” trade policies that emphasize collaboration, multilateralism, and targeted sanctions rather than sweeping tariffs. Harris would likely support initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, promoting economic engagement with nations in the Global South. This approach could offer more stability and help Global South countries maintain trade partnerships with the US, reducing the risks of sudden disruptions that a Trump presidency might bring.
The ongoing US-China rivalry is a central issue for many nations in the Global South, particularly in Southeast Asia, where countries often try to balance their economic relations with China and security ties with the US. A Trump presidency is expected to intensify pressure on these countries to align more closely with the US in its competition with China. Trump’s confrontational approach to China would make it harder for Southeast Asian nations to maintain a balanced stance, potentially leading to greater geopolitical instability in the region.
Harris, on the other hand, would likely pursue a competitive stance toward China but through a consultative, less confrontational approach. Her policy would give Global South nations more flexibility to navigate the US-China rivalry without needing to choose one side. This balanced approach could benefit countries like India, the Philippines, and other nations in the Indo-Pacific region, allowing them to engage with both superpowers on their terms while leveraging their strategic importance in the region.
A Trump presidency is likely to emphasize a transactional approach to security alliances, as seen during his previous term, where he pressed allies like Japan and South Korea for greater financial contributions. A similar stance could reduce US security commitments to countries in the Global South, which might prompt these nations to strengthen their defense capabilities independently. For instance, South Korea has considered enhancing its nuclear capabilities as a countermeasure if US support declines. Trump would stop all US military engagement globally, especially in Ukraine and Israel. In regions like North Atlantic Nations, Southeast Asia and Africa, Trump’s approach could mean reduced US security assistance, prompting countries to seek new security partnerships or reassess their defense strategies.
In contrast, Harris’s administration would likely continue to support security alliances, following the Biden administration’s approach of bolstering alliances through cooperation. Her approach would prioritize stability, especially in sensitive regions like the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, offering countries in the Global South a more predictable security relationship with the US. For Africa and Latin America, Harris’s administration could continue supporting counterterrorism, anti-narcotics operations, and defense collaborations, ensuring that US military engagement in these areas remains robust.
The influence of US soft power in the Global South would diverge depending on which candidate takes office. Trump’s blunt and at times isolationist approach has previously undermined trust among global leaders, reducing the US’s diplomatic reach in some areas. Many leaders in the Global South may be wary of aligning too closely with a Trump-led US due to his tendency to withdraw from international institutions and agreements. Although some authoritarian regimes might appreciate Trump’s less interventionist stance, others could view his approach as too unpredictable, potentially straining diplomatic ties.
A Harris administration would likely prioritize multilateral diplomacy, particularly on issues like climate change, which disproportionately affect countries in the Global South. By engaging with these nations on global challenges, Harris could strengthen diplomatic ties and reinforce US influence through a more inclusive approach. This multilateral approach could be attractive to Global South countries, which would benefit from participating in international platforms that address shared issues and promote stability.
Under Trump, India and the Philippines might deepen their ties with the US, though their relations would hinge on different factors. Trump’s rapport with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could strengthen the bilateral relationship, while Southeast Asian countries might face more economic challenges due to potential tariffs. A Harris presidency, however, could offer a more structured diplomatic route, potentially benefiting India due to Harris’s South Asian heritage. Southeast Asian nations may find Harris’s policies more predictable, allowing them to continue diversifying trade partnerships without severe disruptions.
Trump’s policies on immigration could strain diplomatic ties in Latin America, while economic disruptions from potential tariffs might push countries in the region to seek alternative trade partners or bolster regional alliances. Harris’s approach would likely emphasize sustainable development initiatives, infrastructure investment, and climate action, aligning well with Latin American priorities. Her policies could encourage economic cooperation focused on social and environmental goals, strengthening the region’s resilience.
In the Middle East, Trump’s strong alliances with countries like Israel could lead to policies that prioritize US allies, potentially increasing punitive measures against Iran. The abandonment of multilateral diplomacy could stop conflicts and Trump would exert political pressure for Two State solution. Harris, on the other hand, would likely adopt a more balanced approach, fostering conflict while supporting US alliances. For Africa, Harris’s presidency could continue anti-terrorism initiatives, supporting security partnerships that contribute to stability in the region. Her focus on diplomatic engagement and development assistance would likely strengthen ties with African nations, facilitating the US defense industrial complex to profit.
The global economic landscape could shift significantly depending on the outcome of the US presidential election. Trump’s protectionist policies and tariffs could destabilize international trade, particularly affecting export-driven economies in the Global South. Although such disruptions might encourage countries to innovate and diversify their supply chains, they could also dampen economic growth, especially in regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America.
A Harris presidency would probably focus on initiatives that promote the digital economy and environmental sustainability, benefiting Global South countries investing in green technology and digital infrastructure. Her administration might pursue trade agreements centered on critical minerals, technology, and sustainable development, supporting the long-term growth of nations focusing on green infrastructure.
The impact of the 2025 US presidential election on the Global South will depend heavily on whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris becomes president. A Trump administration might create a more transactional, unpredictable environment, with aggressive economic protectionism and intensified US-China competition likely causing disruptions. This scenario could strain alliances and heighten diplomatic challenges for the Global South.
On the other hand, Harris’s approach would offer a more predictable and consultative framework, allowing Global South nations to engage with the US without needing to make drastic adjustments. Her focus on multilateral diplomacy and environmental initiatives could foster stability, creating opportunities for economic growth and resilient partnerships. However, the conflict-ridden nations will be pushed towards more volatile situations by Harris’s administration.
In anticipation of these potential shifts, countries in the Global South may seek new partnerships, prioritize stability-oriented policies, and weigh the costs and benefits of engagement with the US, striving for adaptability and resilience in an increasingly polarized world.
M A Hossain
The writer is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmail.com
