U.S. President Joe Biden addresses a joint session of Congress in the House chamber of the U.S. Capitol April 28, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Melina Mara-Pool/Getty Images)

In his address to a joint session of Congress to mark his first 100 days in office, President Biden declared that “autocrats will not win the future.” But have the administration’s actions in response to provocations from adversaries like Russia and China given reason for confidence in that assertion? And will the emphasis on multilateralism as an end in itself end up hurting American interests?

In an op-ed for The Hill, Hudson Senior Fellow Jon Lerner examines how the first 100 days of the Biden administration have been characterized by policy decisions that will undermine deterrence. By signaling weakness, authoritarian powers could leverage this to further undermine U.S. strategic interests.  

See key takeaways from Jon's op-ed below, and join us next week for a discussion on the plight of Pakistan's Hindu minority. If you missed it, catch last week's interview with Australia's Ambassador to the U.S. Arthur Sinodinos.

Key Takeaways

Featured quotes from Jon Lerner's op-ed in The Hill, "Does Biden Mean Business When it Comes to Foreign Policy?" 

1. The Biden administration's first 100 days reflects a retreat from American leadership:

As America faces an increasingly dangerous and aggressive Chinese Communist Party (CPP), one wonders whether they have any reason to know that President Biden means business. Actions taken in the administration’s first hundred days point in the opposite direction.

Biden has ordered a full withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. He is seeking to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, which would remove the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. He has not responded to Ukraine’s request for assistance as Russia amasses thousands of troops on its border. He has presided over the largest influx of illegal migrants crossing the U.S. southern border in 15 years. And his budget proposes substantially reduced military spending.

2. After Russia's cyberattacks and election meddling, the Biden administration's "proportionate" response sends the wrong signal:

Administration defenders might claim the recent sanctions imposed on Russia and expulsion of 10 of their diplomats signal that Biden means business. But what sort of business would that be?  For months, Biden described Russian cyberattacks, election meddling and other misdeeds in catastrophic terms. He referred to the cyberattacks as “among the greatest threats to our global security in the 21st century.”

Yet in announcing the sanctions, Biden went out of his way to describe his response as “proportionate.” If he considers a few largely symbolic sanctions and expulsions “proportionate” to the crimes he described, then the signal sent is one of weakness, not strength.

3. American deterrence has played a critical role in protecting Taiwan:

Many believe China’s next target is Taiwan. China’s communist leaders are unmistakable in their expressed intention to “unify” with democratic Taiwan. Chinese military exercises over and around Taiwan have increased in frequency and aggression. What’s to stop the destroyers of Xinjiang and Hong Kong from moving next on Taiwan?

For decades, the answer has been American deterrence. America’s military presence throughout Asia, including the Navy’s Seventh Fleet patrolling the Taiwan Strait, has been highly effective.  The U.S. is not bound by treaty to go to war to defend Taiwan, as it is for Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Nonetheless, Chinese leaders have long had reason to believe there was a meaningful chance it would do so...China concluded it was not a risk worth taking. Does it still think that today?

Quotes have been edited for length and clarity.

Go Deeper