VP Debate Recap: Foreign Policy and National Security in the Spotlight

As a rule, vice presidential debates are about as exciting as listening to an insurance seminar in a foreign language. Last evening’s event between Republican Senator J.D. Vance and Democratic Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota did not fail to deliver in that respect. To be fair, however, the two were mostly cordial to each other, and some good points were raised during the 90-minute event.

Since we at SOFREP are a military culture, foreign policy, and defense news website, I will focus on those areas today. There are plenty of other sites writing about everything else. You don’t need to go there; stick with me, and I’ll tell you what’s important.

As would-be second in command, the American public honestly doesn’t care much about what the VP candidates think; it is more about what their bosses will do if they win the highest office in the land and become the de facto most powerful person in the world.

With wars brewing all around us and missiles darting about the Middle East like fireflies on a summer night, let’s dive right in.

Both candidates addressed the delicate balance of US involvement in global affairs. The conversation repeatedly returned to the need for measured action in conflicts abroad, with one clear theme emerging: Former President Donald Trump’s tendency toward caution in foreign entanglements.

Trump’s Caution on Foreign Involvement

As the debate unfolded, the vice-presidential hopeful representing Trump’s ticket doubled down on the former president’s “America First“ approach. Over the years, Trump has demonstrated a measured reluctance to deeply engage the U.S. military in foreign conflicts—a stance his running mate firmly endorsed last night.

Former President Trump is a “big stick” kind of guy cut from the same cloth as Teddy Roosevelt, who was also shot while campaigning for a second non-consecutive term in the White House. One might say the former President believes in peace through superior firepower. But, and this is extremely important, he has absolutely no fear of using military might to hunt down and take out bad guys. In 2019, there was Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi, an al-Qaeda operative who was responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, which killed 17 US sailors. He was killed in a US airstrike in Yemen.

That same year, Trump ordered the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. US special operations forces hunted him down in Syria, and he died like a dog after detonating a suicide vest he was wearing. In 2020, Mr. Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force. He was responsible for coordinating attacks on US troops in Iraq and supporting terrorist groups in the region. A drone took him out near Baghdad International Airport, escalating tensions between the US and Iran, ultimately resulting in the Iranians putting a price on Trump’s head.

In an era of rising global tensions, the Trump camp argued for a restrained role on the world stage. The candidate emphasized that while the U.S. must remain vigilant against threats to national security, it is critical to avoid unnecessary military entanglements that drain resources and put American lives at risk. This echoes Trump’s presidency, which saw significant withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria and his vocal opposition to lengthy U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The Opposing View

In contrast, Governor Walz and the Harris campaign, in general, argue that Trump’s restrained approach left dangerous power vacuums, allowing adversaries like Russia and China to increase their influence. They pointed to Trump’s hesitance to directly confront Moscow and Beijing, arguing that the U.S. must take a more proactive stance to secure its global interests.

Where the Trump team advocates for a calculated, minimal footprint, their opponents suggest a more engaged approach. The Harris camp expressed concerns that Trump’s cautious foreign policy posture has diminished the United States’ role as a global leader. They specifically cited China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as areas where a stronger U.S. response is needed.

Handling the Complexities of National Security

A key debate moment came when both candidates sparred over national security, including the best ways to deal with non-state actors like terrorist organizations and cyber threats. Trump’s representative took a more defensive approach, emphasizing the importance of bolstering homeland security rather than nation-building abroad. This reflects Trump’s broader national security policy—keeping American interests front and center while avoiding costly, extended foreign interventions.

Walz highlighted the need for stronger alliances and criticized Trump’s ambivalence toward long-standing partnerships like NATO.

US Military Power: Use It Wisely or Project It Strongly?

The candidates’ discussion around military strategy highlighted their differences. Vance argued that military force should be used sparingly and only when U.S. interests are directly threatened. This echoes Trump’s presidency, where significant efforts were made to scale down U.S. military commitments in war-torn regions, focusing instead on targeted operations, such as those described above. 

In contrast, Walz urged that the U.S. maintain a strong global presence to deter threats before they reach American shores. The Harris campaign points to recent aggressive actions from authoritarian regimes and terrorist networks as evidence that America must remain engaged militarily to preserve global stability.

Looking Forward: The Future of US Foreign Policy

In closing remarks, both candidates outlined their vision for the future of U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Vance remained steadfast in the argument that America should prioritize rebuilding at home while cautiously addressing international conflicts. The basic line of the ticket is this: Foreign interventions should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary. If they fear our strength, they are more likely to keep their distance. 

On the other hand, Walz advocated for a more balanced approach—engagement with allies, confronting adversaries, and preventing the spread of authoritarianism. They warned that a retreat from the world stage would embolden U.S. enemies and undermine national security.

Summing Up

Last night’s debate made clear that foreign policy and national security will be critical issues in this election. While the Trump team argues for caution and a focus on domestic priorities, their opponents call for more robust engagement in global affairs. What bothers me with that concept is that if we have visibly weak leadership, others will see that in an instant and take full advantage. Say what you will about Mr. Trump; during his time in office, he earned the respect of many world leaders. 

Both sides agree on the importance of protecting the homeland, but the path to achieving that protection starkly divides them. With global threats mounting, voters must now decide which approach will best safeguard the days ahead. It is more important then ever that you exercise your rights and vote your conscience on November 5th. Choose wisely; the future of our great nation depends on it. 

—

Disclaimer: SOFREP utilizes AI for image generation and article research. Occasionally, it’s like handing a chimpanzee the keys to your liquor cabinet. It’s not always perfect and if a mistake is made, we own up to it full stop. In a world where information comes at us in tidal waves, it is an important tool that helps us sift through the brass for live rounds.