Ranking Member Shaheen Remarks on the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations

WASHINGTON-Today, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on the future direction of American foreign policy. Following her speech, Ranking Member Shaheen participated in a conversation with CFR President Michael Froman and audience members.

You can watch her speech and conversation here.

In her remarks, Ranking Member Shaheen laid out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes American economic security, bipartisanship in Congress and modernization of U.S. institutions to meet today's challenges. She underscored the need to explain to the American people how foreign policy decisions affect their daily lives, particularly when it comes to their kitchen table economic concerns.

"Americans should understand that national security and kitchen table security-or, as some have said, economic security-are connected," said Ranking Member Shaheen. "They can see how tariffs and trade wars are raising costs. Everywhere I go in New Hampshire, I hear that the cost of living is too high-and, of course, the data backs that up... But we shouldn't just aspire to return to the pre-Trump status quo on trade. Expanding trade ties with trusted allies like Canada and the EU is one concrete step to give families more breathing room... For less than one percent of the federal budget, foreign aid builds markets, prevents crises and supports American jobs. That's the case we need to make-foreign engagement isn't charity, it is kitchen-table security."

Ranking Member Shaheen also emphasized the importance of bipartisanship in sustaining U.S. foreign policy commitments across administrations.

"The world needs to know that American foreign policy won't whiplash after every election," said Ranking Member Shaheen. "That stability is what helps keep Americans safe... Retreat makes us vulnerable. Engagement makes us stronger."

Finally, Ranking Member Shaheen called for modernization of U.S. foreign policy institutions and programs to ensure they remain effective and accountable.

"At a time when many Americans are frustrated at the country's direction, we shouldn't just reflexively defend the status quo," said Ranking Member Shaheen. "We need to modernize and reform across the spectrum-from the State Department to the Pentagon to our intelligence agencies... I think foreign policy fails when it's driven by ideology or partisanship or inertia. It succeeds when it's pragmatic, when it's cost-effective and when it's rooted in what's actually happening on the ground."

The Ranking Member's full remarks, as delivered, are below.

It really is nice to be here with all of you, especially as a new member.

The President and his allies have argued that their foreign policy vision puts America first. It sounds simple: put Americans first, save taxpayer dollars. Who could be against that? But if we look closer, we can see there are really contradictions in that policy that are glaring.

We've been imposing tariffs on Brazil-even though the U.S. runs a trade surplus there, we're threatening India because of their oil imports from Russia, but we're looking the other way when it comes to China.

I think our foreign policy should always advance America's interests, but President Trump's policies have not delivered. Instead, they've undone six decades of investments that have made the United States respected and influential. They've placed new economic burdens on American families.

Now, I do agree that there's no going back to January 2025, but the question is how do we move forward? So, as we look at what comes next and we try and articulate an alternative foreign policy vision, I think it's important to consider three fundamentals.

First, we need to explain more clearly to the American people why foreign policy matters in their daily lives.

Second, we need to work across party lines. I still think bipartisanship provides the consistency that America's allies and adversaries measure us by.

And third, we need to embrace the mantle of reform by modernizing the institutions that carry U.S. influence.

So, point one: let's explain why foreign policy matters.

Americans should understand that national security and kitchen table security-or, as some have said, economic security-are connected. They can see how tariffs and trade wars are raising costs. Everywhere I go in New Hampshire, I hear that the cost of living is too high-and, of course, the data backs that up.

I have to say, I was at the grocery store yesterday, I bought four bags of groceries that cost me 148 dollars. Now, I will admit, I bought some soda as part of that, so those were separate from the bags, but families who have kids who are on limited income have trouble and those prices are not going down-they're going up.

Yale Budget Lab estimates the trade war could cost the average household 2,300 dollars a year and those tariffs are supposed to help us add manufacturing jobs in the U.S. but this year, we've lost 78,000 manufacturing jobs. Now, I've supported trade policies my whole political career. As governor, I led the first trade mission overseas from New Hampshire. I learned that trade jobs are more recession-proof, they generally pay better and have better benefits. Trade, when done right, lowers costs, creates jobs and provides critical geopolitical advantages.

But we shouldn't just aspire to return to the pre-Trump status quo on trade. Expanding trade ties with trusted allies like Canada and the EU is one concrete step to give families more breathing room. You know, I thought after the President announced his tariffs on virtually every country, that one smart move would have been to identify our allies: Canada, the EU, South Korea, Japan-those countries that we're close to-and come to trade agreements right away with those countries. It would have been a win for him; it would have been a good message to our allies but none of that happened.

Foreign aid has laid the groundwork for many of those markets. 11 of America's top 15 trading partners were once recipients of U.S. aid, including South Korea, and after the Korean War, the U.S. spent 13 billion dollars there. Today, South Korea is a major trading partner, a donor and a key ally, and hopefully that will continue despite the Hyundai raid and Elbridge Colby's posturing on costs of troops in Korea.

Foreign aid also protects Americans from crises. For every dollar the U.S. spends to prevent conflict, it saves an estimated 18 dollars in response costs. That includes counterterror programs that reduce risks for U.S. service members and global health efforts that stop outbreaks before they reach our shores-like Ebola in 2014 where we spent 2 billion dollars in aid but we prevented a crisis that could have cost tens of billions at home. And now we have a new Ebola outbreak that's been reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo in recent days, but we don't have that health infrastructure to track that outbreak.

For less than one percent of the federal budget, foreign aid builds markets, prevents crises and supports American jobs. That's the case we need to make-foreign engagement isn't charity, it is kitchen-table security.

Now the second point: bipartisan does still matter, I believe.

The idea that American foreign policy can and must be bipartisan may be controversial in some quarters these days, but I think it's essential. Now, we're not going to agree on everything and I've been very outspoken on the President's immigration polices and his bullying tactics with our partners and allies. I think this Administration has been woefully resistant in confronting Russia's attacks in Ukraine and I'm deeply concerned that its retreat has opened the door for China to expand its influence at America's expense. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority released a report this summer called The Price of Retreat -I brought a copy, which I will leave here, but it's available online. But what it documents is case after case of how Beijing is filling the vacuum that's been left by U.S. withdrawal.

I believe those on both sides of the aisle who believe America should retreat and wall itself off from the world are wrong. In today's global reality, [...]-the idea that we're going to be protected by the oceans on either side of this country just is not true anymore.

Retreat makes us vulnerable. Engagement makes us stronger.

There are also examples of where bipartisanship has delivered results. I just came back from Syria, as I said, with a bipartisan delegation. Joe Wilson and I went to Syria. And I worked with Senator Risch and a number of Republicans on a bipartisan effort to put Caesar sanctions on Syria. But now Assad is gone and now we need to see what we can do to support stability in Syria. And Senator Risch and I have been working with the White House to lift those sanctions. That's how foreign policy should work in my mind: we should find bipartisan agreement, we should figure out how to get things done. And as a senator from a purple state, I can tell you that I've learned the value of building coalitions to get things done-and that same approach is what makes our foreign policy durable.

Administrations change as we know-from Trump to Biden, back again. But in Congress, coalitions can endure. I've worked with Republicans like Tom Tillis and John Cornyn-we've worked to replenish defense stockpiles and to advance security assistance. Together we've shown U.S. commitments don't vanish with each new administration. The world needs to know that American foreign policy won't whiplash after every election. That stability is what helps keep Americans safe.

Now, the final point: reform.

We need to make sure that foreign aid programs are effective and that tax dollars are spent wisely. At a time when many Americans are frustrated at the country's direction, we shouldn't just reflexively defend the status quo. As a governor, I knew how important it was to justify the money that we were spending at the state level and to explain to my constituents why that was necessary. But what's happening now in this Administration-putting entire agencies into the woodchipper-that's what this Administration has done. That's not reform. That's just eliminating programs often just because Laura Loomer says to do it.

Destroying a program like PEPFAR, which has saved 25 million lives from HIV/AIDS since it was enacted under George W. Bush-that's not real reform [...] Stopping disease monitoring programs overseas-that's not reform, that's dangerous. Diseases don't stop at America's borders.

At the same time, anyone who has worked in American foreign policy institutions knows that there are changes that need to be made. And in some cases, their missions have strayed, making it easier for Republicans to pull support. I can tell you every time we argued about the elimination of USAID, those Republicans had the same talking points about the programs, even when they weren't correct, they had the same talking points about what wasn't working for USAID.

We need to modernize and reform across the spectrum-from the State Department to the Pentagon to our intelligence agencies. But we don't need to bash these institutions that have served the American people well for decades and we shouldn't be attacking the individuals who are trying to do the jobs that they were hired to do. It is our duty to ensure that these institutions and programs evolve, that they stay sharp, that they focus on what is now in our national interest.

Reform also means adjusting our policies and rethinking our alliances. For example, one long-overdue change has been that our NATO allies are finally paying more for their own defense. That's an increase that I supported-I think they ought to be paying more.

Too often our policies stay frozen in time-like the embargo on Cuba, which is still rooted in a Cold War fight with Castro, even though he's been gone for decades. Or Israel, once a vulnerable state, today it's one of the world's most powerful militaries, but the United States policy of significant security assistance hasn't caught up.

I think foreign policy fails when it's driven by ideology or partisanship or inertia. It succeeds when it's pragmatic, when it's cost-effective and when it's rooted in what's actually happening on the ground. So as we consider other alternatives, as we discuss what to do moving forward, again, I think we should have three fundamentals that help drive those discussions. We need to explain clearly to the American people why foreign policy matters, we need to carry forward that bipartisan tradition of decision-making and we need to embrace the need to modernize and adapt our institutions to meet the challenges ahead.

Thank you all, I look forward to our discussion.

###

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet