Originally Posted by
Warren
1. Use of Force
Presidents from both parties have taken an expansive view of their powers as commander in chief, deploying troops and ordering airstrikes without explicit congressional approval and, sometimes, without an imminent threat. The Democratic candidates frequently criticize such actions, but they have been less clear on the circumstances in which they would consider military force justifiable.
Apart from responding to an attack on the United States or a treaty ally, what are the conditions under which you would consider the use of American military force?
warren's Answer
I will not send our troops into harm’s way unless there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs. We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary role in deciding to engage militarily.
Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
warren's Answer
Yes. We cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of moral atrocities. But we should exercise that responsibility first and foremost through a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy to prevent or end conflicts and atrocities, including by reaffirming an international order that protects and values human rights around the world. In extremely rare circumstances, there may be a role for humanitarian intervention — when limited in duration, with clear objectives, authorized by Congress, within U.S. capabilities, and conducted in cooperation with partners and allies and in compliance with applicable international law. But we should always consider the unintended consequences of U.S. intervention, no matter how good our intentions, and what consequences our intervention may bring. And we must understand that there is no military solution to many of these problems — instead, we must engage in the diplomatic and humanitarian work that is ignored by this administration but is far more likely to achieve our goals.
Collapse Answer
Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?
warren's Answer
No. Using force against a nuclear power or high-risk adversary carries immense risk for broader conflict. Using force when not necessary can be dangerously counterproductive. Again, I will only use force if there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs.
Would you consider military force to protect oil supplies?
warren's Answer
No. Together with our partners and allies, U.S. forces patrol the sea lanes to protect commerce and the transit of goods every day. But I will not use force to protect oil supplies. I have a 10-year action plan to achieve 100 percent clean energy for America by decarbonizing our electricity, vehicle and building sectors — reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
Is there any situation in which you could see yourself using American troops or covert action in a regime-change effort? If so, under what circumstances would you be willing to do that?
warren's Answer
No. We have a long history of intervention to remake other countries’ societies and governments — sometimes this has been idealistic, sometimes cynical and self-serving, but always fundamentally misguided. There are dangerous, adversarial regimes in the world. We will set priorities and then use hard-nosed diplomacy to manage those relationships.
Is it appropriate for the United States to provide nonmilitary support for regime-change efforts, as the Trump administration did in Venezuela?
warren's Answer
No. The U.S. should always stand in support of democratic values and democratic movements around the world, but we should not engage in efforts to foment regime change, whether by military, covert or other means. In the case of Venezuela, Maduro is a dictator whose regime has dismantled democratic institutions — but Trump’s reckless actions have only further worsened the suffering of the Venezuelan people. Instead, we should work with the countries of the region to address Venezuela’s humanitarian needs and advance a negotiated path to free and fair elections as quickly as possible.
Collapse Answer
2. Iran
In 2015, the Obama administration signed a deal with Iran that lifted sanctions in exchange for significant limits on Iran’s nuclear program. Many Republicans fiercely objected to the deal, saying it was not tough enough, and in 2018, President Trump abandoned it and reinstated sanctions. But Iran kept up its end of the agreement until last month, when Mr. Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general, Qassim Suleimani. The killing of General Suleimani brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran, which retaliated by attacking two military bases that American forces were using in Iraq.
What would you do with the now-abandoned Iranian nuclear deal, as negotiated in 2015?
warren's Answer
I would re-enter the deal with no new preconditions.
Do you believe President Trump acted within his legal authority in giving the order to kill Qassim Suleimani? Was the killing justifiable? Was it wise?
warren's Answer
No. The president's reckless decision has brought us to the brink of another war in the Middle East. His administration has produced no evidence of imminent threat and made no meaningful attempt at a legal justification. There was no prior consultation with Congress, and no serious thought put into the potential consequences for our troops and our country — or even for the president’s own stated strategies in the region. President Trump’s dangerous escalation has made Americans less safe.
Regarding possible future military action against Iran, is there any type of response that is off the table for you?
warren's Answer
I want to end America’s wars in the Middle East, not start a new one with Iran. The litmus test I will use for any military action against Iran is the same that I will use as I consider any military action anywhere in the world. I will not send our troops into harm’s way unless there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs. We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary role in deciding to engage militarily.
What would your military strategy to deter Iran be? What would your diplomatic strategy be?
warren's Answer
The first thing we need to do is de-escalate and reopen channels of communication with Iran, using the P5+1 and other interlocutors. The best way to do that is to start by negotiating the re-entry of the United States and Iran into the J.C.P.O.A. if that is still possible. If the crisis and conflict President Trump has chosen to create make re-entry into the J.C.P.O.A. impossible, we can still lead with diplomacy and pursue interim confidence-building agreements that focus on our most pressing strategic priority in the region: constraining Iran’s nuclear program.
3. North Korea
Dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program has long been an American priority, and President Trump has tried to do so through unusual means: direct diplomacy with the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. It started in Singapore in 2018 but began to fall apart last February, when Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim emerged from a summit meeting in Vietnam empty-handed. In the interim, sanctions have remained, the North’s arsenal of weapons fuel and missiles has steadily expanded, and Mr. Kim recently threatened to resume missile tests.
Would you continue the personal diplomacy President Trump began with Kim Jong-un?
warren's Answer
Yes. I would be willing to meet with Kim if it advances substantive negotiations, but not as a vanity project. Any summit must be part of a clear strategy, with substantive agreement already reached at the working level, and developed in close coordination with our allies and partners.
Would you tighten sanctions until North Korea has given up all of its nuclear and missile programs?
warren's Answer
No. Economic sanctions can provide strong leverage against North Korea and help counter proliferation but must be appropriately targeted to ensure that they don’t further the suffering of the North Korean people. Sanctions should be adjusted as needed. Certainly, we should consider strengthening them in the event of serious North Korean provocations, such as nuclear or long-range missile tests. At the same time, with verifiable steps in denuclearization, we should be prepared to negotiate appropriate sanctions relief.
Would you gradually lift sanctions in return for a freeze on fissile material development, as President Clinton attempted?
warren's Answer
Yes. Even as we work toward the long-term goal of denuclearization, we should focus on taking practical, reciprocal steps in the near-term to reduce the threat and build mutual trust. As a first step, I would be prepared, in consultation with our allies and partners, to consider partial, time-limited sanctions relief and other confidence-building measures in exchange for a strong, verifiable agreement that freezes North Korea's nuclear and missile activities.
Would you insist on substantial disarmament before relieving any sanctions?
warren's Answer
No. A pragmatic approach to diplomacy requires give and take on both sides, not demands that one side unilaterally disarm first.
Would you agree to begin withdrawing American troops from the Korean peninsula?
warren's Answer
No. Our presence on the Korean Peninsula is in our own strategic interest as a Pacific nation, vital for protecting our trade and investments and promoting democracy and human rights. While it makes sense to periodically review with our allies whether our force posture is appropriately tailored to the changing security environment, our troop presence in South Korea should not be a matter for negotiation with the North.
Please describe your North Korea strategy further.
warren's Answer
Our goal should be the full elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and peace on the Korean Peninsula. But while we work toward those long-term goals, we must take pragmatic steps to reduce the threat now.
We need serious, realistic negotiations to address this threat. As a first step, and in coordination with our partners and allies, I would seek a strong, verifiable agreement that keeps North Korea from expanding its nuclear or missile arsenal or proliferating to other countries. An interim agreement would open the door to negotiations to reduce North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and ballistic missiles, control conventional weapons, and address the regime’s crimes against humanity. Denuclearization negotiations should also run in parallel with efforts to further dialogue between South Korea and North Korea and work towards a stable security architecture for the peninsula. A real diplomatic strategy to deal with North Korea is not only an imperative for our national security, it is the only credible path toward denuclearization.
Collapse Answer
4. Afghanistan
The war in Afghanistan, begun after the Sept. 11 attacks, is the longest war in United States history, and documents released in December revealed that three successive presidential administrations misled the American people about the progress — or lack thereof — being made on the ground. That the United States should withdraw has become a rare point of agreement between President Trump and Democrats. But there are still significant disagreements over when, and under what conditions, that withdrawal should happen.
Would American troops be in Afghanistan at the end of your first term? If so, would you limit those troops' mission to counterterrorism and intelligence gathering?
warren's Answer
No. We have been in Afghanistan for 18 years with diminishing returns for our own security — we’ve 'turned the corner' so many times it seems we’re now going in circles. Expecting a military victory when a political settlement is required is unfair to our military, and unfair to the Afghan people. It's long past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so immediately.
Would American presence in Afghanistan be dependent on other nations contributing troops on the ground?
warren's Answer
No. The only time Article 5 of the NATO charter has been invoked was when the United States was attacked on 9/11. Our NATO partners and others have worked side-by-side with U.S. forces in Afghanistan — hundreds have been killed and many more wounded. The presence of partner forces is a testament to the strength of U.S. partnerships and alliances, and we will consult with our partners prior to any change in troop presence on the ground.
How long do you envision American troops being required, in any numbers, in Afghanistan?
warren's Answer
It’s time to give up the false idea that keeping troops in Afghanistan endlessly makes Americans safer. I would begin to withdraw troops immediately, and at the same time I would engage in serious diplomacy to achieve our counterterrorism goals, including negotiating a sustainable political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. I would also refocus on intelligence efforts, law enforcement, and international partnerships to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, whether they originate from home or abroad. These tools have been enormously successful in preventing attacks against the U.S. since 9/11 — and vastly more effective and less costly than occupying countries.
If Afghans make the hard decisions required to achieve peace among themselves, we should support them. Redirecting just a small fraction of the tens of billions of dollars we currently spend on military operations toward economic development and education, for example, would be a more sustainable investment in Afghanistan’s stability than our current perpetuation of endless war. It’s time to acknowledge that we’ve achieved our main objective of decimating Al Qaeda’s safe haven in the region, and to use American diplomatic muscle to bring an end to this war.
Collapse Answer
5. Israel
In Israel, a two-state solution — long viewed as the only workable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — appears more distant than ever after President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embraced a plan that appeared to tilt the outcome in Israel’s favor. Mr. Trump’s decision in 2018 to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was deeply polarizing. So is the B.D.S. (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, which has grown increasingly prominent and which the House condemned in a bipartisan resolution last year.
Should the United States maintain its current level of military aid to Israel? If not, how should the level of aid change?
warren's Answer
Israel is an important ally, and I am committed to Israel’s security and safety, and to working together to combat shared threats. But it is also critical to preserve the viability of the two-state solution. In some cases, this may mean finding ways to apply pressure and create consequences for problematic behavior by both parties, as previous Democratic and Republican presidents have done. Today, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and the increasing normalization of proposals for Israel to annex parts or all of the West Bank are the most immediate dangers to the two-state solution. I will reverse the Trump administration’s new policy on settlements, which upends 40 years of bipartisan precedent, and make clear that Israeli settlements violate international law. And if Israel’s government continues with steps to annex the West Bank, the U.S. should make clear that none of our aid should be used to support annexation.
Collapse Answer
Do you support the B.D.S. movement? If not, should the president and/or Congress act to hinder it?
warren's Answer
No. I do not support the boycott, but I think outlawing protected free speech activity violates the Constitution.
Should the United States Embassy in Israel be moved from Jerusalem back to Tel Aviv?
warren's Answer
As president, I will take immediate steps to re-establish America’s role as a credible mediator by reopening an American mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem. I would also make clear that in a two-state agreement, both parties should have the option to locate their capitals in Jerusalem — one for Israel and one for a future Palestinian state. If Israel takes steps counter to peace, I am prepared to freeze or reverse the limited embassy functions that have moved to Jerusalem.
Should all Palestinian refugees and their descendants have the right to return to Israel?
warren's Answer
No. Like all people, every Palestinian refugee should have the right to citizenship and dignity. The fate of Palestinian refugees is one of the core issues of the conflict, and there must be a just settlement negotiated between the two sides. Through prior negotiations, a range of remedies have been developed, including Palestinian refugees returning to the new state of Palestine, obtaining permanent residency or citizenship in the countries where they reside, resettlement in other countries of their choosing, and a negotiated number returning to Israel. There should also be an international fund to compensate Palestinian refugees.
Do you support the establishment of a Palestinian state that includes West Bank land as demarcated by pre-1967 borders, except for longtime Israeli settlements?
warren's Answer
Yes. Any two-state agreement should be based on the 1967 lines, with agreed-upon modifications such as reciprocal land swaps.
If you answered yes to the last question, what will you do to achieve that where past administrations have failed? If you answered no, what solution do you envision to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
warren's Answer
A two-state solution is good for U.S. interests, good for Israel's security and its future, and good for Palestinian aspirations for dignity and self-determination. To achieve this, there must be an end to the Israeli occupation and the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip living alongside Israel.
As president, I’ll take immediate steps to fix the damage caused by Donald Trump’s reckless policies. I’ll welcome the Palestinian General Delegation back to Washington, because we cannot advance peace when we have closed our channels of communication. I’ll resume aid to the Palestinians that the Trump administration has cut off, because we cannot sustain peace without a future that brings greater freedom, prosperity, and security to the Palestinian people.
I will also put greater emphasis on relieving the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. I will seek a political arrangement that ends the rocket attacks, lifts the blockade, and facilitates the political reunification of Gaza with the West Bank. And I will make it clear to the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships that incitement and incentivizing terror against civilians is unacceptable.
A longer-term danger is the incredulity gap that has been created amongst the young Israelis and Palestinians who simply do not believe that peace is possible, where hope has been replaced by fear and mistrust. We need to work to lay a foundation that enables Israelis and Palestinians to overcome the broken status quo and move towards a brighter future — one where Israelis and Palestinians can live together in peace, freedom, security and prosperity.
Collapse Answer
6. Russia
Russia has been a deeply destabilizing force on the world stage for several years, including through its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and its meddling in the United States’ 2016 presidential election. After it annexed Crimea, it was suspended from the Group of Eight bloc of industrialized nations (now, in Russia’s absence, the Group of Seven). But President Trump has pushed to readmit Russia to the G-7 and has held several meetings with President Vladimir Putin, the contents of which have not been disclosed.
If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?
warren's Answer
Yes. Unfortunately, it is clear that Vladimir Putin has decided to treat the U.S. and our allies in Europe as adversaries. In Ukraine, Russia has invaded and occupied the territory of a neighboring sovereign country in violation of international law. Beyond Ukraine, the Kremlin has conducted interference campaigns against U.S. and European democracies, orchestrated cyber attacks against NATO allies, bombed hospitals and civilians to prop up a dictator in Syria, and engaged in covert assassination campaigns in Europe. Domestically, Putin’s Russia has become a corrupt autocratic state that suppresses democracy and violates the human rights of its citizens. But hard-nosed diplomacy is required — even, and in some cases especially, with countries that regard themselves as adversaries — and it will be a cornerstone of my approach to foreign policy.
Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back into the G-7?
warren's Answer
Yes. The G-7 was intended to allow like-minded advanced economies to develop common approaches to global problems. Russia was included in the G-7 in an effort to integrate it into Europe and to support its transition to democracy. Unfortunately, Russia’s actions in recent years have demonstrated that it does not share the outlook and values of the other G-7 members. Until it changes direction, Russia’s actions are likely to be a frequent topic of G-7 discussions, and it cannot realistically be a participant.
7. China
The Chinese government has been systematically persecuting Muslim minorities: separating families, subjecting Uighurs and Kazakhs to forced labor and operating internment camps. It is also embroiled in a political crisis over Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China. At the same time, President Trump has taken a hard line on trade with China, imposing economically damaging tariffs. Last month, the United States and China signed an initial trade deal.
Should respect for Hong Kong’s political independence, under the terms of the handover agreement with Britain, be a prerequisite for normal relations and trade with China?
warren's Answer
Yes. Hong Kong plays a unique role in the global economy and an essential role for China. That role is sustainable only if Hong Kong is allowed to retain its democratic orientation and traditions. China should not expect that foreign governments will look the other way if it fails to live up to the international commitment it made in 1997, or that governments and companies will act as if nothing has changed if Beijing continues to undermine the rule of law that is central to that commitment and to Hong Kong's success as a global financial and commercial center.
Should normal relations and trade be contingent on China’s closing its internment camps for Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups?
warren's Answer
Yes. The Chinese government’s cruel, bigoted treatment of Muslims and ethnic minorities is a horrifying violation of human rights and international law. I have supported efforts to respond strongly to these acts, including export controls on technology used for surveillance of China’s Muslim communities and targeted sanctions on those who are directly responsible for these policies of oppression. My trade plan also requires that countries uphold internationally recognized human rights as a precondition for any trade agreement with America.
The United States should also mobilize the international community to hold China’s leadership accountable for its abuses. We have an obligation to stand up to hatred and extremism at home and around the world, and China's human rights practices must be a central part of our diplomatic relationship with Beijing.
We will need to work with China to advance some of our highest priority national interests, including addressing the climate crisis and non-proliferation, even at the same time as we address areas where we have little common ground. But our values cannot be used as a bargaining chip.
Collapse Answer
8. NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance among 29 North American and European countries, has been a linchpin of the United States’ foreign policy for decades. But President Trump has often criticized the alliance, arguing that the United States gives too much and gets too little from it. During his 2016 campaign, he refused to commit to NATO’s central pledge — defending other members if they are attacked — if the members in question had not met their spending commitments, and aides say that in 2018, he repeatedly suggested withdrawing. Last year, NATO agreed to reduce the United States’ contribution and increase Germany’s.
Should NATO nations pay more for defense than their current commitment of at least 2 percent of G.D.P.?
warren's Answer
NATO defense spending levels should not be about arbitrary spending targets. They will be about capabilities. I will build on what President Obama started by insisting on increased contributions to NATO operations and common investments in collective military capabilities. If requirements change and more than 2 percent is required, then our European allies should spend more. But if the needs of the alliance can be met investing at or less than 2 percent, then allies should spend what is needed. I will also recognize the varied and significant ways that European states contribute to global security — deploying troops to shared missions, receiving refugees and providing development assistance at some of the highest per capita rates in the world.
Should nations that do not fulfill their NATO funding commitment still receive an assurance of United States aid if they are attacked?
warren's Answer
Yes. NATO is not a protection racket; it is an alliance. NATO members made a commitment in Article 5 to come to each other’s aid if attacked — our allies came to our defense after 9/11, and if needed we will do the same. NATO is the most successful military alliance in history because of this shared commitment, and because it is built on shared burdens and shared values. Allies should meet their spending commitments, yes, but treating NATO as a pay-to-play scheme undermines the solidarity that is key to the alliance’s strength.
9. Cyber Policy
Cyber weaponry has emerged as the primary way nations compete with and undercut each other in short-of-war conflict. Yet there are few international rules that govern the daily battles — or prevent escalation. As a shadow war emerges in cyberspace, President Trump has given far more powers to the United States Cyber Command and the National Security Agency.
Should a presidential order be required to launch a cyber strike against another country, just as it is required to launch a nuclear strike?
warren's Answer
Yes. The same laws, values, and oversight under which the United States pursues military action should be consistently applied across domains. Any such activity should be subject to careful deliberation by the president and her advisors and the strict oversight of Congress — including offensive operations in cyberspace that rise to the level of a use of force or armed attack.
Cyber threats are dangerous because the digital world is uniquely interconnected, traversing public and private infrastructure alike and crossing international borders in an instant. It is transforming the way Americans live their lives, as well as the way our adversaries seek to do us harm. The United States must be thoughtful and intentional about how it uses this domain to confront adversaries, and engage seriously on the question of cyber norms.
Collapse Answer
The United States Cyber Command’s new strategy is “persistent engagement,” meaning the U.S. goes deep inside foreign computer networks to constantly engage with adversaries and dissuade strikes on the United States. Would you continue this policy?
warren's Answer
Cyber attacks pose an urgent threat to our democracy and our prosperity, and the Trump administration has not yet produced an adequate solution to address, for example, Russia’s ongoing cyber-enabled interference with our elections or China’s campaigns to steal data that is critical to Americans’ safety and prosperity and to our national defense.
D.O.D.’s strategy of "persistent engagement" and defending forward to disrupt cyber threats can be a part of defending U.S. national security, but it must be paired with adequate investment in cyber security to strengthen our defenses, make attacks by our adversaries less effective, and bolster the resilience of our critical infrastructure. We must also engage diplomatically, working with the international community to isolate and punish those states that violate norms of responsible behavior. Modernizing federal cybersecurity and rejuvenating the State Department will be critical parts of my strategy to confront threats from cyberspace.
Collapse Answer
If you answered yes to the last question, would you nevertheless insist that other nations pursuing “persistent engagement” could not be inside American power grids and other critical infrastructure?
warren's Answer
Not applicable.
10. National Security Strategy
In the post-Cold War era — and especially after the Sept. 11 attacks — the focal point of American foreign policy moved to counterterrorism, the Middle East and Afghanistan. President Trump has, at least on paper, argued for shifting American foreign policy back to confront the “revisionist powers” of Russia and China.
President Trump’s national security strategy calls for shifting the focus of American foreign policy away from the Middle East and Afghanistan, and back to what it refers to as the “revisionist” superpowers, Russia and China. Do you agree? Why or why not?
warren's Answer
Despite his campaign claims and his national security strategy, President Trump has in fact sent more troops to the Middle East and has now brought us to the brink of war with Iran. We need to end America’s wars in the Middle East, not start new ones.
Both China and Russia have invested heavily in their militaries and other tools of national power. Both hope to shape spheres of influence in their own image and ultimately remake the global order to suit their own priorities. But confronting this challenge is not solely or even primarily a question of military competition, nor should the United States seek a military conflict that would be devastating for all involved. China uses its economic might to throw its weight around on the world stage, for instance, while Russia has prioritized opportunistic harassment and covert attacks. And beyond China and Russia, we face challenges, such as cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation, that require much more than a strong military to combat. Other challenges, like climate change, cannot be solved through military action at all.
Addressing these challenges requires prioritization. That starts with cutting our bloated defense budget — identifying which programs actually benefit American security and which merely line the pockets of defense contractors. It also requires us to reinvest in diplomacy and other tools of national power — because funding a muscular military without robust diplomacy, economic statecraft, support for civil society, and development assistance only hamstrings American national power and undercuts any military gains.
Lastly, with American power increasingly challenged from within and without, we can no longer afford to think of our domestic agenda as separate from our foreign policy. Investments at home strengthen the economy, but they also serve our national security. A stronger economy, a healthier democracy and a united people — these are the engines that power our country, and these are the investments that will project American strength and values in the world well into the 21st century.
Collapse Answer
11. Top Diplomatic Priority
The next president will be confronted with an array of foreign policy challenges, from North Korea’s nuclear program to international efforts to combat climate change. It will not be possible to address all of them at once. This makes it essential to understand not only the candidates’ policies, but also their priorities.
What would be your top priority for your secretary of state?
warren's Answer
The first priority for a new secretary of state must be to address the threat posed by climate change to the United States and the world. But to make progress on climate change, we will need to rebuild relations with our allies and partners. In fact, all of the challenges we face — from climate change to nonproliferation to the need for international norms in space and cyberspace — require a multilateral approach to solve. Our network of partnerships and alliances is one of America’s unique strengths, and we are stronger together than we are apart.
We won’t be able to rebuild America’s image and restore relations with our key allies without repairing the damage done to the State Department, which has been gutted during the Trump administration. I have a plan to revitalize the State Department, and I will appoint a secretary capable of implementing it. The American people deserve the world’s best diplomatic institution to protect American interests around the world.
Re: Democrat 2020
Bookmarks