Rejecting the False Choice
Part Four: Neither Candidate Understands America's Role in the World
The idea of America as a “shining city on a hill” originates from the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:14, where He calls His followers to be a “light” that cannot be hidden. This light is meant to shine into the darkness, bearing truth, hope, and love for the glory of God and the good of others.
When John Winthrop referenced this verse in his famous 1630 sermon to the early Puritan settlers of America, he laid out a vision for a community that would both serve others and reflect God’s righteousness and compassion to the world. Ronald Reagan frequently referenced the phrase, presenting a renewed vision of America as a beacon of freedom, democracy, and moral clarity in the world.
Ultimately, Christ’s charge to be the light of the world belongs to His church and not any nation. It’s about the church’s role to live in faith, compassion, and truth, pointing people to God’s kingdom. As I’ve discussed in this series of posts, though, our responsibility as Christians in a democratic republic is to vote for leaders who will reflect the character of God in their policies. Christians, therefore, should seek leaders whose policies align with the values of compassion, justice, and peace—values that support freedom, protect the vulnerable, and promote the dignity of all people. By participating in this way, the church influences the nation’s actions to reflect God’s love and justice in ways that align with our calling as followers of Christ.
Therefore, I do think it is appropriate, as a Christian, to consider each political leaders’ policies on the international stage in view of that calling. As the most powerful nation on Earth, the United States has a profound opportunity to love our global neighbors by supporting freedom and democracy. Scripture calls us to “correct oppression” (Isaiah 1:17) and stand up for the vulnerable. We can do this, first and foremost, by being a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 31:8-9). This means that America, as a leading nation, should play an active role in protecting basic human rights worldwide, promoting values of freedom and democracy, and working alongside allies who share these values. This service is not one of control or domination, but one of empowerment and advocacy—uplifting others to enjoy the same God-given rights and freedoms we cherish.
At the same time, we are called to loyalty and integrity in our alliances. Scripture emphasizes the importance of loyalty and reliability in relationships (Proverbs 18:24, Psalm 15:4). As a nation, we must honor our commitments to allies who stand with us in defense of justice and freedom. A Christian worldview calls us to keep our word, building trust and partnership that promotes peace and security across borders.
It also compels us to stand up to bullies and “rescue the poor and helpless . . . from the power of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:4) America has a strong historical legacy of standing up to those who threaten peace and freedom worldwide. From facing down the Axis powers during World War II to countering the expansion of the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War and taking a firm stand against global terrorism, America has shown that it is willing to oppose bullies who oppress others. This legacy is one of defending the weak and upholding the dignity of all people, a role that continues to be essential in today’s complex international landscape.
A strong military is crucial not only for defending ourselves, but also for fulfilling that role. In Romans 13, Paul acknowledges that rulers “bear the sword” for the purpose of restraining evil. America’s military power, then, should be wielded with the wisdom and justice that God calls for, using our strength to maintain peace and defend the cause of liberty. By defending our citizens and our allies, we play a role in creating a more stable and just world.
The Bible also has much to say about how we should treat foreigners. In the Old Testament, Israel was commanded to love and care for the “sojourner,” or immigrant, because they themselves had once been strangers in a foreign land. (Leviticus 19:34) In the same way, we are called to exercise compassion toward those who seek a new life within our borders, often fleeing violence or poverty in search of safety and opportunity. Jesus was himself a refugee whose family fled to Egypt to avoid genocide. (Matthew 2:13-15) If we do not have compassion for people like this, how can the love of God be in us? (1 John 3:17) This compassion should guide our immigration policies, allowing America to extend a welcoming hand to those in need, especially those facing persecution or extreme hardship.
This doesn’t mean that all borders should be open without reasonable restrictions and safeguards, but rather that our approach to immigration should be governed by mercy and compassion, balanced with an orderly system that ensures safety for both citizens and new arrivals. By doing so, we honor God’s call to care for the vulnerable while upholding laws that protect the stability of our communities. From a Biblical perspective, maintaining strong borders is one way that America can fulfill its God-given responsibility to protect its citizens from those who seek to do harm.
In all of these roles—protecting the vulnerable, supporting freedom, honoring alliances, and ensuring safety—America’s responsibility is to find a balance that aligns with God’s call to both justice and mercy. This isn’t always easy, and as a nation, we must wrestle with complex issues, including the limits of our resources and the risks associated with international engagement. But we should never allow fear, selfishness, or prejudice to prevent us from answering the call to serve and love others, just as we should not allow idealism to compromise the security of our citizens.
The call to be a “shining city on a hill” compels us to seek God’s guidance, asking for wisdom to balance compassion with responsibility. In humility, we should pray that God would help America serve as a beacon of freedom and peace, faithfully stewarding its influence in a way that reflects His justice, mercy, and love. In doing so, we may live up to the calling that has been echoed since the days of Winthrop, serving both our citizens and our global neighbors as a true light to the world.
As we examine the foreign policy and immigration platforms of both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, it becomes clear that neither candidate stands for the global leadership, compassion, and commitment to freedom that America has historically strived to uphold. While Trump’s “America First” rhetoric signals an isolationist and at times xenophobic stance, Harris’s policies, though perhaps more globally cooperative, lack a firm commitment to protecting national interests and promoting democratic ideals. National security experts agree that neither candidate inspires confidence in navigating the challenges we face in the geopolitical landscape. In exploring each of their approaches, we can see how these positions fall short of the Biblical principles of justice, compassion, and wisdom that should guide any leader.
The Dangerous “Isms” Underlying Donald Trump’s Policies
In his 2017 Spirit of Liberty speech, George W. Bush addressed the danger to liberty represented by the growing “tendency to turn inward.” “For more than 70 years,” he noted, “the Presidents of both parties believed that American security and prosperity were directly tied to the success of freedom in the world. They knew that the success depended in large part on U.S. leadership.” He warned of the danger presented by the growing trend among Western nations, including the United States, toward some dangerous “isms”: ethno-nationalism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism. These beliefs undermine the U.S.'s international responsibilities and democratic ideals. They also represent the heart of Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine.
Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy embodies an inward-looking approach that downplays America’s traditional role as a global leader for justice and liberty and, instead, values self-interest above all else. This focus neglects America’s long-standing responsibilities to its allies and undermines its moral authority. It casts aside historical precedents of standing up against oppressive regimes, such as those during the World War II era or the Cold War. By deprioritizing international commitments, the “America First” stance sends a message to democratic allies and vulnerable nations that they cannot rely on the United States as a partner for stability and support against autocratic threats.
Donald Trump stands with Russia and Vladimir Putin over our NATO allies. He extorted our friends in South Korea to help defend them against North Korea. He abandoned Syrian Kurdish allies who had fought by our side for years in support of freedom and democracy in the region. He imposed a series of tariffs on our trading partners which, in addition to harming the American economy, strained economic relations and undermined trust in the U.S. as a stable trading partner. Far from standing up to bullies, Donald Trump repeatedly praises them. That’s because his goal isn’t to oppose the bullies, it’s to be the biggest bully on the block.
On immigration, Trump’s policies have focused intensely on security through stringent border policies and the expansion of deportation measures, which, while intended to protect national safety, have often lacked compassion. One of Trump’s earliest actions as President was to sign an executive order banning people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, an action that Amnesty International has called a “license to discriminate.” He slashed the number of refugees (immigrants fleeing persecution in their homeland) accepted by the United States to record lows. His administration’s family separation policy, in particular, is particularly inhumane. Under the policy, he would separate parents from their children near the U.S.-Mexico border and prosecute the mothers and fathers. Many of those families still haven’t been able to reunite.
No discussion of Donald Trump’s position on immigration is complete, however, without pointing to his hypocritical opposition to last year’s bipartisan immigration reform package. What was included in the package?
It would have created a new removal authority (the Border Emergency Authority) and moved the asylum process out of the courts, reducing the time it takes to adjudicate migrant protection claims and appeals from 10 years to six months or less.
It would have required detention or mandatory supervision of all migrants processed at the border, ending “catch and release” practices and stop the use of parole to enter the country, while ensuring that those needing urgent humanitarian assistance can still temporarily travel to the U.S.
It would have provided the Department of Homeland Security increased hiring flexibility.
It would have raised asylum screening standards, ensuring that only migrants with legitimate asylum claims are allowed to remain in the country, while expeditiously removing economic migrants and those wishing to do Americans harm.
It would have created a mechanism by which the new Border Emergency Authority could close the border to all non-appointment migrants if the daily average of migrant encounters reached 4,000 over a single week (for context, there were over 300,000 such encounters in December 2023) until DHS had processing capacity and operational control of the border.
It included the bipartisan FEND Off Fentanyl Act to fight the fentanyl crisis by targeting the illicit fentanyl supply chain.
It included a path to permanent legal status to tens of thousands of Afghan nationals who served our country and were evacuated to the U.S. following the fall of Kabul in August 2021.
It would have provided work authorization for family members of certain visa holders.
It would have improved and modernized the legal immigration system by issuing 50,000 new employment and family-based visas per year for five years.
It would have prevented kids of legal high-skilled foreign workers from “aging out” at the age of 21, forcing them to leave their family.
It would have provided work authorization only under a new enhanced standard.
It would have guaranteed access to counsel for certain incompetent individuals and unaccompanied children 13 and under, but also ensured that the right to counsel couldn’t be used to delay the process and did not come at taxpayer expense.
It would have boosted funding for border communities to help them manage migrants and avoid overwhelming emergency services, health care resources, and shelters.
At the end of the day, this was a good bill. Trump’s problem with it was not that he didn’t think it was a good bill. His problem with it was that he didn’t think it was good politics. He didn’t want to deliver a “win” on immigration before he had a chance to run his Presidential campaign on the promise that he would fix it. Donald Trump torpedoed a good bill because he would rather the border problem go unfixed than let somebody else get some of the credit for fixing it.
Furthermore, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration has become more and more hateful and racist, casting virtually all immigrants as “animals” and “blood thirsty criminals” who are “poisoning the blood of our country.” He and his running mate have repeated falsehood after falsehood about Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment buildings in Colorado and Haitian immigrants stealing and eating pets in Ohio. When confronted with the truth, Trump and Vance don’t back down. They repeat the claims they know are false. They do so because they are trying to capitalize on fear and hate, not truth or compassion. I want to be clear here: I do not believe Donald Trump or J.D. Vance are racists. I believe they are willing to espouse racist messages to win votes. I do not believe Donald Trump is the same as Adolf Hitler. I do believe he employs many of the same political tactics1.
Their approach is wholly incompatible with the Christian ethic of welcoming the stranger and caring for the sojourner, as seen throughout scripture (Matthew 25:35, Leviticus 19:33-34). A policy approach that prioritizes strong borders can coexist with a humanitarian attitude, yet Trump’s immigration stance has frequently failed to offer a pathway that recognizes and preserves the dignity of those in need.
Kamala Harris and the Democrats’ Weakness is Dangerous
In contrast, Kamala Harris’s foreign policy approach reflects a cooperative and multilateral outlook but suffers from a lack of resolute action in defending democracy and protecting national interests. While the Biden-Harris administration has re-engaged with international organizations and restored some global alliances, its response to growing threats from authoritarian states has often been weak or inconsistent.
The greatest example of the Biden-Harris administration’s failure on the international stage is the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. The chaotic exit, which resulted in the rapid takeover of the country by the Taliban, led to a humanitarian crisis as thousands of Afghans who had aided U.S. forces were left behind, facing threats of retaliation. Not to mention, more than $7.1 billion in U.S.-funded military equipment was in the possession of the Afghan government when it fell to the Taliban (including ground vehicles, weapons, ammunition, and other accessories).
Critics, including military officials and former diplomats, have described the withdrawal as poorly planned and executed, leading to chaos at the Kabul airport where desperate citizens sought to flee the country. The Biden-Harris administration's failure to adequately secure the airport and evacuate American citizens and Afghan allies raised questions about their commitment to protecting those who had risked their lives in support of U.S. This demonstration of U.S. weakness also likely played a role in inviting Russian aggressions in Ukraine.
Also deeply concerning is Kamala Harris’s failure to stand up against the more anti-Semitic elements of the radical left. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of her failure to select Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate apart from her fear that selecting a Jewish running mate would not be supported by her base. Again, I have no reason to believe that Kamala Harris is herself anti-Semitic. I simply do not believe she has the moral fortitude to stand up to those within her party who are. I therefore have no confidence in her standing strongly with our allies in Israel during her administration.
Regarding immigration, Harris has signaled support for more lenient policies, focusing on pathways to citizenship and addressing the “root causes” of immigration (which, by the way, was what she was tapped by President Biden to address—not border security as Republicans who want to call her the “border czar” would like to believe).
While the intention to humanize immigration is commendable, her history on this issue raises serious concerns over border security and the rule of law. Without strong measures to manage the influx of immigrants effectively, her stance may inadvertently contribute to a weaker border, leaving America vulnerable to threats. Furthermore, an overly permissive approach to immigration may strain resources that are vital to sustaining domestic infrastructure and welfare programs. While compassion is essential in immigration policy, it must also be tempered by wisdom and an understanding of the real impacts on both national and migrant communities. By potentially compromising security, Harris’s approach risks creating further instability, failing to provide safety for all of our neighbors.
Conclusion
Ultimately, while Trump’s foreign and immigration policies lack compassion and risk isolating the United States from global responsibilities, Harris’s policies falter in defending democracy and maintaining secure borders. Both approaches fail to meet the standard of a “shining city on a hill”—a nation that both protects its own and serves as a beacon of hope and justice to the world. That’s yet another reason I cannot in good conscience support either of these candidates.
By the way, here’s a great article from Jonah Goldberg at The Dispatch that very eloquently discusses how it’s not really accurate to call Donald Trump a fascist despite the fact that he is very fascistic in many ways.