Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2108197583-scaled

When it comes to foreign policy, Hakeem Jeffries will bring more of the same

Despite his trail-blazing role as the first Black leader of a major party’s caucus, Jeffries’ foreign-policy views don’t veer from the status quo.

Reporting | North America
google cta
google cta

On Wednesday, House Democrats unanimously elected Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to serve as their party’s new leader following Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent decision to step down from her leadership role.

Jeffries, who served as an impeachment manager for House Democrats in former President Donald Trump’s second Senate trial, is widely expected to follow in Pelosi’s centrist footsteps. Though he has stayed relatively quiet about his policy views during his decade in Congress, his election will likely draw blowback from progressive activists given his role in founding Team Blue PAC, an election fund aimed at blocking progressive primary challenges of centrist Democrats.

Jeffries has never given much attention to foreign policy, but available evidence suggests that his views line up closely with those of other establishment Democrats.

When it comes to Ukraine, the lawmaker has called on President Joe Biden to emphasize that “this is really a battle between democracy and autocracy, between freedom and repressive government.”

“An attack on any democracy is an attack on every democracy,” he tweeted shortly after Russia’s invasion in February.

He has even expressed sympathy for the idea of establishing a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in Ukraine, arguing in March that such a move wasn’t “off the table” despite the fact that it would likely involve direct combat between U.S. and Russian forces.

Jeffries has rarely weighed in on issues related to defense spending. However, it is worth noting that he voted in favor of a $740 billion defense bill in 2020, a proposal that received a “no” vote from all nine other members of New York City’s congressional delegation.

Despite his generally hawkish views, Jeffries has sided with progressives and anti-war advocates on a few issues, including a vote to require congressional authorization for the U.S. military mission in Syria. As Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy noted on Twitter, Jeffries also signed onto a congressional letter last year in which progressive lawmakers called for a review of the humanitarian impact of American sanctions.

As for the war in Yemen, the Brooklyn-based lawmaker voted in favor of the 2019 War Powers Resolution that would have forced the United States to withdraw its support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating campaign against the Houthi-led insurgency. (Trump quickly vetoed the measure, which never earned enough support in Congress to overturn the block.)

Notably, Jeffries supported the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, a measure that would criminalize efforts to boycott Israeli goods in protest of Tel Aviv’s treatment of Palestinians, which critics say violates the First Amendment. In his most recent election, he received more than $270,000 in donations from hawkish pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC.

He has also rankled progressives with his steadfast support for Israeli military operations. When Tel Aviv launched an attack on Gaza in 2014, Jeffries applauded the move, likening Israel’s situation to living in a dangerous city.

“But when you live in a tough neighborhood Israel should not be made to apologize for its strength,” he wrote in a statement. “You know why? Because the only thing that neighbors respect in a tough neighborhood is strength.”

Despite his emphatic support for Israel, Jeffries broke with Tel Aviv in 2015 by supporting the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that the agreement is the “most preferable vehicle to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

Notably, the centrist congressman has said little about the brewing cold war between the United States and China. He did, however, support the CHIPS Act, which will provide over $50 billion in funding aimed at developing the U.S. semiconductor industry in an effort to compete with Chinese manufacturers.

Updated with additional details at 11:05 a.m. on December 1.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). (Shutterstock/ Lev Radin)
google cta
Reporting | North America
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.