• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Christopher S. Chivvis"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Democracy in Comparative Perspective"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "americanStatecraft",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "ASP",
  "programs": [
    "American Statecraft"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Washington’s Domestic Drama Is Threatening Its Global Leadership

America will struggle to meet its global aspirations unless its leaders can make progress resolving its domestic controversies.

Link Copied
By Christopher S. Chivvis
Published on May 18, 2023

This week’s drama over the federal debt ceiling almost certainly has U.S. allies and adversaries scratching their heads and wondering how serious Washington is about leading the world. Not only has the United States appeared to verge on a debt default—an act that would buckle the international economy—but President Joe Biden has also been forced to cancel part of a major trip to Asia that aims at two top U.S. foreign policy priorities, Russia and China.

Regardless of whether one thinks the debt limit should be raised, this week’s showdown is a sign of the risks that mounting partisanship in Washington poses to America’s traditional world leadership role. In an era of global strategic competition, the United States will be entering the ring with one hand tied behind its back if its leaders can’t make progress on their domestic disagreements and moderate vicious political polarization.

The cancellation of Biden’s visits to Papua New Guinea and Australia isn’t catastrophic in itself. Biden will still attend the G7 in Japan, where he will also meet with the leaders of Australia, India, and Japan, known as the Quad. (The Quad meeting was originally planned to take place in Australia.) Biden plans to use these meetings to tighten sanctions on Russia and reinforce the Quad as a democratic alternative to China in the Indo-Pacific. But the episode underscores serious risks that Washington’s dysfunction poses to America’s future role in the world.

Foreign leaders will doubt American reliability more and more, hurting Washington’s relationships with the very countries whose loyalty it’s competing for with Beijing. Nations such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey have been hedging their bets and avoiding caucusing with the United States on major priorities like the war in Ukraine. But Washington’s apparent willingness to throttle the global financial system and bring down their economies is only going to make these fence-sitters more reluctant to lean toward Washington on the issues that will matter in the future. 

Meanwhile, the high jinks puts another dent in the armor of the U.S. dollar, whose hegemony in the international monetary system has brought extraordinary advantages to the United States for decades. The rapid enlargement of so-called secondary sanctions in recent years has already led countries to begin looking for alternatives to the dollar for their international transactions. Beijing hopes someday to fill in the gap with the yuan. Even if it’s decades before that happens, the possibility of U.S. default is bound to help make Beijing’s case that its time will come.

More important, the very fact that the president was forced to scratch parts of a trip that aimed at one of his top foreign policy priorities—building a coalition of partners in Asia who are also uneasy about China—shows how much U.S. domestic squabbles can damage America’s ability to make credible commitments, whether to allies, partners, treaties, or other global contracts. Such polarization means that American diplomats will face an uphill battle when they try to convince other nations that Washington can keep its word beyond one election cycle. This is also going to intensify the tendency of many countries to hedge their bets between the United States and its adversaries, especially Russia and China.

Washington’s dysfunction also helps its autocratic adversaries in the global contest over ideology. China has been trying to woo countries around the world by offering an authoritarian alternative to America’s liberal economic and political model, one that touts the purported advantages of political and economic stability through authoritarian means. But the more chaotic U.S. democratic politics looks from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America, the more Beijing will make headway in persuading the undecideds that its authoritarian alternative actually makes sense.

There are no easy solutions for political polarization, and it’s likely that the worst of this current brinkmanship will be avoided. But America’s leaders need to do more to get their domestic house in order if the United States is to maintain the far-reaching global role to which it aspires.

About the Author

Christopher S. Chivvis

Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program

Christopher S. Chivvis is the director of the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Implementing the Biden Administration’s China Strategy
      • Senkai Hsia

      Christopher S. Chivvis, Senkai Hsia

  • Paper
    What Americans Think About American Power Today

      Christopher S. Chivvis, Stephen Wertheim, Liana Schmitter-Emerson

Christopher S. Chivvis
Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program
Christopher S. Chivvis
EconomySecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Belarus Really Set to Return to the Ukraine War?

    By reminding the world that Lukashenko is a threat to NATO and Ukraine, Kyiv is trying to return the focus to why the Belarusian regime needs to be contained rather than rewarded.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could Migrants From India and Africa Solve Russia’s Labor Shortage?

    The demands of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, demographic problems, and public hostility toward Central Asians mean Russia does not have enough workers.  

      Salavat Abylkalikov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russian Market Sours for Belarusian State Companies

    Minsk’s faith in the future of its larger neighbor’s economy is fading as Belarusian firms in Russia see record losses.    

      Olga Loiko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Did Putin Return From China Empty-Handed?

    With no key agreement signed on the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline, there is a risk that the window of opportunity for Russia will close if Chinese power generation becomes so green that new gas sources are no longer of any interest to Beijing.

      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does Central Europe’s Post-Orban Russia Policy Look Like?

    Though Orban is gone, Putin can still count on some like-minded individuals in Central and Eastern Europe. However, they will seek to avoid open confrontation with EU institutions over Ukraine and their ties with Moscow.


      Dimitar Bechev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.