President Biden this week heavily touted his foreign policy experience as justification to remain the Democratic nominee in November, but some have criticized that experience and the president’s efforts to pump up his achievements. 

‘During the week of this summit, several head of states made it a point in their statements to thank the United States and to thank me personally for all that NATO has achieved,’ Biden said Thursday at a press conference. ‘NATO is not only stronger. NATO is bigger because we led the charge to bring in Finland and Sweden into the Alliance, and it makes a gigantic difference.’

Later, Biden responded to a question about why he changed his mind about serving as a ‘bridge’ candidate for a generation of younger Democratic leaders. Biden claimed ‘the gravity of the situation I inherited in terms of economy, our foreign policy and domestic division’ necessitated continuity. 

A Biden campaign official told Fox News Digital Biden’s performance during Thursday’s press conference was what the American people were looking for and praised the president’s insightful responses to questions that went into great detail on foreign policy, including the Russia-Ukraine War, China and other topics dealing with foreign affairs.

Here’s what Biden claimed versus what has happened during his administration. 


Biden faced his biggest and most immediate criticism on foreign policy when he chose to uphold Trump’s decision to fully withdraw the U.S. military presence from Afghanistan, which led to a Taliban insurgency, the collapse of the previous government and the deaths of 13 U.S. service members amid the evacuation.

‘I get — still get criticized for it, but I was totally opposed to the occupation and trying to unite Afghanistan,’ Biden said. ‘Once we got … Bin Laden, we should have moved on because it was not in our – no one is ever going to unite it – united that country.’ 

Trump set out and negotiated the plan to withdraw the U.S. troops but set an aggressive deadline for May 2021, giving the military half a year to pull out of the country. Biden moved that deadline back to Sept. 11, 2021, but insisted on completing the deal. 

However, in 2023, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., revealed that a dissent cable sent through State Department channels showed nearly two dozen staffers and diplomats warned the plan as laid out by Biden and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken would lead to exactly the kind of insurgency and collapse that occurred. 

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley testified just weeks after the drawdown that he and other generals had advised against a total drawdown and suggested leaving a force of around 2,500 troops in the country. Biden insisted that ‘no one said that to me that I can recall.’


Biden has arguably scored his strongest foreign policy points on the handling of Russia and Ukraine, even as critics argue that Biden’s approach to relations with Russia invited the invasion and allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to believe he could succeed in taking Ukraine. 

‘For those who thought NATO’s time had passed, they got a rude awakening when Putin invaded Ukraine,’ Biden argued. ‘We collected intelligence that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine months before the invasion. I directed … a significant amount of intelligence to be declassified, so I could start building an international coalition to oppose the invasion.’

But at least one military official admitted Biden’s policy of deterrence was not effective enough to have prevented Putin’s plan to invade. U.S. Gen. Tod Wolters told the House Armed Services Committee in March 2022 that he ‘couldn’t argue’ with the conclusion that ‘deterrence failed in Ukraine.’ 

The Biden administration attempted to deter Putin with a series of sanctions throughout January and February as it warned Russia would invade, but Biden later claimed that ‘sanctions never deter.’ 

However, Biden continued to supply Ukraine with the necessary weapons needed to defend against Russia in what has become known as the ‘porcupine strategy,’ even though that strategy has come under scrutiny as the war lurches through its third year and many in the U.S. Congress question how long the U.S. and its allies can continue supporting Ukraine in a war without an end in sight.


One of the most contentious arguments for Biden’s foreign policy remains his handling of Iran and its march for a nuclear weapon. The Biden administration has relied heavily on sanctions to deter Tehran despite Biden admitting that ‘sanctions never deter’ when talking about Russia. But that, in turn, has seemingly driven Iran to develop strong ties with Russia and China to alleviate those pressures. 

Biden addressed this new and evolving dynamic during his press conference, saying he had plans to try and ‘interrupt that impact’ but could not talk about the details in public. He did warn that he could see many of his European allies ‘curtailing their investment in China as long as China continues to have indirect help to Russia’ but did not directly address Iran. 


Biden spent significant time during the press conference discussing Israel and Gaza, which occurred the day before Biden announced that Israel and Hamas had agreed in principle to a framework to achieve a cease-fire agreement.

‘The question has been from the beginning: What’s the day after in Gaza?’ Biden said, adding later he was ‘able to unite the Arab nations’ and protect Israel from Iran’s ballistic missiles. 

‘Nothing got hurt,’ he stressed. ‘It sent an incredible lesson to what was going on from the Middle East.’ 

‘There’s a lot of things that, in retrospect, I wish I had been able to convince the Israelis to do, but the bottom line is we have a chance this time to end this war,’ he added. 

Many have alleged the attack on Israel occurred because Iran felt emboldened by the Biden administration policy of appeasement. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel blamed Biden’s ‘weakness’ against Iran for what happened. 

‘For three years, the president has appeased Iran, the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism,’ Cotton said. ‘It’s not just the $6 billion that was released from sanctions controls last month. It’s $10 billion that was released from Iraq into Iran.’

Ultimately, western officials determined Iran did not direct the attack against Israel, but Iran months later would proudly claim the attack as revenge for the assassination of Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani, which Hamas, in turn, rejected. 

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom, Andrew Mark Miller and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS