- Home
- Horizons
- A Stark Choice for America’s Future
Asli Karahan is the CIO of Lioness Capital, a policy and political event-driven hedge fund based in New York.
A Stark Choice for America’s Future: Trump vs. Harris
This is the first $7 trillion-at-stake U.S. election in our lifetimes and likely the first in the history of the world. The two presidential candidates offer vastly different policies and positions on crucial issues like healthcare, immigration, energy, the economy, regulations, taxation, and national and global security, among others. The ramifications of this election, depending on the outcome, will be felt both in the United States and globally.
President Trump speaks after the Congress passed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a signature achievement of his term in office
Healthcare: A Fundamental Divide in Philosophy and Approach
There is a stark contrast in how Trump and Harris approach the role of government in healthcare. The Trump Administration, as evidenced by its regulatory actions, prioritized cost reduction and the streamlining of existing programs, reflecting a preference for market-driven solutions. In contrast, the Biden-Harris Administration has favored a more interventionist approach, emphasizing expanded access and affordability, even at the cost of increased regulations and spending, demonstrating a belief in a more active government role in ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans.
A defining characteristic of the Trump Administration’s healthcare policy was its focus on rolling back regulations deemed burdensome to providers and, by extension, patients. By requiring greater transparency in healthcare pricing, the Trump Administration aimed to empower patients with information, fostering competition among providers that could potentially lead to lower costs. This approach aligns with a broader philosophy of leveraging market forces to drive efficiency in healthcare. The Trump Administration viewed targeted regulations, particularly for dialysis facilities and hospitals, as outdated or unnecessarily burdensome. By reducing administrative obstacles, the goal was to allow providers to focus more on patient care and potentially lower costs.
In contrast to the Trump Administration’s emphasis on deregulation, the Biden-Harris Administration has pursued a more active government role in healthcare, imposing approximately $121 billion in new healthcare regulatory costs since 2021, excluding those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This increase largely stems from minimum staffing standards for long-term care facilities, expanding Medicaid-managed care access, and streamlining Medicaid application processes to maximize enrollment.
Immigration: A Tale of Two Borders
There is a stark divide between Trump and Harris regarding immigration. Trump’s approach, driven by a focus on “law and order,” emphasizes securing the U.S.-Mexico border and curtailing illegal immigration. Conversely, while recognizing the challenges at the border, Harris prioritizes addressing the “root causes” of migration from Central America.
Trump has proposed a series of assertive measures to curb illegal immigration, signaling a return to the hardline immigration policies that defined his presidency. Central to his plan is the reinstatement of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which requires asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed in U.S. immigration courts. Trump argues that this policy deters frivolous asylum claims and reduces the flow of migrants into the United States. He also seeks to end the “catch and release” practice, in which migrants apprehended at the border are released into the United States while awaiting their court hearings. Based on the experience of the last 35 years, Trump contends that this practice encourages more illegal immigration and proposes instead detaining all apprehended migrants—a policy that would require significant expansion of detention facilities and raise logistical and humanitarian concerns. Trump has also proposed deploying the National Guard to support deportations and assist with border enforcement.
In contrast to Trump’s focus on border enforcement, Harris has been tasked by the Biden Administration with leading diplomatic efforts to address the underlying factors driving migration from the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). Harris’s approach attempts to resolve the complex interplay of factors fueling migration, including poverty, violence, and corruption, arguing that the United States must address these issues at their source.
Harris has sought to leverage private sector investment to spur economic development and create opportunities in Central America, with the goal of reducing the economic incentives for migration. This approach seeks to create conditions where people feel they have viable futures in their home countries, but it is unlikely to yield significant results for the next decade or more, given the vast income disparities between the United States and Central American nations.
Harris argues that addressing the root causes of migration is a complex, multifaceted undertaking that requires sustained effort and a long-term vision. Her statement that “The problems, of course, did not occur overnight, and the solutions will not be achieved overnight” reflects this understanding. This stands in stark contrast to the more immediate, enforcement-centric approach favored by Trump and is likely to be seen as too little, too late by American voters frustrated by the 10-11 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States during the Biden-Harris Administration.
Energy: Significantly Divergent Views
There is undoubtedly a chasm between Trump and Harris on climate change. Trump has repeatedly sought to dismantle excessive environmental regulations and promoted nuclear energy as a key baseload zero-carbon energy source for reducing the U.S. carbon emissions. Since 2009, the United States has been reducing its carbon emissions by replacing coal-powered plants with natural gas-operated ones (natural gas produces about a quarter of the carbon emissions relative to coal). Harris, aligning with the Democratic Party’s platform, views climate change as a pressing threat requiring immediate and decisive action. This fundamental difference in perspective extends to their proposed policies, with Trump favoring deregulation and continued reliance on natural gas and nuclear energy, while Harris champions renewable energy and “environmental justice,” a vague term that so far seems to mean income transfers to politically favored Democratic groups.
Trump has consistently championed the U.S. oil and gas industry, viewing it as a cornerstone of American energy independence and economic prosperity. He supports expanding fossil fuel development, including streamlining approvals for natural gas pipelines.
In stark contrast to Trump’s skepticism and inaction on climate change, Harris has emerged as a vocal advocate for ambitious climate action, aligning herself with the Biden Administration’s goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Harris has consistently supported the Biden Administration’s investments in renewable energy, emphasizing the role of clean energy in mitigating climate change and creating economic opportunities for unionized labor. This includes billions of dollars in tax credits for renewable energy projects and electric vehicles, aimed at accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels. She argues that addressing climate change and fostering economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals.
Economy: Contrasting Visions for Growth
When it comes to the economy, the contrast between Trump and Harris becomes even more evident. Trump leans towards a supply-side approach, emphasizing tax cuts, deregulation, and protectionist trade policies as catalysts for economic growth. He argues, with strong evidence, that reducing the tax burden on businesses and individuals will spur investment, create jobs, and ultimately benefit all Americans. In contrast, Harris supports a more interventionist approach, advocating for government investment in education, infrastructure, and clean energy as a means to stimulate economic growth and create jobs.
Central to Trump’s economic vision—whose signature name it borrows from the identical 1930s slogan—is the idea of putting “America First” and prioritizing American workers and businesses over global interests. His approach is characterized by tax cuts as a cornerstone. Trump views tax cuts, particularly for corporations, as a key driver of economic growth, arguing that reducing the tax burden on businesses will lead to increased investment, job creation, and higher wages for workers. He points to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a signature achievement of his presidency, as evidence of his commitment to this approach. Trump wants to extend all provisions of that bill beyond 2025 and possibly reduce corporate tax rates further, from the current 21 to 19 percent. His assertions are supported by the fact that economic growth spiked under his presidency, with domestic investment increasing by 20 percent.
In clear contrast, Harris proposes to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent and allow the 199A deduction—which enables pass-through entities (around 26 million small businesses organized as S Corps and LLCs) to exclude 20 percent of their income from taxation—to expire.
Another central, but less discussed, Trump economic policy is deregulation. During his first term, much media attention focused on the cost of Trump’s tax cuts (estimated at approximately $1 trillion over 10 years), but his deregulatory policies were scored to provide some $3 trillion of relief to the U.S. economy over the same period, dwarfing the impact of the tax cuts. This compares to the $1.68 trillion in economic costs estimated to result from Biden Administration policies since his inauguration. Trump is likely to reverse about 90 percent of the 200 executive decisions made by the Biden Administration that have constrained the U.S. oil and gas industry and will probably work with Congress to neutralize or reverse the remaining 10 percent.
Trump has also demonstrated a willingness to impose tariffs on goods imported from China and other countries, arguing that these tariffs protect American jobs and industries from unfair competition. He views trade deficits as a sign of economic weakness and believes that imposing tariffs allows him to renegotiate trade deals in favor of American businesses and workers. Trump sees tariffs not as an end in themselves, but as a tool to leverage better trade relationships based on reciprocity.
In contrast to Trump’s focus on tax cuts and tariffs, Harris advocates for a more active role for the government in stimulating economic growth and addressing income inequality. Her approach prioritizes government investment as a catalyst for growth. Harris believes that strategic government investments in areas like education, infrastructure, and clean energy can create jobs, boost economic growth, and enhance American competitiveness. She supports increased funding for public schools and affordable colleges, viewing education as a driver of economic mobility. Harris also supports investment in infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and broadband internet, arguing that these projects create jobs, improve transportation, and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth. However, after the massive spending of the Biden Administration on infrastructure, renewable energy subsidies, and COVID-era transfers of $350 billion to states to support K-12 education, it may be difficult to see Congress authorize more funds for these ideas.
Harris views income inequality as a significant challenge facing the United States, arguing that it undermines economic growth and social cohesion. She supports policies aimed at reducing income inequality, such as raising the minimum wage, expanding access to affordable healthcare, and making college more affordable. However, after the (arguably unconstitutional) Biden executive actions promoting college loan forgiveness by circumventing the Supreme Court decision, Harris is unlikely to find a politically favorable environment for pursuing more of the same.
U.S. Defense and Global Security
Despite (or perhaps thanks to) his harsh rhetoric, Trump was fairly successful—unlike his predecessors—in compelling NATO allies to contribute more to their defense spending, so they could meet the mutually agreed-upon 2 percent of GDP threshold. Even the most liberal pundits would admit that Trump’s blunt, and often confrontational, style ultimately proved effective in getting countries like Germany to increase their defense budgets. Furthermore, this pressure from Trump was instrumental in strengthening NATO’s overall deterrence posture. It is important to note that Trump has recently called for the NATO minimum spending requirement to be raised to 3 percent, factoring in what the alliance now faces in terms of cyber, space, and underwater threats in addition to the well-documented land, sea, and air-based ones.
Harris, on the other hand, has been relatively silent on NATO. While she sometimes voices support for American and NATO assistance to Ukraine, indicating her commitment to the alliance, she has not provided specific details on her approach to burden-sharing.
On Iran and Middle East policy, Trump and the Biden-Harris Administration could not be more different in their approaches. After Obama’s controversial JCPOA deal unlocked $110 billion in revenue for Iran—triggering loud partisan protests by the U.S. Congress—and allowed Iran to significantly increase its nefarious activities through terrorist proxies in the region, Trump walked away from the deal. He initiated a “maximum pressure” campaign and squeezed Iran through sanctions, leaving the regime with only $7 billion in reserves by the end of his presidency. Trump’s imposition of harsh sanctions significantly weakened Iran’s economy and limited its ability to support proxy wars against U.S. bases and allies in the region. This pressure from the Trump Administration was beginning to generate internal discontent in Iran, which could have pushed the regime to change course.
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration made a U-turn on America’s Iran policy, began to appease the regime, and relaxed Trump’s oil sanctions on Iran, allowing it to sell oil to China and generate approximately $100 billion in revenue since Biden took office. The Biden-Harris Administration’s eagerness to revive the nuclear deal without addressing its perceived flaws or Iran’s other destabilizing activities empowered the regime in Tehran. It further contributed to the regime’s decision to support Hamas’s October 7th, 2023 attacks on Israel, followed by the barrage of missiles launched from Lebanon by Hezbollah. It is clear that the Biden-Harris approach weakened U.S. leverage and undermined efforts to deter Iran’s malign activities.
One should not forget that so far, Trump is the only U.S. president in the twenty-first century whose administration did not witness an invasion or annexation by Russia. The Bush Administration saw the invasion of Georgia in 2008, during which two of its breakaway regions—Abkhazia and South Ossetia—solidified their de facto independence with Russian support. The Obama Administration saw the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and finally the Biden Administration saw the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022.
It is also important to highlight the timeline of events leading to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to underscore the effectiveness of Trump’s deterrence policies and contrast them with Biden’s appeasement of Russia. Arguably, the Biden Administration made three critical mistakes that reduced U.S. deterrence against Russia and inadvertently invited Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Very early in his presidency, Biden signed the New START Treaty, which is the last remaining arms control agreement limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This treaty was set to expire in February 2021, but Biden reached an agreement with Putin to extend it for another five years without securing any significant concessions. In hindsight, this was a strategic mistake. Trump had refused to extend the treaty for years, withdrawing the U.S. from other arms control agreements like the INF and Open Skies treaties due to concerns over Russian noncompliance. Trump argued that the United States needed to modernize its nuclear arsenal to maintain its deterrence capabilities, and not extending the New START Treaty would have allowed the U.S. to do so without the treaty’s constraints.
Biden’s second strategic mistake was ending Trump’s Nord Stream II sanctions under pressure from Angela Merkel. Worth about $40 billion annually to the Russian regime, lifting the Nord Stream II sanctions signaled that the United States was not willing to use its economic might to put pressure on Russia, giving the Kremlin the impression that it could invade Ukraine—much like it annexed Crimea—without facing major economic sanctions or penalties from the Western alliance.
The final strategic mistake, which almost certainly changed Putin’s risk calculus regarding Ukraine, was Biden’s chaotic, disastrous, and ultimately deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan. This event shook America’s reputation for military competence, its willingness to protect its strategic interests, and its credibility regarding the use of force against adversaries.
Harris has so far expressed her full support for all major foreign policy decisions of the Biden Administration and vowed to continue them. Given the Biden Administration’s total failure in deterring Russia and Iran, and with military cooperation increasing among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, it is safe to say that more state-on-state aggression could be expected during a potential Harris administration as American deterrence continues to weaken.
Beyond the Economy
On a range of other critical issues, the contrasting policies of Trump and Harris highlight the deep ideological divide that continues to shape American politics.
The ongoing war in Ukraine has exposed sharp divisions between Trump and Harris on foreign policy and America’s role in the world. Trump calls for a more pragmatic assessment of the military facts on the ground in Ukraine and advocates for a negotiated settlement with Russia. While the specifics of such a settlement are unclear, one can reasonably conclude that Trump would support conceding two or three annexed regions of Eastern Ukraine to Russia (Russia annexed four regions, but does not militarily control all of them) in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. The future of Crimea, a strategically important peninsula in the Black Sea from which Ukraine managed to push out the Russian navy, remains uncertain. Based on the policies of his first term, it can also be inferred that Trump would continue arming Ukraine even after a presumed ceasefire.
Harris, in line with the Biden Administration’s position, has strongly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and voiced unwavering support for Ukraine’s right to defend itself. However, it remains unclear what specific steps she proposes to address the harsh military realities on the ground.
There are several other critical issues where Trump and Harris hold divergent views. For example, Trump has consistently argued that, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, decisions regarding abortion should be left to state legislators. Harris, on the other hand, is a staunch supporter of abortion rights, pledging to protect access to abortion and reproductive healthcare. She has expressed support for a bill that would guarantee unlimited access to abortion services across the nation.
On crime and policing, Trump has adopted a “law and order” approach, emphasizing support for law enforcement and tougher penalties for criminals. While Harris acknowledges the need for public safety, she has also called for criminal justice reform, focusing on addressing racial disparities in the justice system and promoting police accountability. These broader initiatives dilute her focus on crime and may not adequately address the deep concerns of Americans living in large cities that have seen a sharp spike in violent crime rates relative to pre-COVID times during the first Trump Administration. The stakes in this election are high, and the outcome remains too close to call.
This examination of Trump and Harris’s policy positions reveals a profound ideological divide that defines American politics today. Their contrasting visions for the country’s future underscore the high stakes of the upcoming election.
It is important to note that the Senate is highly likely to return to Republican control after this election, with Senate seats in West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio expected to switch to Republican control, giving them a 52-seat majority. The outcome in the House is less certain, as only 35 of the 435 seats are competitive, but Republicans are likely to maintain their slim majority and continue controlling the House.
Therefore, if Harris becomes the next U.S. president and one or both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, she will face significant challenges in advancing her policy agenda. With a Republican-controlled Congress, many of her legislative initiatives, particularly those requiring congressional approval, would likely encounter strong opposition and struggle to pass.
In such a scenario, Harris might rely on executive orders to enact policy changes within the executive branch’s purview, bypassing congressional approval. However, executive orders are limited in scope and can be easily overturned by subsequent administrations. With limited legislative prospects, Harris could focus on implementing existing policies and programs enacted by the Biden Administration, directing federal agencies to prioritize specific regulations or initiatives within their authority.
The outcome of this election will have far-reaching consequences, shaping the policy landscape and impacting the lives of Americans for years to come.
