Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free
The stories that count on money and politics in the race for the White House
Donald Trump was asked in May whether this year’s election would end in violence. “It depends,” was his response. If so many Americans distrust their electoral system, it is mainly because of the former president. In the nearly 250 years since the United States declared independence, the republic’s most valuable quality has been its peaceful transfer of power. Trump’s 2024 campaign explicitly hinges on his rejection of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. In his mind, the verdict on this “stolen election” will be delivered on Tuesday.
When in doubt, Trump vowed that his first act as president would be to pardon “patriots” imprisoned for the Jan. 6 assault he incited on the Capitol. He reminds voters at every rally that he plans to punish those he blames for his 2020 defeat.
His opponent Kamala Harris this week compared the “hit list” Trump would take office with to her own “to-do list.” Harris is far from a perfect candidate. Since entering the competition late after President Joe Biden withdrew, she has struggled to define herself in her own terms. In a race where the economy raises voters’ concerns, its remedies seem half-baked at best. But Americans don’t have to like what’s on Harris’ to-do list to understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s a election in which a candidate accepts the American constitutional order. The other wants to overthrow him.
A surprisingly large number of Americans are nevertheless impassiveby Trump’s attack on democratic norms. But there are also strong conventional reasons to question the risks of another Trump presidency. These include his radical plans for the U.S. and international economy, his impact on global stability, and his disregard for the rule of law both at home and abroad.
Trump’s economic agenda amounts to a rejection of America’s postwar global role. It would impose tariffs of 20 percent on all imports and at least 60 percent on products from China. Contrary to what Trump claims, the tariffs are not a tax on foreign companies. Their cost would largely be borne by the American consumer through higher prices. Launching a global trade war would trigger retaliation from America’s friends and foes. The IMF estimates that such a change would shave a percentage point off next year’s U.S. growth and reduce global expansion by a quarter. The price of escalating trade barriers will only increase in 2026.
Trump also wants to restrict the independence of the US Federal Reserve and his entourage suggests he would replace its chairman Jay Powell a year before the end of his term. There is no near-term rival to the US dollar as the global reserve currency – although there is growing demand for an alternative, as Russia-hosted Brics summit showed this week last. Politicizing the Fed, vandalizing what remains of global trade rules and deporting millions of undocumented migrants are the kinds of changes that could trigger a rapid abandonment of the dollar.
Just like good health, the benefits of reserve currency will only be appreciated when they are gone. The outlook for blue-collar Americans would also be bleak. Higher inflation leads to higher interest rates and lower growth. There would be no middle class boom with Trump 2.0. Its richest donors should also be clear-eyed about the bargains they have made. The short-term benefits of lower capital gains taxes and preferential regulatory treatment must be weighed against the cost of radical uncertainty. They could no longer take for granted the system that made them rich.
The same benefits apply to the US alliance network. The destabilizing effects of a U.S. turn against the world order it created would be dynamic. Trump is hostile to NATO and friendly to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. His continued admiration for the Kremlin strongman bodes ill for Ukraine, which Trump has made clear he will push for an unbalanced deal with Moscow.
The Trump effect on China is less predictable. He would be just as likely to strike a deal with Xi Jinping as to aim for complete decoupling between the United States and China. The only evidence about Trump’s approach to the Indo-Pacific is his allergy to alliances. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Australia would be forced to guard against the withdrawal of the US security umbrella. Nations of all sizes could also abandon any hope of greater U.S. involvement in collective action against global warming. America First is also America Alone. The “alliance of the aggrieved” of autocrats would rush to fill any void left by the decline of the United States. The world would be much less safe for democracy.
Unlike the upheaval Trump promised, Harris represents the status quo. Relatively traditional sound platform may seem uninteresting, but it has several notable merits. Her advocacy for legislation that would enshrine reproductive rights nationwide would ensure women have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies. The Nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates The Harris plan would only increase the US federal debt by half that of Trump. The shift to renewable energy, a central part of his agenda, would be a service to America and the world.
People also tend to underestimate stability. What she implicitly advocates is less important than the details of Harris’ agenda. Where Trump threatens a perilous rupture, Harris represents the continuity of the values of liberal democracy and free trade – the foundation of the prosperity of America and its partners. The American electorate is on the verge of a decision that could impact the country and the world for decades. There is still time to pause, catch your breath and think about the consequences.
