Trump vs Harris: Comparing each on key election issues ahead of presidential debate

Abortion rights

Kamala Harris supports a federal right to abortion and advocates for blocking states from banning the procedure before fetal viability. She has been vocal in her defence of abortion rights, notably becoming the first vice president to visit an abortion clinic.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, was instrumental in enabling the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade through his judicial appointments. While he has stated that he wouldn’t sign a federal abortion ban, he believes states should have the power to impose their own restrictions.

Divided on climate

Harris aligns with the Biden administration’s stance on climate change, advocating for renewable energy subsidies and environmental justice programmes that prioritise vulnerable communities impacted by climate change.

Members of law enforcement standing across the street from the National Constitution Center, the site of tonight’s presidential debate between Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. (AP)

Trump dismisses established climate science and promotes the unfettered production of fossil fuels. During his presidency, he rolled back over 100 environmental regulations and has promised to pursue a similar agenda if re-elected.

Defending democracy: A central issue

Harris’s campaign frames the 2024 election as pivotal in preserving American democracy. She has been critical of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and supports efforts to expand voting access in the face of Republican-led restrictions.

Trump remains the only US president to refuse to accept an electoral defeat. He attempted to reverse the 2020 election results and has used inflammatory language, referring to his political opponents as “vermin.” His rhetoric raises significant concerns about the future of democratic norms under his leadership.

Economic showdown: Harris and Trump present diverging vision

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump present starkly contrasting economic plans, with Harris backing Biden’s investments in infrastructure and renewable energy, curbing price gouging, and promoting affordable housing, funded by increased taxes on the wealthy.

Trump plans to continue his protectionist trade policies and tax cuts, implementing further reductions and new tariffs, while omitting details on ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, (File Photo)

In contrast, Trump plans to continue his protectionist trade policies and tax cuts, implementing further reductions and new tariffs, while omitting details on ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, despite pledging to spare these programs from cuts, setting the stage for a pivotal economic debate in the 2024 presidential election.

Immigration divide: Harris and Trump’s contrasting approaches

Harris has criticised many of Trump’s immigration policies but has endorsed certain restrictions introduced by the Biden administration, especially in response to record-high border crossings. She has also worked on securing funding for development in Latin America to address the root causes of migration.

Trump’s immigration policies were among the most stringent in recent US history. He plans to escalate these measures by rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants, detaining them in camps, and deporting them en masse if re-elected.

Middle east policy: Harris and Trump’s diverging views

In the midst of the Israel-Gaza conflict, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump showcase contrasting approaches, with Harris supporting Israel’s right to self-defense while emphasizing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and advocating for a cease-fire and a two-state solution.

In contrast, Trump, a long-time staunch supporter of Israel, backs the country’s actions against Hamas but urges swift resolution as international support dwindles, while casting doubt on the viability of a two-state solution, highlighting a significant policy divide between the two presidential candidates.

(with inputs from The New York Times)