Trump vs Harris: Which Presidency is Better for International Trade?

A Trump-Harris face-off in 2024 would showcase one of the most distinct economic policy contrasts in modern American politics. Their different approaches to taxation, trade, and government spending point to two separate paths for the U.S. economy. Economists, business leaders, and policymakers debate intensely about these competing visions that could shape American economic policy.

Their contrasting economic strategies cover basic differences in fiscal policy, trade deals, and international relations. Trump supports continued tax cuts and protectionist trade policies. Harris believes in higher tax revenue and mutually beneficial trade alliances. Either candidate’s economic agenda would substantially impact global supply chains, corporate tax rates, and international trade relationships. These changes would create lasting effects on domestic and world markets.

Fiscal Policies and Budget Impact

The fiscal policies of both presidential candidates would affect federal finances by a lot in different ways. Their distinct approaches show different beliefs about how government should handle revenue and spending.

Trump’s tax cuts and spending plans

Donald Trump wants to slash taxes dramatically as part of his fiscal strategy. His latest proposal aims to reduce corporate tax rates from the current 21% down to 15-20% and make the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent. The plan includes several major changes:

• Americans would pay no taxes on their Social Security benefits, which would cost about $1.3T
• Workers would get tax breaks on overtime pay, with an estimated $2T effect on revenue
• The reduced tax rates would stay in place for taxpayers at all income levels

Harris’s tax increases and spending proposals

Vice President Harris aims to balance targeted tax increases with broader social program expansion. Her strategy has:

Projected effects on deficit and debt

The budget forecasts show clear differences between the candidates’ economic plans. Trump’s plan would add $7.5 trillion to the national debt by 2035 and raise the debt-to-GDP ratio to 142%. Harris’s proposals would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion and result in a 133% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Both candidates’ fiscal policies would expand government debt by a lot. Trump’s plan would create almost double the deficit compared to Harris’s approach. The deficit would reach 9.6% of GDP under Trump’s proposals by 2035, while Harris’s plan would lead to 8.1%—both numbers would set new records outside major crises.

Trade and Tariff Policies

The candidates clash over trade policy in their economic agendas, revealing stark differences in their views on international commerce and tariffs.

Trump’s protectionist approach and tariff threats

Trump bases his trade strategy on aggressive protectionism and proposes unprecedented tariff increases. His plan has these major elements:

• A universal 10-20% tariff on all imported goods
• A targeted 60% tariff on Chinese imports
• Additional duties on companies that move production overseas

These proposed measures show a major expansion from his previous administration’s trade policies. His earlier approach affected about 10% of U.S. imports when it peaked in 2019.

Harris’s stance on fair trade and existing tariffs

Harris supports a balanced approach to trade policy that emphasizes multilateral cooperation while putting strategic pressure on specific sectors. Her position lines up with the current administration’s “de-risking” strategy that has these elements:

Potential impacts on global trade

Trade policies from both candidates would affect global commerce by a lot. Economic analyzes show Trump’s proposed universal tariffs could lead to these outcomes:

• A 0.2 percent drop in long-term GDP
• Loss of about 142,000 full-time jobs
• Each household would pay roughly $2,600 more per year

Harris takes a different path. She keeps some protectionist measures but wants to avoid economic disruption through targeted interventions. Both strategies show a transformation from post-war free trade agreements. This new direction reshapes global supply chains and international economic relationships.

Each candidate’s approach to trade policy reveals their distinct vision of America’s role in the global economy. These choices reach way beyond U.S. borders and influence international markets.

Domestic Economic Priorities

Both candidates place the domestic economy at the heart of their policy plans. They propose different approaches to create jobs, revive manufacturing, and support businesses. Their competing strategies showcase distinct visions of America’s economic future.

Job creation strategies

Both candidates reveal their distinct approaches through their employment track records. The economy under Trump’s previous administration added about 7 million jobs between January 2017 and February 2020. The unemployment rate dropped to a historic low of 3.5%. His strategy promotes deregulation and tax incentives that target energy and manufacturing sectors.

Harris builds her job creation plan around what she calls a “Chance Economy.” Her approach includes:

• Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit
• Removing four-year degree requirements from 500,000 federal positions
• Using skills-based hiring practices

Manufacturing and industrial policies

The candidates show distinct approaches to boost domestic manufacturing growth. Harris advocates modernization of traditional sectors alongside investments in emerging technologies:

Small business support

Harris wants to generate 25 million new business applications with detailed support measures. Her plan has increased the start-up expense deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 and established business incubators across the country. The strategy focuses on supporting the small business sector that employs about half of all private-sector workers—over 60 million Americans.

Trump’s small business support builds on his previous administration’s tax reduction and deregulation policies. His approach keeps the 20% deduction for pass-through businesses that helps about 23 million enterprises. The strategy reduces compliance costs and makes business operations simpler by cutting down government oversight.

Global Economic Relations

The economic rivalry between the United States and China continues to shape global markets, and both presidential candidates acknowledge this reality but differ substantially in their approaches to this significant relationship.

Approach to China and other major economies

Harris and Trump offer distinctly different visions for managing relations with major economic powers. Harris promotes a “de-risking” rather than “decoupling” approach to China that emphasizes targeted economic measures while keeping diplomatic channels open. Her strategy prioritizes:

• Strengthening alliances with Indo-Pacific partners
• Implementing selective technology export controls
• Maintaining existing tariff structures while avoiding escalation

Trump takes a more confrontational stance and proposes a 60% tariff on Chinese imports. He threatens to revoke China’s Most Favored Nation status. His aggressive strategy reaches beyond China and suggests potential tariffs on allies who fail to meet his trade expectations.

Stance on international economic organizations

Harris and Trump show distinct approaches that reflect their core economic beliefs:

Potential geopolitical economic impacts

Economic analysts expect both candidates’ policies to affect global markets deeply. Trump’s proposed universal tariffs could disrupt international markets. The estimates paint a concerning picture:

• A $2,600 yearly cost increase for average American households
• Auto manufacturers, retailers, and semiconductor industries would feel the effects most
• Trading partners might retaliate and slow down global growth

Harris takes a multilateral approach that creates less disruption to global trade but comes with its own set of challenges. Her administration would likely keep up the strategic competition with China through targeted measures. This could affect global supply chains and tech development. Her focus on “friend-shoring” might reshape how international production networks operate, especially in key areas like semiconductors and clean energy technology.

Both administrations would strengthen the U.S.-China strategic competition but in different ways. Trump’s approach might speed up economic separation, while Harris wants to strike a balance between competition and stability. She aims to keep economic ties while addressing security issues.

Trump and Harris present Americans with a crucial choice about their financial future through their opposing economic policies. Trump’s projected $7.5 trillion debt increase compared to Harris’s $3.5 trillion projection shows this is a big deal as it means that federal finances will take very different paths. Their trade policies highlight even more differences. Trump advocates for universal tariffs and a 60% duty on Chinese imports, while Harris supports a targeted, multilateral approach. These distinct visions would reshape American economic priorities and affect businesses and households through different job creation strategies and manufacturing policies.

Their competing economic frameworks would transform America’s role in the global economy. Trump’s protective trade measures and confrontational stance toward China might speed up global economic separation. Harris focuses on international cooperation and strategic competition to keep economic stability while tackling security concerns. The chosen candidate’s policies would permanently change global trade patterns, international relationships, and America’s economic leadership. This makes the 2024 election a defining moment for domestic growth and the international economic system.