What the Trump-Harris showdown means for international business

As the United States gears up for a pivotal election day, the showdown between Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump stands to reshape the global business landscape.

The contrasting visions of the candidates not only are poised to influence domestic policies, but also hold significant implications for international trade, foreign policy, and worldwide economic stability.

Current Vice President Kamala Harris has put forth a policy framework that prioritized climate change and multilateral cooperation. Harris has aimed to re-engage with international environmental agreements, a shift that could significantly impact countries like China and those in the European Union.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement in 2021, signaling a commitment to reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable practices. This approach appeals to businesses like Tesla, which has made substantial investments in renewable energy and electric vehicle production. The global shift towards sustainability under Harris could catalyze growth in green technologies and increase demand for sustainable products worldwide.

Former President Donald Trump has advocated for America First policies that prioritize domestic production and trade. His previous administration implemented tariffs on goods from China, aiming to reduce the trade deficit and encourage American manufacturing. Companies such as Boeing and General Motors could be impacted under a Trump administration, particularly if trade tensions with China escalate again. Trump’s approach could potentially strain U.S. relationships with allies in Europe, who favor collaborative solutions to global issues. From a domestic perspective, Trump’s emphasis on deregulation— particularly in energy and finance— has allowed many businesses to innovate and expand. The oil and gas industry, for instance, benefitted from relaxed regulation.

The implications of these policies extend beyond environmental initiatives and trade, however. For instance, Harris’s focus on diplomacy could develop relations with European nations, fostering partnerships that facilitate economic cooperation. On the other hand, Trump’s vow to impose 10% tariffs on imports from all nations and 60% duties on imports from China may lead to uncertainty; the International Monetary Fund forecasts that global growth could slow down if protectionist policies take root. 

However, Trump’s focus on renegotiating trade deals has been viewed positively across agricultural and manufacturing sectors. The USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), which replaced NAFTA, is touted as a significant improvement for American farmers and manufacturers; proponents argue that the agreement offers better protections for American intellectual property and improves market access for U.S. dairy and agricultural products in Canada and Mexico, ultimately benefiting domestic producers.

Mexico, a crucial trading partner under the USMCA, could also see significant shifts depending on the election outcome. Harris’s administration will likely focus on strengthening ties through economic cooperation and immigration reform, which could enhance trade flows and workforce stability. In contrast, Trump’s policies, which often emphasized border security and stricter immigration controls, could potentially complicate labor markets and supply chains that rely on Mexican labor. Companies like Ford, which have substantial manufacturing operations in Mexico, may face altered dynamics depending on the policies that emerge from the election.

Overall, the upcoming election represents a crossroads for U.S. foreign policy and its implications for international business. As businesses worldwide assess each administration’s strategies in light of these potential outcomes, the stakes are high for the rest of the world.