How Kamala Harris’ platform could differ from Joe Biden’s (2024)

Harris

Proposed federal abortion protections that would go beyond Roe v. Wade, limiting state restrictions.

Biden

Vows to restore Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a federal right to abortion but also allowed states to limit access.

Both Biden and Harris have condemned the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and would at a minimum restore its protections. But as a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris proposed going further than Roe by giving the Justice Department enhanced oversight over states’ abortion laws.

Under her proposal — similar to a now-dormant provision of the Voting Rights Act — states with a record of curtailing abortion rights would have to seek preclearance from the DOJ before enacting new laws affecting abortion access. “And until we determine they are constitutional, they will not take effect,” Harris said in 2019.

Biden has said a top priority for his second term would have been to pass federal legislation restoring Roe, once again allowing abortions in all states until the fetus is viable. Roe, however, also allowed Republican-led states to place restrictions on clinics and physicians that curbed abortion access, often with severe effects. At the time of the Dobbs ruling, several GOP-led states, including Mississippi, had only a single clinic that performed abortions.

Abortion is among the few issues where Democrats have a clear polling advantage, and Harris has consistently appeared more comfortable talking about abortion rights than Biden. Advocates see Harris as one of their staunchest champions, pointing to her votes in the Senate against abortion restrictions, her fight as California attorney general against a group that recorded sting videos at Planned Parenthood clinics, and her work highlighting the issue as vice president.

Both Biden’s and Harris’ plans have something in common: They would face near-insurmountable odds in Congress. And Harris’ plan would almost certainly face court challenges. The Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance mechanism in 2013.

Harris

Has voiced sympathy for Palestinians caught in the crossfire of Israel’s war with Hamas, while not breaking with Biden for his support of Israel.

Biden

Expressed solidarity with Israel after Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 and has kept up the flow of weapons to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, despite expressing qualms about deaths among Palestinians.

Biden’s outspoken support for Israel following the deadly Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, and his decision to keep supplying military aid to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government despite the tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties, has provoked dismay and outrage among progressive activists whose support was crucial to his reelection effort.

Harris hasn’t exactly broken with Biden over the issue. But she has expressed more public sympathy than Biden has over the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have died during Israel’s counterattack.

In March, she was one of the earliest high-profile leaders in the administration to call for an immediate temporary cease-fire in March. She also delivered the sharpest rebuke against Israel’s handling of aid flows into Gaza and described the conflict as a “humanitarian catastrophe” for innocent civilians.

And privately, she has told Biden and other top officials that the administration needed to take a stronger stance against Netanyahu and focus on a long-term peace to the decades-long conflict, people familiar with her remarks have previously told POLITICO.

Her broader attitude towards a long-term resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would likely align with the Biden administration’s approach. As a senator, Harris — like Biden — voiced support for a two-state solution as a long-term resolution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And she backed the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements brokered by the Trump administration that normalized Israel’s relations with some Arab governments. Biden has sought to expand on those agreements and secure participation from holdout Arab countries, namely Saudi Arabia.

Harris’ now inherits the responsibility for voicing a Democratic position on the Gaza war, an issue that has split the party on Biden’s watch — and will need to do it without Biden’s decades of foreign policy experience.

The results will determine whether she can satisfy the progressives and Arab-American voters who have condemned Biden’s support for Israel, without furthering accusations that she is abandoning the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East.

Harris’ ascendance also coincides with Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, where he will address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday. While a meeting between the two was already on the books, Harris was not previously scheduled to attend his speech to Congress due to a campaign commitment.

She now faces a critical political optics test, as she would be photographed seated right behind the controversial Israeli leader if she chooses to attend the speech. That image would likely do little to boost Harris’ numbers among critics of the U.S. response to the war.

Harris

Proposed a $10 trillion climate plan and co-sponsored the Green New Deal. Called for a ban on fracking.

Biden

Proposed his own multitrillion-dollar Build Back Better bill that turned into a $369 billion climate law (still the largest in U.S. history). Didn’t support the entire Green New Deal. Opposed banning fracking.

Both have proposed spending historic sums on combating climate change and retooling the U.S. economy to embrace clean sources instead of fossil fuels. Her plan would have gone even further.

As a presidential candidate, Harris pitched a $10 trillion climate plan whose public and private investments would have dwarfed the total $1.6 trillion estimated federalcost of Biden’s major climate, energy, infrastructure and technology legislation. Unlike the administration’s current policies, she also would have instituted a “climate pollution fee” and ended federal subsidies for fossil fuels.

As a senator, she was an original co-sponsor of the non-binding resolution defining the Green New Deal, a blueprint for a large-scale mobilization aimed at transitioning the U.S. to 100 percent clean energy within a decade while providing people with job guarantees and “high-quality health care.” She was joined by liberals such as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Harris also said she was “prepared to get rid of the filibuster” to pass it in the face of GOP opposition to climate action. And she said in 2019 that there was “no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” the technology that has fueled a U.S. oil and natural gas boom and enriched economies in places such as North Dakota, west Texas and Pennsylvania.

Republicans have labeled the Green New Deal a “socialist manifesto,” and Biden repeatedly said during the 2020 campaign that he didn’t support the entire package as written. His own climate policies have included some similarly sweeping provisions, however, including steps meant to achieve net-zero U.S. climate pollution by 2050 and create clean energy, infrastructure, manufacturing and mining jobs.

Biden long opposed abolishing the filibuster but changed his mind after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. He also has said repeatedly as a candidate that he had no plans to ban fracking — and, as president, he has taken no steps to do so.

Former President Donald Trump has eagerly wielded fracking as a weapon against both Biden and Harris, especially using it as a rhetorical cudgel four years ago in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.

After Biden picked Harris as his running mate in 2020, Trump wasted no time attacking her support for a fracking ban. "How do you do that and go into Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas?" Trump asked at the time.

The issue takes on even more importance this year, given Pennsylvania’s status as one of a handful of states Biden would have had to win reelection — especially given Trump’s decision to choose Sen. JD Vance, a fossil fuel supporter from neighboring Ohio, as his own running mate.

Meanwhile, it would be difficult for a Harris administration to secure enough funding from Congress to add significantly to Biden’s $1 trillion-plus energy and infrastructure agenda. But she would face much the same challenge he had: persuading voters that the spending is benefiting their lives.

Harris

Called for student debt relief during the Biden administration. As California attorney general, pushed loan relief for defrauded for-profit college students.

Biden

After initial skepticism, made mass student debt relief a centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda.

Harris was an early voice inside the administration advocating for forgiving student debt — a major item on progressives’ wish lists — even as the White House engaged in a protracted debate over how to approach the issue during 2021 and much of 2022.

Biden publicly and privately expressed doubts about going big on loan forgiveness through executive action, questioning both his legal authority as well as the optics of canceling debt for higher-income Ivy League graduates. He ultimately signed off on a sweeping plan in August 2022 that included canceling up to $10,000 of debt for millions of people, far less than progressives wanted. The Supreme Court struck down that attempt, though Biden is trying again.

Harris’ own plan from her 2019 presidential campaign, which would have offered forgiveness for Pell grant recipients who start businesses, drew criticism from progressives who called it confusing and less ambitious than proposals from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

More recently, Harris was the face of the Biden administration’s decision in 2022 to wipe out all debt owed by hundreds of thousands of students who attended Corinthian Colleges, a chain of for-profit schools that Harris prosecuted as California attorney general. She’s also talked about her personal experience with student debt.

Harris

Called for making college tuition-free for many students

Biden

Proposed tuition-free college, with stricter income limits

In 2017, Harris was an original co-sponsor of Sanders' plan for free college, which aimed to eliminate tuition and fees for all students attending two-year colleges and middle-class students at four-year public institutions.

But by the time Harris hit the campaign trail in 2020, she had backed a measure from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) that called for going even further by factoring in the comprehensive costs of college. It would have covered any college expenses above a student's expected family contribution and would have given priority to Pell grant recipients.

Biden’s proposal on the issue was less sweeping: In 2020, he said he would support tuition-free four-year public colleges and universities, but only for families whose income was below $125,000. Since taking office, he has largely focused on making two-year college free.

After that plan failed to make the cut during negotiations over what became Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, the president turned his focus to doubling the Pell grant, which some higher education groups say would cover the cost of two-year colleges and certain four-year colleges for low-income students.

Harris

Voted against Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement because of environmental concerns. Opposed President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Biden

Backed the USMCA after House Democrats got Trump to make changes. Supported TPP as vice president; said he would renegotiate it when running for president, but hasn’t followed through.

Both Biden and Harris have aligned with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party on trade and took similar positions when they ran against each other during the 2020 primary. But some of Biden’s positions have departed from stances he took as Barack Obama’s vice president.

As a Senate candidate in 2016, Harris opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by the Obama administration, amid criticisms from labor and environmental groups that it would move jobs to lower-income countries like Vietnam. The trade deal never came to a vote in Congress, and Trump withdrew from the pact shortly after becoming president.

Biden, meanwhile, was a vocal supporter of the TPP as vice president. But during the 2020 presidential campaign, he said he “would not rejoin the TPP as it was initially put forward” — instead, he would renegotiate the pact to give labor and environmental groups more influence over the final details of the agreement.

But Biden has not done that as president. Nor has he negotiated any other new free trade agreements.

Harris voted against the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement, Trump’s replacement for NAFTA, saying it wouldn’t do enough to protect Americans’ jobs and the environment. (It passed the Senate 89-10.) “In a Harris administration,” she said at one point, “there would be no trade deal that would be signed unless it protected American workers and it protected our environment.”

Biden initially opposed the USMCA, but changed his position after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi negotiated changes favored by Democrats.

Harris

Supports government regulations.

Biden

Called for voluntary standards for industry.

Harris launched her political career in Silicon Valley, and some of her former top staffers are now big names in the tech industry. But she’s been more outspoken than Biden in calling for regulations to address AI’s dangers, including deepfakes, algorithmic bias and disinformation.

“History has shown, in the absence of regulation and strong government oversight, some technology companies choose to prioritize profit over the wellbeing of their customers, the safety of our communities, and the stability of our democracies,” Harris said during her visit to the U.K. for November’s AI Safety Summit.

Last July, during the early days of the White House’s mobilization on AI policy, Harris led a meeting among civil rights, labor and consumer protection groups where she rejected the “false choice” between promoting innovation and protecting the public.

In contrast, Biden has sought to govern AI companies largely through voluntary standard-setting. On the other hand, he also issued a broad executive order on AI in October that Republicans want to roll back — with much of their complaints focused on the administration’s attempt to force tech companies to provide information about AI projects that use immense computing power.

Harris

Improved enforcement against data privacy violations as California’s attorney general.

Biden

Has urged Congress to pass a data privacy law.

Harris led California’s efforts to regulate data privacy when she was attorney general, years before the state’s nation-leading Consumer Privacy Act was even a thought.

“Your personal privacy should not be the cost of using mobile apps, but all too often it is,” Harris said as early as 2012.

That year she created the Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit under the California Department of Justice. She later gave guidance on privacy policies and launched tools for Californians to report online privacy violations.

Critics, however, accused Harris of adopting weaker policies supported by her Silicon Valley donors and allies.

Biden has also spoken out on the issue, but mainly by urging lawmakers to act.

While data privacy alone has not been a prominent issue in the campaign, it touches several key issues that voters care about.

After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, data privacy for abortion seekers crossing state lines became a priority for the Biden administration. The Federal Trade Commission took enforcement action against multiple companies over alleged health privacy violations, including businesses selling people’s location histories that could reveal visits to reproductive health clinics.

Not everyone is a fan of these enforcement efforts, with Silicon Valley funders concerned about the Biden administration’s regulations on the tech industry. Several, including Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, the co-founders of the venture capital firm a16z, announced their support for Trump over these concerns.

Harris

Defended California’s foie gras ban and free-range hen mandate.

Biden

His administration has tried to block a California law on treatment of farm animals.

As California’s attorney general, Harris aligned with the state’s voters’ aggressive positions on animal welfare laws. Those included appealing a federal ruling that struck down California’s ban on the sale of foie gras. She also defended state laws that said eggs sold in California must come from free-range or similarly humanely raised hens.

But in 2022, Biden’s Justice Department backed a move to block a new California livestock welfare law. His administration filed a brief to back two major agriculture groups’ challenge of the California law. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed it to stand.

Tom Vilsack, Biden’s Agriculture secretary and a close ally of the president, has since said that he favors Congress pursuing legislation to clarify that law to avoid chaos in the national markets.

Harris’ past position on the matter could put her at odds with politically powerful agriculture groups, including in key swing states. Many of those groups are still trying to overturn the California animal welfare law, which dictates how farmers elsewhere in the country can raise pigs and other animals destined to be sold inside the state’s borders.

Under a Harris presidency, she may be more inclined to direct USDA to press Congress to allow the California law and similar state measures to stand, while pushing for new animal welfare regulations.