Where Trump and Harris Stand on the Issues, From Abortion to Immigration

Ms. Harris wants to enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law now that the Supreme Court has overturned it.

“When I am president of the United States, I will sign a law restoring and protecting reproductive freedom in every state,” she wrote in July. To do that, she would need not just Democratic majorities in Congress but also 50 senators willing to get rid of the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation.

Ms. Harris said last year that she and President Biden envisioned a law mirroring Roe. As modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Roe broadly protected the right to abortion until a fetus could survive outside the womb but allowed bans after that point so long as they had exceptions for medical emergencies. “We’re not trying to do anything that did not exist before June of last year,” she told CBS News.

As a senator, she was a sponsor of a bill called the Women’s Health Protection Act that would have gone somewhat further than Roe by prohibiting some state-level restrictions, such as requiring doctors to perform specific tests or to have hospital admitting privileges in order to provide abortions. She reiterated her support for it in 2022.

She also argued, while running for president in 2019, that states with a history of restricting abortion rights in violation of Roe should be subject to “pre-clearance” for new abortion laws, meaning those laws would have to be federally approved before they could take effect. Her campaign did not respond to a request to confirm whether she would still support this if Congress codified Roe. (Without such codification, the proposal is moot.)

In the absence of congressional majorities capable of codifying Roe, Mr. Biden’s cabinet took administrative actions to try to limit the effects of state abortion bans, and Ms. Harris has indicated support for those actions.

The Department of Health and Human Services told hospitals in 2022 that a law pertaining to emergency rooms, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, obligates doctors to perform an abortion if they believe it is needed to stabilize a patient. (That guidance is subject to legal challenges on which the Supreme Court has so far declined to rule.) In April, the same department announced a rule to shield many abortion patients’ medical records from investigators and prosecutors.

Mr. Trump has said that he believes abortion rights are a state issue. If elected again, he would allow states to restrict abortion as they see fit, including potential monitoring of pregnancies or criminal charges for abortion patients, he told Time magazine.

“It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not,” he said. “It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”

Mr. Trump appointed Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Their votes were critical to overturning Roe v. Wade.

He has boasted about that fact on a number of occasions, saying he accomplished what no Republican president before him could and calling himself “proudly the person responsible” for the overturning of Roe. He has repeatedly, falsely, claimed that “all legal scholars” supported overturning it.

“After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the ‘shock’ of everyone, and for the first time put the pro life movement in a strong negotiating position,” he wrote on social media last year, adding, “Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to.”

Ms. Harris opposes a federal abortion ban and has said she would veto it if Congress passed one.

Mr. Trump said in April that he would not sign a federal abortion ban, shortly after saying that states should be allowed to set their own abortion policies. Many states, since Roe was overturned, have enacted laws that ban nearly all abortions.

But he has long made contradictory statements on the matter, suggesting as recently as March that he might support some version of a federal ban. (In his first term, he endorsed a ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy.) And in a Time magazine interview published in April, he deflected when asked whether he would veto a bill that defined life as beginning at fertilization.

His campaign did not give a yes-or-no answer when asked if he would support enforcing the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing materials used in abortions, and that some Trump allies want him to use to restrict abortion nationally without a formal ban. “President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion,” a spokeswoman said.

In August, when asked the same question about enforcing the Comstock Act, he told CBS News, “We will be discussing specifics of it, but generally speaking, no, I wouldn’t.”

He has framed his caution around abortion as a political matter because “you have to win elections.”

Ms. Harris supports access to in vitro fertilization — a fertility treatment that can be threatened by anti-abortion measures that treat embryos as people with legal rights, since it usually involves creating numerous embryos and destroying or indefinitely freezing unused ones.

The matter gained urgency after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos were children, upending I.V.F. in the state. Ms. Harris condemned the ruling. (The Alabama Legislature subsequently passed a law that gave I.V.F. clinics immunity but did not address embryos’ legal status.)

“Individuals, couples who want to start a family are now being deprived of access to what can help them start a family,” she said at an event in Michigan in February.

After the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Trump said he supported access to I.V.F. because “we want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder.” However, he has not endorsed currently proposed legislation that would protect it.

In August, he suggested that he would support a federal mandate that insurance companies cover I.V.F. He did not give any details on how this proposal would work.

Ms. Harris supports access to mifepristone, an abortion drug that conservative litigants and Republican legislators have sought to restrict since the overturning of Roe. Nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States are medically induced with a regimen that includes mifepristone.

The Biden-Harris administration has defended mifepristone. Its solicitor general successfully urged the Supreme Court to reject a lawsuit that had sought to sharply limit access to the drug. The court unanimously upheld access in June, ruling that the plaintiffs in the suit did not have standing; anti-abortion activists have signaled that they may try again with different plaintiffs.

In an effort to blunt the effects of state abortion bans, the Department of Health and Human Services advised pharmacists that they might violate civil rights laws if they refused to dispense drugs like mifepristone, misoprostol and methotrexate that can be used for abortions but also other medical purposes; Ms. Harris has indicated that she supports this guidance.

The Justice Department also issued a legal opinion that the Postal Service could deliver abortion drugs to states with bans without violating the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing materials used in abortions. Abortion opponents have expressed interest in enforcing a strict interpretation of that law, which Ms. Harris’s campaign has condemned.

Mr. Trump appointed the federal judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, whose ruling last year voided the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone. An appeals court panel that was composed mainly of Trump appointees allowed it to stay on the market but upheld other parts of Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling that made the drug harder to obtain.

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the challenge to mifepristone, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit; anti-abortion activists have signaled that they may try again with different plaintiffs.

Mr. Trump said during the presidential debate in June that he agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which he described as having “approved the abortion pill.” But because it was based on standing, the ruling did not address the merits of the case.

His campaign did not respond to requests to confirm whether he would support rescinding F.D.A. approval for abortion pills.

Ms. Harris supported Mr. Biden’s cancellation of the global and domestic “gag rules,” which abortion opponents had used to cut off funding for groups that provide abortion services or referrals. When they were in effect under Mr. Trump, the rules blocked such groups from receiving foreign aid or domestic funding from Title X, a federal grant program that supports family planning for low-income Americans.

Versions of the global rule blocking certain foreign aid, called the Mexico City policy, have been enacted by every Republican president and rescinded by every Democratic one since the 1980s. Mr. Trump enacted the domestic rule for the first time since the Reagan administration.

Ms. Harris also opposes the Hyde Amendment, which bans Medicaid funding for most abortions. Her campaign did not confirm whether its inclusion in budgets would be a deal breaker for her; Mr. Biden also opposes the amendment but has signed budgets that include it rather than force a standoff with congressional Republicans over funding the government.

When he took office in 2017, Mr. Trump reinstated the so-called Mexico City policy, which blocked certain forms of foreign aid to organizations that provide abortions or abortion referrals.

Republican presidents have routinely done that, but Mr. Trump went further: He extended the policy to block the organizations from receiving not only family-planning funding but also broader health aid, including money for clean water, nutrition programs and H.I.V., malaria and tuberculosis prevention.

He placed similar restrictions on Title X funding for domestic organizations for the first time since the Reagan administration.

Mr. Trump supported an unsuccessful Senate effort to make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which bans Medicaid funding for most abortions.

Ms. Harris has broadly supported the Biden administration’s environmental policies, but her campaign did not respond to a request to confirm her positions on individual regulations that the administration has put in place and that Mr. Trump says he would undo.

Those regulations include new Environmental Protection Agency rules that are designed to encourage electric and hybrid vehicles to account for a majority of newly sold cars by 2032. They are not a mandate, but the E.P.A. used its authority under the Clean Air Act to set limits on emissions that automakers could meet by making more electric vehicles. Ms. Harris’s campaign said in August that she did not support an electric vehicle mandate.

Another Biden rule says coal plants must eliminate about 90 percent of their emissions by 2039 or shut down. A third requires oil and gas producers to fix leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas; the administration also announced a fee on methane emissions.

Ms. Harris has not confirmed any additional environmental regulations she would enact. During her first presidential campaign in 2019, she called for a tax on carbon emissions, but she has not said whether she still supports that.

As president, Mr. Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, including many aimed at reducing planet-warming emissions and protecting clean air and water.

He has pledged to rescind “every one” of the Biden administration’s electricity regulations and to end its rules promoting electric vehicles. In April, he promised oil executives and lobbyists directly that he would reverse regulations that hurt their businesses.

Among the rules he ended or replaced in his term were some enacted by President Barack Obama that had limited emissions from power plants and from cars and trucks. He did away with a requirement that state and regional officials track tailpipe emissions on federal highways; with methane emission standards; with reporting requirements for oil and gas companies; and with regulations meant to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbons.

He also directed agencies to stop calculating the “social cost” of carbon, which they had done under the Obama administration to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing emissions. And he revoked California’s authority to set its own, stricter standards for vehicle emissions.

Ms. Harris cast the tiebreaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided the largest-ever federal investment in climate change mitigation — largely through tax credits that helped manufacturers increase production of electric vehicles as well as wind, solar and other renewable power projects. It also provided rebates to help consumers buy clean-energy products.

She also supported the bipartisan infrastructure bill Mr. Biden signed (which included $7.5 billion for electric-vehicle charging equipment) and the CHIPS and Science Act (which provided $39 billion in incentives to manufacture semiconductors used in electric vehicles, among other applications).

Her campaign has indicated that continuing to implement these laws and distribute their funding would be a priority for her administration, but it has not specified additional steps she would take to encourage renewable energy development.

It also has not confirmed whether she still supports the Green New Deal, a nonbinding resolution of which she was a sponsor as a senator. It calls for the United States to reach 100 percent clean energy within a decade and describes clean air and water as basic human rights.

Mr. Trump wants to roll back the Inflation Reduction Act’s renewable energy and electric-vehicle incentives. Eliminating them would require congressional action, but his administration would have significant power over how to implement the tax breaks created by the law, and it could make them harder to get.

At the Republican National Convention, referring to funding allocated for climate programs but not yet spent, he said, “We will redirect that money for important projects like roads, bridges, dams, and we will not allow it to be spent on the meaningless Green New Scam ideas.” (Presidents are obligated to spend money as Congress allocates it, but Mr. Trump has suggested he would try to claim the authority not to. His administration could also slow disbursements or narrow eligibility rules.)

He has repeatedly attacked and spread misinformation about renewable energy, including statements claiming falsely that wind turbines cause cancer and are “driving whales crazy” and that relying on solar power would leave older Americans without air-conditioning.

His administration favored oil and gas development over renewable-energy development in its regulatory and permitting decisions, and he said at a rally in May that, if elected again, he would end offshore wind projects by executive order on his first day back in office.

The one carbon-free option he has praised is nuclear energy. David Bernhardt, who served as secretary of the interior under Mr. Trump, said on a campaign call in August that Mr. Trump supports nuclear energy production.

During her first presidential campaign in 2019, Ms. Harris endorsed a ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process used to extract oil and natural gas from bedrock. She also challenged federal approvals of offshore fracking when she was attorney general of California. However, she says she no longer supports a fracking ban.

“My values have not changed — I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate,” she told CNN in August. Pointing to the Inflation Reduction Act, she said she had concluded since 2019 that “we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.”

Her campaign did not respond when asked whether her approach to oil and gas permitting would differ from Mr. Biden’s. His record has been inconsistent: He allowed several projects that environmental groups opposed, and U.S. oil production reached record levels in 2023, but he also banned drilling in large parts of Alaska and paused permitting for new liquefied natural gas export facilities.

Mr. Trump has called for unlimited oil and gas drilling, pledging to “end Biden’s delays in federal drilling permits and leases” and “remove all red tape that is leaving oil and natural gas projects stranded.” He has also called for building more coal plants and eliminating a Biden regulation that would force many existing plants to close.

In his first term, his administration approved the Keystone pipeline — which the Obama administration had blocked — and expedited the Dakota Access pipeline. (A federal judge later ruled that his administration had not sufficiently assessed the Dakota project’s environmental impact.) Soon after that, he issued an executive order to expand offshore drilling.

He weakened the National Environmental Policy Act to limit public review of federal infrastructure projects, including fossil-fuel developments like pipelines and power plants; reduced protections for wetlands and endangered species, enabling oil and gas development in locations and circumstances where it would previously have been barred; and allowed oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

He says if elected again, he would end the Biden administration’s pause on permits for new liquefied natural gas export facilities.

Ms. Harris has embraced a framework known as environmental justice, which emphasizes that climate change and pollution disproportionately affect low-income people and people of color and argues that environmental programs should focus on those communities.

In 2019, Ms. Harris, then a senator, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York introduced legislation that would have evaluated environmental rules and laws by how they affected low-income communities. In 2020, Ms. Harris introduced a more sweeping version of that bill. She also sponsored the National Climate Bank Act, which would have created a national bank to, among other things, help low-income Americans “benefit from and afford projects and investments that reduce emissions.” (None of these bills passed.)

The Inflation Reduction Act, which Ms. Harris supports, and the bipartisan infrastructure law include billions of dollars in funding to reduce the effects of drought, help low-income Americans weatherize their homes and strengthen electric grids on Native American reservations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency also received funding from the infrastructure law for a program focused on preparing communities for extreme weather.

Ms. Harris has also expressed support for the Labor Department’s proposed rules to protect workers during heat waves, including requirements that employers develop safety plans and provide breaks and access to water and shade.

Mr. Trump has not called for policies to help communities prepare for extreme-weather events such as droughts, wildfires and hurricanes that are becoming more frequent and intense because of climate change.

In both 2018 and 2020, he inaccurately blamed poor forest management, not climate change, for historically severe wildfires in California. “I said, ‘You’ve got to clean your floors, you got to clean your forests,’” he said in 2020. “Maybe we’re just going to have to make them pay for it because they don’t listen to us.”

His administration froze hiring at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, resulting in fewer inspections of workplaces for conditions including dangerous heat, and he reduced funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. His campaign did not answer a question about his position on the Biden administration’s proposed rules establishing workplace safety standards for extreme heat.

Ms. Harris would keep the United States in the Paris climate agreement, which committed almost every country to try to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and which Mr. Biden rejoined after Mr. Trump had withdrawn.

The Biden administration has pledged to cut U.S. emissions at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Under the Paris agreement, nations are expected to announce targets for 2035 next year. Ms. Harris’s campaign did not say what targets she supported.

The actions Mr. Biden has taken, many but not all of which Ms. Harris has confirmed she supports, will get the country most of the way to the 2030 goal: The Inflation Reduction Act and his regulations on vehicles, power plants and oil wells are expected to lower emissions about 40 percent.

In withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, under which almost every country had committed to try to limit warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, Mr. Trump formally disavowed emission reductions as a goal. His campaign says he would withdraw from the Paris Agreement again if re-elected.

While Mr. Biden undid many of Mr. Trump’s climate policies, their damage may not be fully reversible.

A report in 2022 from researchers at Yale and Columbia found that the United States’ environmental performance had plummeted as a result of the Trump administration’s actions. A separate analysis in 2020 projected 1.8 billion more metric tons of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 2035 than there would have been without his dismantling of regulations.

Ms. Harris has committed to accepting the results of the 2024 election and denounced Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the last one.

In accepting the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August, she said she would “hold sacred America’s fundamental principles, from the rule of law, to free and fair elections, to the peaceful transfer of power.” Earlier this year, she met with voting rights activists and described a strategy that included creating a task force on threats to election workers.

As the current vice president, whether she wins or loses in November, Ms. Harris will preside over the certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2025. Her campaign told Politico in July that she would not use her position to intervene in the counting.

That is in line with reforms Mr. Biden signed to the Electoral Count Act in an effort to prevent a repeat of Mr. Trump’s attempt to exploit the Jan. 6 proceedings to overturn his loss. The legislation established that the vice president’s role is ceremonial and increased the number of lawmakers required to object to counting a state’s electoral votes.

Mr. Trump has refused to commit to accepting the 2024 election results and has not dismissed the possibility of political violence if he loses.

“I think we’re going to win,” he said in an April interview with Time. “And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

He refused to accept his defeat in 2020, after which he and his allies attempted an extraordinary scheme to subvert voters’ will: They pressured legislators to declare him the winner of states he had lost; organized slates of fake Electoral College electors; pushed Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results; and agitated his supporters, who threatened election officials and stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Two of the four criminal indictments against him, one federal and one in Georgia, are related to those actions.

He has continued to promote the same lies since then. In 2022, he suggested the “termination” of the Constitution in order to overturn or rerun the election.

He has also embraced people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, calling them “patriots” and “hostages,” and has indicated on several occasions that he would pardon them if elected again.

Mr. Trump has been pushing his supporters for a turnout this fall that is “too big to rig,” pre-emptively sowing doubt about the validity of the election, as he did in 2016 and 2020.

Ms. Harris supports two pieces of legislation — which Mr. Biden also supported, but was unable to pass because of Republican filibusters — to counter voting restrictions that have been passed in many Republican-led states. She helped push for both bills when they were first introduced, having been assigned to lead the Biden administration’s efforts to secure voting rights legislation after she requested that job.

The first is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court has struck down or weakened. The second is the Freedom to Vote Act, which would set a floor for voting access in federal elections, meaning states could enact more inclusive procedures but not less inclusive ones.

Among other things, the Freedom to Vote Act would expand automatic voter registration programs, let all voters register online and on Election Day, require at least 15 days of early voting and restore voting rights to felons upon their release from prison.

It would also restrict partisan gerrymandering, allow voters to sue if election officials refused to certify results and establish a nationwide voter identification requirement. The ID requirement would accept a wider range of documents (like utility bills) than many existing state laws allow.

Mr. Trump has frequently attacked mail voting and spread unfounded conspiracy theories about the security of voting machines.

His words have fueled a decline in public confidence in the well-documented integrity of the electoral system that many Republican state legislators have used to justify new restrictions on voting. Mr. Trump has largely endorsed those restrictions and has often called for a national voter identification requirement.

He has sent mixed messages on early voting. Facing evidence that discouraging it could hurt Republican turnout, he told supporters on social media in April, “Absentee voting, early voting and Election Day voting are all good options.” But he has also repeatedly called for single-day elections — which would mean eliminating early voting — conducted exclusively with paper ballots.

Mr. Trump opposed the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act when Democrats tried to pass them in 2021. “They have a so-called voting rights bill, which is a voting rights for Democrats, because Republicans will never be elected again if that happens,” he told Fox Business.

As president, he established a commission to investigate voter fraud after falsely claiming that undocumented immigrants and votes cast in the names of dead people had caused him to lose the popular vote in 2016. The commission found no evidence of widespread fraud, and Mr. Trump disbanded it.

Ms. Harris has condemned Mr. Trump’s statements that he might intervene in Justice Department prosecution decisions, describing the department’s independence as essential. And she has said the Biden administration has always respected that independence.

“There is a clear and nonnegotiable division in terms of the separation between our administration and what the Department of Justice does, in terms of its investigations, in terms of its prosecutions,” she told CNN this year in an exchange about the department’s investigations of Mr. Trump. “And that line has never been crossed.”

Her campaign did not respond when asked whether she agreed with the Justice Department’s assessment that presidents can order “limited” military actions without congressional approval. (Both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump have done that.)

When Ms. Harris was asked a similar question during her 2019 presidential campaign, she said: “I won’t hesitate to do what it takes to protect our country in the face of an imminent threat in the future. But after almost two decades of war, it is long past time for Congress to rewrite the Authorization for Use of Military Force that governs our current military conflicts.”

She answered several other questions about executive power in a New York Times survey during her 2019 campaign.

Mr. Trump has indicated that he would end the norm of Justice Department independence, openly vowing to use the levers of government to punish his political opponents and anyone whom he deems to have engaged in “unscrupulous behavior” in this year’s election. He has also floated the idea of pardoning himself, something no president has ever tried to do.

He also said he would consider firing a U.S. attorney who declined to prosecute someone whom Mr. Trump wanted prosecuted, telling Time magazine, “It would depend on the situation.”

As president, Mr. Trump issued an executive order that sought to strip civil-service protections from many career federal employees, which would have let him fire them at will and purge federal agencies of people he disagreed with. In September, he vowed to fire civil servants who have carried out Biden administration policies. He and his allies have been planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power if he is re-elected.

At least twice, he authorized military force without congressional approval, something Mr. Biden has also done, in keeping with an assessment from the Justice Department.

Mr. Trump also used an emergency declaration to spend more money on border wall construction than Congress had appropriated, and then twice vetoed bills passed by Congress to end the emergency. Conversely, he wants the ability to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated, something lawmakers banned decades ago.

Fox News’s Sean Hannity asked him in December whether he would pledge not to abuse presidential power. Mr. Trump replied: “This guy, he says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said, ‘No, no, no — other than Day 1.’ We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.”

Inflation skyrocketed early in the Biden-Harris administration, peaking at 9.1 percent in 2022. Since then, inflation has slowed while the job market and consumer spending have remained mostly strong, pointing to a potential “soft landing” in which inflation returns to normal without a recession. But the remnants of inflation have been stubborn.

Part of the cause was the Covid-19 pandemic, which raised prices around the world as supply-chain problems escalated. U.S. government stimulus money intended to stop the economy from crashing and support pandemic response programs — Mr. Trump approved more than $3 trillion in 2020 and Mr. Biden $1.9 trillion in 2021 — also fueled demand. Republicans have blamed Mr. Biden’s spending, and some economists have criticized the size and timing of his relief plan, but they have also credited it with preventing a recession.

Ms. Harris’s main proposal for reducing inflation is to ban corporate price gouging on groceries. Her campaign says she would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to impose “harsh penalties” on corporations that violated the ban, fund investigations of gouging in meat supply chains and scrutinize mergers of large grocery companies.

The Federal Reserve, which operates independently of the White House, plays a large role in responding to inflation by adjusting interest rates. When the Fed raises rates, it becomes more expensive to take out a mortgage or a business loan, creating a chain reaction that cools the economy. Ms. Harris said in August that she would “never interfere” in Fed decisions.

Inflation was low — generally around 2 percent — during Mr. Trump’s term, as it had been for years before.

He has argued without evidence that the United States would not have had high inflation if he had remained in office for a second term, though most nations did. He has indicated that he would not have spent the stimulus money Mr. Biden did in 2021, which many economists say was a factor in inflation, but he has said little about how he would have handled the other factors, like global supply chain problems, that drove inflation worldwide.

Economists say the agenda he has described for his second term is not likely to reduce inflation, and it includes policies like sweeping tariffs and deportations that could make it worse.

Mr. Trump has also criticized high interest rates, the Federal Reserve’s primary tool to control inflation. He argued in August that the president should have a say in the decisions of the Fed, which normally operates independently of the White House.

Ms. Harris has indicated that she supports Mr. Biden’s approach to federal spending and has praised two of the biggest pieces of legislation he signed: the Inflation Reduction Act, which included hundreds of billions of dollars in clean-energy tax credits and health insurance subsidies, and a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal. These measures were aimed at driving job creation, which several studies and government employment statistics indicate they did.

Mr. Trump, like Mr. Biden, significantly increased discretionary spending, but for different purposes. Before the pandemic, his increases went mainly to the military and veterans’ care: In 2018, for example, he signed a military budget of $700 billion, a double-digit percentage increase from the year before.

Spending increased more significantly during the pandemic, with stimulus and other relief bills totaling over $3 trillion by the time Mr. Trump left office. Those bills sent two rounds of direct payments to Americans, created the Paycheck Protection Program to keep companies afloat, expanded unemployment benefits and provided funding for hospitals, vaccines and local governments.

Ms. Harris has endorsed most of the tax proposals that Mr. Biden made in the spring, which would total nearly $5 trillion in increases for corporations and wealthy Americans but extend Trump-era cuts for people making less than $400,000 a year.

She wants to increase the top marginal income tax rate for individuals to 39.6 percent from 37 percent. She wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, partly reversing a reduction that Mr. Trump signed.

She is also proposing increasing the corporate minimum tax to 21 percent from 15 percent. That minimum, established by the Inflation Reduction Act, is distinct from the regular corporate rate; it applies to companies that report more than $1 billion in income but had used deductions to pay little or no federal taxes.

Other proposals include a minimum tax of 25 percent for people with assets of more than $100 million, higher taxes on foreign profits and wider eligibility for the earned-income tax credit. She wants to restore an expansion of the child tax credit — to a maximum of $3,600 per child — that reduced child poverty before it expired, and bring the credit to $6,000 for parents of newborns. And she has adopted a Trump proposal to eliminate taxes on tips.

On one proposal, however, she has broken from Mr. Biden: She would raise the capital gains tax by significantly less than he had proposed, bringing it to 28 percent for Americans who make more than $1 million a year instead of Mr. Biden’s proposed 39.6 percent. (It is currently 20 percent.)

Mr. Trump cut corporate taxes as part of a $1.5 trillion package in 2017, the most sweeping tax overhaul in decades. It permanently reduced the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent and temporarily reduced tax rates for individuals, including the wealthiest Americans. It also doubled the maximum child tax credit to $2,000 per child.

Mr. Trump wants Congress to make permanent the individual cuts, which are set to expire in 2025, and further lower the corporate rate to 15 percent — though he acknowledged in an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek that this would be “hard” and suggested he might settle for 20 percent. His campaign did not answer a question about whether he would reduce or eliminate the corporate minimum tax, which was created by the Inflation Reduction Act and is distinct from the regular corporate rate.

He also wants to eliminate taxes on tips and Social Security benefits. His campaign said he would “consider” expanding the child tax credit, but did not commit or give details.

Though the 2017 tax package substantially cut taxes overall, in one respect it went in the other direction: It capped a deduction that let people save on their federal taxes based on how much they paid in state and local taxes. That cap mainly affected high earners in high-tax states like California and New York.

Ms. Harris has rejected the across-the-board tariffs that Mr. Trump has proposed, saying at the Democratic National Convention that they would be tantamount to a “national sales tax.”

But her campaign has indicated that she would support some tariffs, without providing details. A campaign spokesman said in August that Ms. Harris would “employ targeted and strategic tariffs to support American workers, strengthen our economy and hold our adversaries accountable.”

The Biden administration has not rolled back Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products, and in April Mr. Biden announced that he would expand them, tripling some tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum. In May, he went further, increasing tariffs on electric vehicles, solar cells, semiconductors and advanced batteries, and officially endorsing the Trump-era tariffs that he had criticized in 2020. Ms. Harris’s campaign did not say whether she would change or end any of these tariffs.

Mr. Trump jettisoned Republican free-trade orthodoxy and embraced protectionism, starting a trade war with China.

He set tariffs in 2018 on washing machines and solar-energy equipment, and later on steel and aluminum. The trade war with China began later that year when he imposed an escalating series of tariffs. China responded in kind. Other countries imposed their own retaliatory tariffs. American consumers, researchers found, bore the brunt of the costs.

Mr. Trump signed an initial trade deal with China in 2020, but the agreement preserved most of the tariffs.

He has suggested he would go further in a second term, imposing tariffs of 60 percent or more on Chinese products and 10 or 20 percent on other imports. In March, he said he supported a 100 percent tariff on cars made by Chinese companies in Mexico, and in May he one-upped himself to 200 percent.

Economists say tariffs of this scope would increase prices and could cause a recession.

His other major trade policy was a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which critics said had encouraged outsourcing to Mexico. The new version, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, contains more protections for workers and provisions aimed primarily at encouraging auto manufacturing in the United States.

The Biden administration has pushed for regulations that have a direct pocketbook effect: For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is trying to cap credit card late fees, and the Transportation Department set a rule requiring automatic refunds when flights are canceled. Ms. Harris has endorsed a similar approach, saying at a rally in July that she would “ban hidden fees and surprise late charges” by banks and other companies.

She has called for raising the federal minimum wage and has indicated that she supports the Labor Department’s move to require employers to pay overtime starting next year to people earning up to $58,656 annually, up from the current threshold of $35,568.

She has also indicated that she supports stringent antitrust efforts, and her campaign says she would “direct her administration to crack down on anti-competitive practices.” Among other things, her proposal to ban price gouging calls for challenging mergers of supermarket companies, as the Biden administration is doing with Kroger and Albertsons.

The Trump administration reduced financial regulations, including some that were enacted after the 2008 housing crisis.

One of its most significant steps was weakening the Volcker Rule, which had blocked banks from making risky bets with customers’ money if the customers had not requested the bets. The loosened rule lets banks invest in certain funds that make such bets.

Under a leader appointed by Mr. Trump, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rescinded restrictions on payday loans. The Department of Housing and Urban Development also weakened a housing anti-discrimination rule so severely that banks took the unusual step of opposing a deregulatory move.

His administration weakened an Obama-era overtime rule, and while he said during his 2016 campaign that he would support raising the federal minimum wage, he did not pursue that once elected. In 2020, he said minimum wages should be left to the states.

He said in September that he would eliminate 10 regulations for every one he added.

Ms. Harris has pledged not to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.

Projections fluctuate based on economic conditions, but estimates from this spring indicate that Social Security and its associated disability insurance program will run out of money to cover full benefits in 2035, and part of Medicare will do the same in 2036. To keep them solvent, Ms. Harris wants to raise taxes on people making more than $400,000 a year.

She has proposed increasing two Medicare surtaxes to 5 percent from 3.8 percent for people making over $400,000. She has been less specific about her plans for Social Security, and her campaign did not respond to a question about them, but she has indicated that she supports increases to Social Security taxes for wealthy Americans as well.

She supports the Inflation Reduction Act provision that let Medicare negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies for the first time, which could lower prices for consumers and save the program money. (The law also requires drug companies to make payments to Medicare if they increase their prices faster than inflation.) Her economic plan says she would “allow Medicare to accelerate the speed of negotiations.”

As a senator, Ms. Harris was a sponsor of the Social Security Expansion Act, which would have increased benefits. Her campaign did not confirm whether she still supports that.

Mr. Trump says he would not cut Social Security or Medicare benefits. But he also wants to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, which would cause the program to run out of money sooner.

He has not explained how he would keep the programs solvent without reducing benefits or increasing taxes. Projections fluctuate based on economic conditions, but estimates from this spring indicate that Social Security will run out of money to cover full benefits by 2035, and part of Medicare will do so by 2036.

When he was asked on Fox Business in August about his tax plan moving up that date, he said that might be a good thing because it would pressure Congress to “make a deal.”

In the past, he has gone back and forth on whether he would consider cutting benefits.

In 2020, he suggested that he would “at some point” be open to cuts, then backtracked. In March, he told CNBC, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements”; his campaign then said he had been talking about cutting “waste,” not benefits. As president, he proposed cutting the Social Security budget in part by more aggressively combating fraud.

Ms. Harris’s housing plan calls for building three million affordable housing units within four years. She proposes creating a tax incentive to build homes that are affordable to first-time buyers, expanding an incentive to build affordable rental homes, and setting up a $40 billion “innovation fund” for developers and builders who come up with viable plans to add affordable housing.

She wants to give up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time home buyers, and she has endorsed a bill called the Stop Predatory Investing Act that would create tax penalties for investors who buy large numbers of rental units.

The Republican Party platform, which Mr. Trump and his campaign led the drafting of, calls for opening “limited portions of federal lands to allow for new home construction” and reducing inflation in order to lower mortgage rates. (The president has no direct control over interest rates.)

It also calls for “tax incentives and support for first-time buyers” and for cutting “unnecessary regulations that raise housing costs.” Mr. Trump’s campaign did not provide details on what these incentives would involve or what regulations he would cut.

In his first term, his budget requests urged Congress to reduce funding for federal housing programs, including eliminating the National Housing Trust Fund and the HOME Investment Partnerships program, which provide money to build, repair and operate housing for low-income Americans. Congress did not agree.

Ms. Harris has taken a relatively tough stance on immigration recently, emphasizing her support for a bipartisan proposal that would have hired thousands of new border security agents and asylum officers and closed the border if crossings reached an average of more than 5,000 migrants a day over a week.

The deal died in Congress after Mr. Trump came out against it, but Ms. Harris has pledged to work to get it passed if elected president. Her campaign has also indicated that she would maintain a policy that Mr. Biden enacted this year through executive action, barring asylum applications from most people who cross the border illegally.

She approached the issue differently during her first presidential campaign in 2019, when she argued that it should not be a crime to enter the United States without authorization and called for re-examining the role of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. (Decriminalizing border crossings was a popular position among candidates in the Democratic presidential primary that year.) Her tone changed after she became vice president, and this August, she told CNN: “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequence.”

She supports DACA, the Obama-era program formally called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals under which people brought to the United States illegally as children are protected from being deported. Because judges have ruled against the program, including one ruling last year, Ms. Harris urged Congress in June to pass legislation that would permanently protect DACA beneficiaries, commonly known as Dreamers.

In 2019, she called for using executive action to extend DACA-like protections to other groups as well, including undocumented immigrants whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents. Her campaign did not say whether she still supported that.

One of her mandates as vice president has been to address the root causes of migration from Latin America, such as poverty and violence. She has mainly sought to do this through a program called the Partnership for Central America, which has secured more than $5 billion in pledges from private companies to support Central American communities.

The program has focused on El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Border encounters with migrants from those countries have fallen sharply, though migration from other countries soared over much of the same period.

If re-elected, Mr. Trump is planning a deportation operation that he has called the largest in American history.

He plans to round up undocumented immigrants and detain them in camps while they await deportation, rely on a form of expulsion that doesn’t involve due process hearings, and deputize local police officers and National Guard troops from Republican-led states to carry out immigration raids. During a rally in September, he said that expelling some migrants would be “a bloody story.”

Mr. Trump said to Time magazine in April that he would aim to deport as many as 15 million to 20 million people — numbers that are equivalent to the population of New York State at the high end.

In the same interview, he said he might deploy the military against migrants both along the border and in nonborder states, claiming that a law that forbids the use of the military for domestic law enforcement would not apply because people who are in the U.S. illegally “aren’t civilians.”

He also wants to revoke birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, which overwhelming legal consensus holds to be guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

All of this would be an escalation from his first term, during which he separated thousands of migrant children from their parents and held them in crowded, unsanitary facilities. During a CNN event last year, he did not rule out reinstating family separation.

Mr. Trump diverted money from the military budget to build a border wall without congressional approval. While a wall was his signature promise in 2016, his administration built fewer than 500 miles of barriers along the nearly 2,000-mile southern border during his first term.

He has repeatedly dehumanized migrants, including saying on multiple occasions that they are “poisoning the blood” of the country and calling some of them “animals” and “not people, in my opinion.”

Ms. Harris has endorsed an executive order that Mr. Biden issued in June, closing the border to asylum seekers when the seven-day average for illegal entries hits 2,500 a day. The most restrictive border policy enacted by any modern Democratic president, it is similar to a 2018 Trump policy that was blocked by a federal judge, and it faces a similar legal challenge.

She also wants to revive a bipartisan border-security deal from earlier this year that would have made it harder to claim asylum while also including a right to counsel for certain applicants, including unaccompanied children 13 and under.

The Trump administration forced asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting hearings, leading to the development of squalid refugee camps along the border. He has said he wants to reinstate that policy if elected again.

In 2018, he suspended asylum rights for people who entered the country illegally, a policy that was blocked by a federal judge.

His administration used the coronavirus pandemic to lay the legal groundwork for denying asylum seekers entry into the United States, something he had expressed interest in but had been unable to do beforehand. The emergency public health measure he invoked, Title 42, allowed the government to quickly expel migrants who crossed the border.

He wants to reinstate Title 42 if elected again, this time based on claims that migrants carry diseases like tuberculosis rather than the coronavirus.

Ms. Harris has said in various forums that she supports “an earned pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants. Her campaign did not respond to a request for details on the criteria she envisioned.

The bipartisan border-security deal from earlier this year that she has endorsed would have added 250,000 family- and employment-based visas over five years and ensured green-card eligibility for the children of immigrants who are in the country on H-1B visas for highly skilled workers. It also would have enacted measures to reduce illegal border crossings.

Mr. Trump tried, but Congress did not agree, to greatly reduce legal immigration by limiting U.S. citizens’ ability to bring in relatives and by increasing education and skill requirements.

In 2019, he began denying permanent residency to immigrants deemed likely to require public assistance, a rule that disproportionately affected people from Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia. He also significantly limited H-1B visas for skilled workers, but while privately courting business leaders in June, he talked up the importance of high-skilled immigration.

If elected again, he has called for revoking the legal status of people — including Afghan refugees — who have been allowed into the country for humanitarian reasons, as well as revoking the student visas of people whom he called “radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners.”

In June, he called for automatically giving green cards to foreign students who graduated from a U.S. college. But his campaign quickly walked that back, saying that only the “most skilled graduates” would be included and that their political ideologies would be vetted.

He said at rallies in October that he would put in place “strong ideological screening” for visa applicants, barring anyone who was “communist, Marxist or fascist,” who sympathized with “radical Islamic terrorists and extremists,” who wanted “to abolish the state of Israel” or who did not “like our religion.” (The U.S. has no state religion, and the First Amendment doesn’t allow one.)

His campaign also said he would expand a program from his first term to strip citizenship from naturalized immigrants whom he determined to be “criminals, terrorists and immigration cheats.”

Ms. Harris opposed Mr. Trump’s travel bans, which barred travelers from several majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States and which Mr. Biden revoked on his first day in office. In 2020, she called an expansion of the initial ban “un-American” and “clearly driven by hate, not security.”

Ms. Harris supports a cease-fire in which Hamas would release all hostages who were seized in its Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the Israeli military would withdraw from Gaza. She first called for a cease-fire in early March, describing the situation in Gaza as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

However, her national security adviser said in August that she would not support an arms embargo to end the American weapons shipments on which Israel has relied. In an interview with CNN later that month, she did not endorse any changes to Mr. Biden’s policy on providing weapons, and her campaign did not respond when asked whether she would support any restrictions short of a full embargo.

Compared with Mr. Biden, she has centered Palestinians more in her public comments and taken a sharper tone in criticizing Israel, emphasizing the toll of Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Gaza. While not publicly diverging on policy, she has privately pushed Mr. Biden to weigh the plight of Palestinian civilians more heavily in his decisions and statements.

“Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters,” she said in July after meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. She added: “The images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time — we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering, and I will not be silent.”

In an interview in March, she urged Israel not to invade Rafah, the city in southern Gaza to which more than a million people had fled. “I have studied the maps,” she said. “There’s nowhere for those folks to go, and we’re looking at about 1.5 million people in Rafah who are there because they were told to go there, most of them.”

After Hamas’s attack, Mr. Trump vowed to “fully support” Israel. He was also initially critical of Mr. Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence, calling them unprepared — though he quickly backtracked from those remarks and said he stood with Mr. Netanyahu, with whom he was closely allied as president.

In March, he urged Israel to “finish up” the war quickly because it was losing support — a message he repeated in July, saying Israel was “getting decimated with this publicity.” But he also expressed his continued support of the country’s invasion and bombardment of Gaza. In an interview with a conservative Israeli news outlet, he said that he “would act very much the same way” and that “you would have to be crazy not to.”

He suggested that Israel had hurt its cause, in terms of international public opinion, by releasing images of the damage in Gaza. “I think that Israel has done one thing very badly: public relations,” he told Time magazine in April.

He said in July that a speech in which Ms. Harris condemned civilian casualties in Gaza had been “disrespectful to Israel.”

Ms. Harris’s campaign did not respond to questions about whether she would maintain Mr. Biden’s deferral of deportations for Palestinians who are in the United States illegally, or whether she would allow more Gazan refugees to come.

Mr. Trump said last year that the United States should bar Gazan refugees from entering the country.

Ms. Harris has endorsed a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians would live side-by-side in their own sovereign countries.

“I know right now it is hard to conceive of that prospect,” she said in July. “But a two-state solution is the only path that ensures Israel remains a secure, Jewish and democratic state and one that ensures Palestinians can finally realize the freedom, security and prosperity that they rightly deserve.”

When she met with Mr. Netanyahu that month, she expressed “concern about actions that undermine stability and security in the West Bank, such as extremist settler violence and settlement expansion,” according to a White House summary. Her office also said in December that “under no circumstances” would the United States accept “the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank.”

In the past, she has been more reluctant to describe Israel’s actions as barriers to a two-state solution. In 2016, she declined to endorse hypothetical legislation that would deem Israel’s West Bank settlements illegal, saying, “The terms of any agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians cannot be imposed by others.” In 2017, she was a sponsor of a Senate resolution that condemned the United Nations Security Council for deeming the settlements illegal and accused the United Nations of “a longstanding biased approach” to Israel.

Her campaign did not respond to a question about her current views on the legality of Israeli settlements.

As president, Mr. Trump proposed a peace plan that he called a blueprint for a two-state solution, but Palestinians did not see it that way.

The plan, which was never adopted, strongly favored Israeli priorities. It was developed without substantive Palestinian input and, while it would have given the Palestinians a limited degree of sovereignty and a pathway to possibly more, it would not have created a fully autonomous Palestinian state. It called for making Jerusalem the unified capital of Israel, relegating the Palestinian capital to the outskirts of the city and letting Israel keep its West Bank settlements and control of the Jordan Valley.

More recently, Mr. Trump told Time magazine: “There was a time when I thought two-state could work. Now I think two-state is going to be very, very tough.”

Mr. Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, a decision that threw a wrench into the possibility of peace talks and caused some Palestinian leaders to describe a two-state solution as dead.

He also ended decades of U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements, which significantly expanded during his administration, and he cut aid for Palestinians.

Ms. Harris said in July that she was committed to supporting Israel against Iran and Iran-backed militia groups like Hezbollah.

During her Senate campaign in 2016, she said she backed the Iran nuclear deal reached by former President Barack Obama and foreign leaders, under which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. The Israeli government opposed the deal, but Ms. Harris said that, “with a deep commitment to the safety of Israel,” she believed it was “the best available option for blocking Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability and to avoid potentially disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.”

When he was president, Mr. Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries and have largely held.

Earlier in his term, he recognized Israeli authority over the Golan Heights, a disputed area between Israel and Syria. That change in longstanding U.S. policy set the country apart from Israel’s Arab neighbors and the United Nations and was seen as a political gift to Mr. Netanyahu.

He also ended the Iran nuclear deal reached by Mr. Obama and foreign leaders, under which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. His withdrawal and reinstatement of sanctions pleased Israel, which opposed the deal.

This April, after Iran launched a retaliatory strike on Israel, Mr. Trump told Time magazine that he would support Israel in the event of Iranian attacks.

Ms. Harris has expressed more sympathy toward pro-Palestinian demonstrators than has Mr. Biden, who argued during campus demonstrations this spring that a wide range of actions — not only vandalism and intimidation, but also nonviolent disruptions that forced “the cancellation of classes and graduations” — did not qualify as peaceful.

“They are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza,” Ms. Harris said in an interview with The Nation published in July. “There are things some of the protesters are saying that I absolutely reject, so I don’t mean to wholesale endorse their points. But we have to navigate it. I understand the emotion behind it.”

She has not changed any public policy position in response to the protests, though her campaign said she would “continue to engage.” When protesters interrupted her during a rally, she said their presence was a good example of democracy but responded sharply when they continued. “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that,” she said. “Otherwise, I am speaking.”

She has denounced a minority of protesters who have burned flags and defaced statues, saying, “Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent, and we must not tolerate it in our nation.”

Mr. Trump praised police crackdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, calling the protesters “raging lunatics and Hamas sympathizers” and saying it had been “a beautiful thing to watch” the police break up a student occupation of a building at Columbia University.

“To every college president, I say remove the encampments immediately,” he said in early May. “Vanquish the radicals, and take back our campuses for all of the normal students.”

He has said that the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. — where a woman was killed by a neo-Nazi and many others were injured — was “a little peanut” compared with the campus protests. And he mused about whether punishment for the Columbia protesters would be “anything comparable” to how those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were punished.

Ms. Harris has praised a national strategy for combating antisemitism that the Biden administration announced last year. That strategy, the first released by the U.S. government, recommended making it easier to report hate crimes, holding anti-bias workshops geared toward workplaces and hiring, and strengthening Holocaust education.

In a statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day in May, she said she understood that, for Jewish people, the months since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack had “evoked the memories, along with fear and anguish, of the Holocaust.” She added: “We will fight antisemitism with the full force of the U.S. government, including through the first-ever national strategy to counter antisemitism. We will continue to stand with the people of Israel and its right to defend itself from those that threaten its existence.”

As a senator, she cosponsored resolutions denouncing attacks on synagogues. Her husband, Doug Emhoff, is Jewish and has been a public face of the Biden administration’s efforts to combat antisemitism, a role he said in August that Ms. Harris had encouraged him to take on.

Mr. Trump has described criticism of Israel as antisemitism, and his administration took steps to designate campaigns to boycott Israel as such. He has said that if elected again, he would bar immigrants who “want to abolish the state of Israel” from entering the United States.

He issued an executive order in 2019 that effectively defined Judaism as a race or nationality, in addition to a religion, in order to apply protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

But he has also made antisemitic remarks and associated with antisemites. In 2017, he said there were “fine people on both sides” of a white supremacist and neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Va.

And he has repeatedly described Jews who voted for Democrats as “disloyal” or self-hating, language that critics say invokes an antisemitic trope about Jews having a “dual loyalty,” with a greater devotion to Israel than to their own countries.

In 2022, he lamented that “our wonderful evangelicals” appreciated his support for Israel more than American Jews did. And in 2023, he shared an image saying that “liberal Jews” had “voted to destroy America & Israel.”

Ms. Harris has expressed disagreement with Mr. Netanyahu over his conduct of the war in Gaza, but she has not endorsed actions that would concretely affect his government.

Like a number of other Democrats, she skipped Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in July, but she met with him privately while he was in Washington.

Afterward, she said that she had told Mr. Netanyahu she would “always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself,” but that she had also “expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians,” and urged him to accept a cease-fire deal.

As president, Mr. Trump strongly supported Mr. Netanyahu’s government and gave it a number of political gifts, including support for hard-line Israeli policies that previous U.S. administrations had rejected.

But ever since Mr. Trump lost the 2020 election, he has been less friendly toward Mr. Netanyahu, seemingly for a personal reason: Mr. Netanyahu congratulated Mr. Biden on his victory. After the Hamas-led attack on Israel, Mr. Trump criticized Mr. Netanyahu as having been unprepared. He quickly backtracked on those remarks.