Wall Street Weighs in on 2024 Election: Torn Between Trump’s Populism and Harris’ Left-Leaning Policies
As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, Wall Street executives are grappling with significant uncertainty. The potential return of former President Donald Trump’s economic policies and Vice President Kamala Harris’s left-leaning approach has left many senior executives cautious, acutely aware of the potential impact on the economy and financial institutions.
Concerns Over Trump’s Populism
Although Trump implemented Wall Street-friendly policies during his first term, such as tax cuts and deregulation, many executives fear a return to his more populist and protectionist stance. Trump’s proposals to increase import tariffs are viewed as a threat to inflation control and economic stability. Several executives believe his policies, while appealing to some, could widen the U.S. deficit and destabilize markets.
“Most expect Trump to continue where he left off, which is certainly more populist, protectionist, and aggressively deregulatory,” said Bruce Mehlman, a partner at Mehlman Consulting, a bipartisan lobbying firm. Despite his past successes in driving growth, many fear the volatility that characterized his first presidency.
Trump’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, countered these concerns, stating that Trump’s policies “fueled growth, drove down inflation, and kept more money in everyone’s pockets.” She argued that his economic plans, including tariffs, would boost revenues and help reduce the deficit.
Harris: A Pragmatic Unknown
Conversely, Vice President Kamala Harris has only recently emerged as the Democratic candidate following President Biden’s withdrawal from the race in late July. While many executives see Harris as a safer, more predictable choice, concerns remain about her plans to continue Biden’s regulatory crackdown on Wall Street.
Harris, who has not provided extensive details on her economic policies, has promised to tackle hidden bank fees and maintain a tough stance on financial institutions. However, her past as a prosecutor and her limited exposure to Wall Street issues leave many investors uncertain about her true approach.
Billionaire Mark Cuban, a Harris supporter, acknowledged the challenges, stating that “both candidates are making promises they may not be able to keep.” However, he noted that Harris’ plans to reduce the deficit could benefit the economy in the long term, despite potential tax hikes that may affect corporate earnings.
Campaign Contributions Reflect Divided Loyalties
Data from nonpartisan donations tracker OpenSecrets reveals a financial split between the candidates. Wall Street donors have contributed $8.7 million to the Harris campaign, compared to $3 million for Trump. While these figures represent individual contributions, executives across the financial industry continue to weigh their options.
Some industry leaders are deeply concerned about the potential continuation of Biden’s progressive policies under a Harris administration. On the other hand, there is a belief that Harris may ultimately be more pragmatic and open to working with Wall Street. Republican donors, however, are divided on whether Trump’s populist approach will benefit their interests or create new, potentially damaging risks.
Populism’s Role in Personnel Choices
Executives also raised concerns about the candidates’ potential choices for top agency positions. Trump’s history of appointing populist figures with little experience in financial oversight has left some executives wary. In contrast, Harris is seen as more likely to choose experienced, moderate leaders, offering greater transparency and certainty.
However, Trump’s recent appointment of Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick as co-chair of his transition team has reassured some investors. Lutnick is expected to tap into his Wall Street connections to build a solid financial advisory team for a potential second Trump administration.
The Road Ahead
With Wall Street deeply divided and the stakes higher than ever, executives face crucial, potentially business-defining choices. A Harris-led White House with a Republican-controlled Senate might present the best-case scenario for some, as it could prevent drastic tax hikes while promoting moderate regulatory changes. On the other hand, Trump’s promises of tax cuts and deregulation appeal to many, but the risk of populism and economic instability continues to loom large, underscoring the weight of these decisions.
As Election Day nears, Wall Street’s influence on the outcome remains uncertain. Major players are still weighing the potential impact of each candidate on their businesses and the broader economy.