Two things: Register for the Zoom Debate Watching Party tonight and donate before and after!

Today, I wrap up my analysis of the issues by comparing the RNC, Project 2025, and DNC platforms. I’ll examine how they approach national defense, diplomacy, and deportation. Each of these platforms presents a different vision for America’s global role and national security, and today’s discussion shows how their policies could influence America’s standing on the world stage.

Similarities Between RNC and Project 2025

Both the RNC platform and Project 2025 strongly emphasize America First, prioritizing American interests over international cooperation. This includes proposals to boost military spending, tighten border security, and take an aggressive stance on immigration enforcement. Their shared focus on maintaining a robust national defense aligns with Trump’s previous policies and continues to reflect his administration’s approach.

For example, Project 2025 proposes reducing U.S. participation in multilateral agreements, arguing that these often diminish American sovereignty. This dovetails with the RNC’s calls for scaling back U.S. involvement in international organizations like the United Nations, which they claim infringe on American decision-making. These policies reflect a broader aim of isolating the U.S. from global governance structures that promote democratic ideals and collective security.

Moreover, both platforms support rolling back federal oversight and empowering states, which may sound democratic on the surface but could weaken federal protections for minority rights and environmental regulations. This is evident in Project 2025’s plan to dismantle parts of the EPA, which critics argue would favor corporate interests over public welfare and weaken democratic accountability.

Differences Between Harris and Trump

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have vastly different views on border security, diplomacy, and defense. Harris’s focus on multilateralism, immigration reform, and diplomacy as a central tool in addressing global challenges starkly contrasts Trump’s hardline stances on immigration and defense. Trump wants to revert to the policies of his presidency, which include building a border wall, increasing deportations, and renegotiating or withdrawing from international alliances.

For instance, Harris supports a comprehensive immigration reform plan that would include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, especially those brought to the U.S. as children under DACA. On the other hand, Trump promised to reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy and strengthen deportation efforts, hallmarks of his first term.

These policies reflect a divide not just in practical governance but in their views on the role America should play—one as a leader of diplomacy and humanitarian efforts, the other as a fortress safeguarding its interests above all.

Border Security and Immigration Policy

Trump’s Approach: Trump has clarified that his second-term immigration agenda will be brutal. At a recent rally in Wisconsin, Trump ominously promised a “bloody story” for millions of immigrants he plans to expel. This rhetoric echoes his 2024 campaign, which revolves around aggressive mass deportations and militarized border security. He repeatedly paints undocumented immigrants as criminals, falsely claiming they are often violent offenders released from foreign prisons.

Trump’s approach is not just about continuing his 2016 agenda, such as completing the U.S.-Mexico border wall. It also includes more extreme measures, like reinstating Title 42 to expel asylum seekers under the guise of public health, a move that has been widely condemned as discriminatory and inhumane. Critics argue that Trump’s immigration policies go beyond just security; they aim to sow fear and division by dehumanizing immigrants. He has even proposed creating “concentration camps” for mass deportations, using Republican-loyal forces like the National Guard to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in U.S. history.

Project 2025 takes this further, proposing a permanent mechanism for expelling asylum seekers under the pretext of national security. Under Trump’s administration, these policies are likely to become even more draconian, especially with his advisors like Stephen Miller boasting that Trump will unleash “the most spectacular migration crackdown” ever seen. Trump’s stance is not merely about law enforcement—it’s about waging a cultural and racial war, as evidenced by his references to racist initiatives like the Eisenhower-era “Operation Wetback.” In June 1954, the short-lived operation used military-style tactics to remove Mexican immigrants—some of them American citizens—from the United States.

In addition, Trump has proposed canceling visas for foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel protests, adding an ideological screening process to consular applications to prevent those with differing political views from entering the U.S. This vision of America under Trump is stark: a nation where dissent is suppressed, immigration is demonized, and millions of lives are upended in pursuit of racial purity under the guise of “national security.”

Check out Reed Galen’s Twitter thread with questions about this deportation for Trump.

Harris’ Approach: Harris supports a more comprehensive and humanitarian approach to immigration. Her strategy focuses on tackling the root causes of migration, such as poverty and violence in Central America. During her tenure as Vice President, Harris secured over $5 billion in funding for economic development in Central American countries to address these issues and reduce the pressures that lead to mass migration.

Harris has also been a steadfast advocate for protecting Dreamers under the DACA program, calling for permanent protections and a pathway to citizenship for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Additionally, she opposed Trump’s border wall during her time in the Senate, calling it a wasteful and unnecessary project that doesn’t address the real issues at the border.

Diplomacy and International Alliances

Trump’s Approach: Trump’s foreign policy is mainly transactional. He views international agreements through the lens of what America can gain immediately, often overlooking the long-term benefits of multilateral cooperation. One example was Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal. He argued that these agreements were not in America’s immediate best interest, but critics said these moves undermined global stability and isolated the U.S. on critical international issues.

Moreover, Trump frequently attacked NATO, claiming that other member countries were not contributing their fair share to collective defense. This stance is echoed in Project 2025, which calls for reducing U.S. involvement in multilateral institutions. It argues that these alliances often limit U.S. autonomy and bog down the country in unnecessary commitments.

Harris’ Approach: Harris has a very different philosophy about foreign policy. She has consistently advocated for international cooperation and multilateralism. She supports the Paris Climate Agreement and views global partnerships as essential in addressing climate change, terrorism, and pandemics. Her approach emphasizes the importance of working with allies to maintain global security, which is most evident in her strong support for NATO.

In contrast to Trump’s isolationist tendencies, Harris’s vision involves strengthening alliances and fostering long-term collaboration with other countries. She believes diplomacy should be the first tool to address global issues, and military action should be a last resort.

Defense and Military Strategy

Trump’s Approach: Trump’s administration significantly increased military spending, which aligned with the RNC and Project 2025’s goal of maintaining U.S. military dominance. Trump signed a $738 billion defense bill focused on modernizing the military and expanding its capabilities, particularly in cyber warfare and high-tech weaponry.

However, his decision to reduce U.S. involvement in international conflicts, such as withdrawing troops from Syria, was controversial. While Trump saw this as fulfilling his promise to bring troops home, critics argued that it left U.S. allies in the region vulnerable, mainly the Kurds, who were left to fend for themselves against Turkish forces after the U.S. withdrawal.

Harris’ Approach: Harris advocates a more balanced approach to military spending, prioritizing emerging cybersecurity and climate change threats. While she supports a strong national defense, she has called for smarter military investments, emphasizing the need to shift resources toward modern threats rather than continuing to fund outdated defense initiatives. For example, Harris has backed efforts to reduce spending on traditional military hardware to bolster cyber defense systems and international peacekeeping initiatives.

She also supported the decision to end the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, aligning with her belief that military interventions should be limited and used only when absolutely necessary.

The Commander-in-Chief Test

The Commander-in-Chief Test refers to a candidate’s ability to effectively handle the enormous responsibility of overseeing national defense, making military decisions, and representing the U.S. on the global stage. This role isn’t just about understanding defense strategies but also about responding swiftly and effectively to crises while maintaining the safety and morale of the U.S. Armed Forces.

In 2024, this test is particularly relevant, as both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump offer starkly different approaches. For example, Trump’s first term focused on expanding military budgets and withdrawing from international agreements, such as the Iran Nuclear Deal. His approach emphasized military might and national sovereignty, often at the cost of long-standing global alliances like NATO. His decision to withdraw troops from Syria in 2019 was heavily criticized for abandoning allies and destabilizing the region, raising questions about his long-term strategic planning in international conflicts.

On the other hand, Harris is focused on diplomacy first, using international cooperation to avoid conflicts. Her role as Vice President included advocating for military support for Ukraine while seeking diplomatic solutions to conflicts. However, critics of Harris have raised concerns about her level of military experience and ability to act decisively in crises, especially given her reliance on multilateral agreements to address global security.

This test is crucial because mistakes made as Commander-in-Chief—such as poor military interventions or failure to respond to crises properly—can have profound consequences, including the loss of life, weakened alliances, and destabilization of regions, further affecting global peace.

Deciding who would make a better Commander-in-Chief between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump depends mainly on the criteria and values you prioritize in a leader. Based on the analysis of both candidates’ approaches, here are some key factors to consider:

Kamala Harris: Diplomacy-First Approach

Harris’s strengths lie in her focus on diplomacy and multilateral cooperation. She has demonstrated a commitment to international alliances, such as NATO, and supports working with global partners to tackle challenges like climate change and international security threats. Her approach suggests that she would prioritize diplomacy over military intervention, aiming to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

• International Cooperation: Harris’s commitment to alliances and multilateral agreements suggests that she would maintain and possibly strengthen global partnerships, which can enhance long-term global stability.
• Emerging Threats Focus: Harris’s emphasis on redirecting military spending to modern threats, like cybersecurity, reflects a more forward-thinking approach to defense.
• Avoidance of Unnecessary Conflicts: Her preference for diplomacy and international peacekeeping efforts could reduce the likelihood of rash military interventions.
• Diplomacy Over Force: In situations where swift military action is needed, her focus on diplomacy could be seen as a hesitation, possibly delaying necessary interventions.

Donald Trump: Military-First Approach

Trump’s tenure as Commander-in-Chief emphasized military strength, sovereignty, and a willingness to act unilaterally. His focus on expanding the military budget and withdrawing from international agreements like the Iran Nuclear Deal and Paris Climate Agreement suggests he would prioritize U.S. interests without being constrained by global alliances.

• Strong Military Presence: Trump’s focus on modernizing and strengthening the U.S. military means that he would continue investing in military capabilities, ensuring that the U.S. remains a global military power.
• Decisiveness: Trump has demonstrated a willingness to make bold, swift decisions, such as withdrawing troops from Syria and increasing military spending, reflecting a more forceful and assertive Commander-in-Chief approach.
• Undermining Alliances: Trump’s approach to foreign policy, especially his criticism of NATO and other multilateral institutions, could weaken international alliances crucial for global security.
• Isolationism: His America First stance and focus on unilateral action may further isolate the U.S. from global cooperation, which can have long-term security risks.
• Erratic Decision-Making: Critics argue that Trump’s decision-making can be impulsive and not always strategically sound, as seen in his Syria troop withdrawal, which left allies vulnerable and caused instability in the region.

If you prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation, and a modern approach to defense, Kamala Harris may be the better Commander-in-Chief. Her reliance on alliances and thoughtful military spending on emerging threats like cyber warfare could lead to a more stable and cooperative global presence.

Donald Trump may suit your views better if you prefer military strength, decisiveness, and unilateral action. His focus on military might and swiftly acting in America’s self-interest could appeal to those who believe in a more forceful use of U.S. power on the global stage. However, it comes with the risk of weakening critical alliances and destabilizing regions through abrupt decisions.

The best Commander-in-Chief ultimately depends on the direction you believe the U.S. should take in global leadership.

Issue	RNC Position	Project 2025 Position	DNC Position
Border	Secure the border and enforce immigration laws. The RNC supports building a border wall, increasing border security, and enforcing immigration laws strictly.	Strengthen border security and limit immigration. Project 2025 advocates for enhancing border security, reducing both legal and illegal immigration, and prioritizing national security.	Secure the border while reforming immigration. The DNC supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes border security, humane treatment of immigrants, and pathways to citizenship.
Immigration	Reduce immigration and prioritize American workers. The RNC supports limiting immigration to protect American jobs and ensure national security.	Limit legal immigration and enforce strict immigration policies. Project 2025 recommends reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country and increasing enforcement against illegal immigration.	Reform immigration and provide pathways to citizenship. The DNC supports reforms that allow undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship while ensuring that immigration laws are fair and humane.
Alliances	Strengthen alliances based on mutual respect and benefit. The RNC supports strong alliances with nations that share American values and interests, while ensuring these relationships benefit the U.S.	Reassess international alliances to prioritize U.S. interests. Project 2025 advocates for a foreign policy that prioritizes American interests and reassesses alliances to ensure they benefit the U.S.	Strengthen and expand global alliances. The DNC supports maintaining and expanding alliances with democratic nations, emphasizing cooperation on global challenges like climate change and security.
Diplomacy	Promote American values abroad. The RNC supports using diplomatic efforts to advance American interests and values, including democracy and human rights, around the world.	Prioritize national sovereignty in diplomacy. Project 2025 recommends focusing on diplomatic efforts that enhance national sovereignty and prioritize American interests over global institutions.	Lead through diplomacy and multilateralism. The DNC supports leading global efforts on issues like climate change, human rights, and peacekeeping, emphasizing cooperation with international institutions.
Trade	Pursue fair and reciprocal trade agreements. The RNC supports trade agreements that are fair to American workers and businesses, protecting them from unfair foreign competition.	Rebalance trade agreements to benefit the U.S. Project 2025 advocates for renegotiating trade agreements to ensure they prioritize American economic interests and reduce reliance on foreign imports.	Promote fair trade and protect workers. The DNC supports trade policies that protect workers’ rights and the environment and promote economic equality while ensuring that trade benefits all Americans.
Defense	Maintain a strong national defense. The RNC supports robust military funding and a strong defense posture to protect American interests at home and abroad.	Strengthen military capabilities and readiness. Project 2025 recommends increasing defense spending, modernizing the military, and ensuring the U.S. maintains a dominant global military presence.	Ensure a strong defense while reducing unnecessary military spending. The DNC supports maintaining a strong defense while prioritizing diplomacy and reducing wasteful military expenditures.
Military Spending	The RNC supports robust military funding. They emphasize the need to increase spending to modernize and strengthen the U.S. military. For example, they backed the $858 billion FY 2023 defense budget to enhance military readiness and innovation in technology and defense systems.	Project 2025 recommends even greater increases in military spending. The focus is on modernization, expanding cyber defense capabilities, and ensuring the U.S. military maintains global dominance. It advocates for a high-tech military approach, emphasizing the need for advanced weaponry and infrastructure improvements.	Promote fair trade and protect workers. The DNC supports trade policies that protect workers’ rights and the environment, promote economic equality, and ensure that trade benefits all Americans.