With the November 5 presidential election nearing, the impact on corporate America looms large. The policies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump extend beyond headline-grabbing debates on taxes and regulation, touching key sectors such as energy, technology, finance, consumer goods, and aviation, each facing potentially transformative consequences depending on the outcome. From the continuation or reversal of Biden administration policies to proposed new tariffs and environmental measures, the future of corporate America hangs in the balance as voters head to the polls.
In the energy sector, a Trump victory could spell a resurgence for traditional oil and gas industries. Trump’s pledge to “unleash American energy” includes plans to rescind what he terms “industry-killing regulations” put in place by the Biden administration. This would mean lifting the pause on new liquefied natural gas terminal approvals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions regulations, and curbing incentives for renewable energy and electric vehicle (EV) rollouts. Though Congress and judicial challenges may slow his agenda, a Trump administration could severely disrupt sectors like offshore wind that rely on federal support. Despite record onshore production levels in oil and gas, investment hesitancy has restrained new drilling campaigns.
A Harris presidency, by contrast, would likely maintain Biden’s energy policies, focusing on renewables while upholding fossil fuel production to keep the US as the leading global energy producer. The Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s major climate initiative, which spurred nearly $450 billion in green energy investments, would likely stay in place under Harris but face dismantling under Trump.
Tech giants, particularly those invested in artificial intelligence, face divergent outcomes depending on the election’s results. Trump has promised to cancel Biden’s executive order on AI, which Harris helped introduce, to ease what critics like Elon Musk see as “strangulation by overregulation.” Silicon Valley investors, including prominent figures like Marc Andreessen, view restrictive regulations as counterproductive in the global AI race, particularly against China.
However, Trump’s aggressive stance on Taiwan, including accusations of stealing the US semiconductor industry, poses risks for chipmakers like Nvidia, which relies on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company for its AI chip production. Tariffs on Taiwanese and Chinese imports could escalate costs, disrupt supply chains, and impact companies like Apple and Nvidia. Harris, more aligned with California’s tech sector, would likely continue Biden’s support for broadband expansion and US-based semiconductor manufacturing, while advocating for immigration policies that support Silicon Valley’s demand for talent. Yet her commitment to AI regulation may introduce other challenges for the sector.
The banking and finance industries anticipate different futures under each candidate. US banks, having successfully staved off capital requirement increases under Biden, could see further regulatory relaxation under Trump, emboldening Wall Street to seek even more favorable terms. Trump’s potential appointment of allies to the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice could also signal a less aggressive stance on antitrust, easing the pressure on large financial institutions.
Conversely, Harris has suggested she would be less restrictive on business than Biden but still supportive of regulatory oversight, albeit possibly with a new approach by appointing officials to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Trade Commission who take a more moderate stance. However, her ability to replace influential figures like Lina Khan may face resistance from the left wing of her party, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has already warned of opposition if Khan were removed. Trump’s agenda includes curtailing the use of environmental, social, and governance factors in investment decisions, a move that could hinder the finance industry’s alignment with progressive initiatives. Additionally, his proposal to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent has drawn sharp opposition from banks, which would see profits impacted by such a restriction.
For consumer goods, Harris and Trump offer sharply contrasting approaches. Harris has committed to introducing a federal ban on price gouging within her first 100 days in office, a move that could bring heightened scrutiny to food and beverage companies’ pricing strategies. She also supports stricter regulations on mergers and acquisitions, aiming to boost competition and support small businesses.
While dealmaking in this sector has seen a revival with high-profile acquisitions like Mars’s $36 billion purchase of Pringles maker Kellanova, a Harris administration may restrict future M&A activity if deemed harmful to competition. Trump, meanwhile, proposes to lower grocery prices by implementing broad tariffs on imports, though economists argue the policy could backfire by driving up commodity costs. Tariffs on essential inputs like grains and sugar would likely raise production costs, which manufacturers would then pass onto consumers to protect profit margins. According to the National Retail Federation, US consumers could lose up to $78 billion annually in spending power if Trump’s tariff proposals are implemented.
Energy, tech, finance, and more face uncertain paths depending on election results.
The aviation industry also faces uncertainty. A Trump victory could jeopardize Boeing’s efforts to secure aircraft sales in China, as the Republican candidate has proposed a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods and a 10 percent minimum levy on all imports. This would negatively impact Boeing, which counts Chinese airlines among its major customers, and could provoke retaliatory tariffs from Beijing. Trump’s tariff policy could also complicate matters for Airbus, whose US operations include assembly sites in Alabama. In response to Trump’s previous tariffs in 2020, Airbus passed the cost burden onto customers, a strategy they may have to repeat if further tariffs are imposed. Harris, on the other hand, would likely maintain the Biden administration’s approach, avoiding the kind of tariffs that have disrupted US aviation in recent years.
For the automotive sector, Trump’s potential return to power poses a threat to the struggling EV market, which accounted for about 9 percent of new car sales in the third quarter. Trump has criticized Biden’s emissions regulations as detrimental to the car industry and would likely eliminate these rules, which could reduce the incentive for traditional automakers to invest in EVs. His pledge to scrap Biden’s $7,500 tax credit on eligible EVs would also hinder market growth.
Though Trump has softened his rhetoric on EVs, largely due to Musk’s influence, his overall stance remains challenging for the industry. Harris, who has earned support from the United Automobile Workers union, would likely continue policies that support EV production and green transportation infrastructure, appealing to her Democratic base and labor allies.
The healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors also stand to be reshaped depending on the election’s outcome. Trump previously sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act, though his return to office may not see the same level of urgency in that effort. During debates, Trump suggested he has new concepts to replace the ACA, but the lack of detail leaves the 45 million Americans reliant on the ACA uncertain. Harris has argued that a repeal would jeopardize healthcare for millions and has promised to widen Medicare’s drug pricing controls, expanding them beyond seniors to include private insurance beneficiaries if she wins congressional support.
Trump’s stance on drug pricing remains unclear, though his initial presidency saw a hawkish approach on price reductions. Additionally, Harris has proposed extending the $35 cap on insulin costs for Medicare recipients to all patients, regardless of their insurance provider, a measure that would likely garner strong support from healthcare advocates.
With sectors from energy to tech and banking to healthcare on the line, the November election presents a pivotal choice for corporate America. Each candidate’s policies reflect divergent visions for the country’s economic future, leaving investors, executives, and workers alike bracing for a new phase of regulatory and economic shifts, depending on the vote’s outcome. The decisions made by American voters will shape corporate strategy, market conditions, and economic priorities for years to come, positioning the election as a defining moment for both business leaders and the broader public.
