As part of the Biden-Harris administration’s effort to ensure more than 150 million people with private health coverage have greater access to mental health and substance use disorder care, the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury took significant action today by issuing final rules to clarify and strengthen protections to expand equitable access to these benefits as compared to medical and surgical benefits and reduce barriers to accessing these services. 

“Like medical care, mental health care is vital to the well-being of America’s workers,” said Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su. “The final rules issued today make it easier for people living with mental health conditions and substance use disorders to get the life-saving care they often need.”

The rules build on the departments’ commitment to achieving the full promise of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The act requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage that offer mental health or substance use disorder benefits to cover those benefits in parity with medical and surgical benefits, without imposing greater restrictions on mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical and surgical benefits. More than 15 years after the law’s enactment, the departments’ enforcement efforts have shown that many still encounter barriers to accessing mental health and substance use disorder care as compared to medical and surgical care under their health plan or coverage. 

“The final rules are critical steps forward to making sure that people in need of services can get the care they need without jumping through hoops that they don’t face when trying to get medical or surgical care,” said Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security, Lisa M. Gomez. “Ending the stigma around mental health conditions and substance use disorders calls for a unified effort, and we appreciate the valuable feedback we received from stakeholders – plans, care providers and participants – in shaping these final rules.”

The new rules add additional protections against more restrictive, nonquantitative treatment limitations for mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical or surgical benefits. Nonquantitative treatment limitations are requirements that limit the scope or duration of benefits, such as prior authorization requirements, step therapy and standards for provider admission to participate in a network. 

“Simply put, getting care for anxiety should be as easy as getting medical help for an injured shoulder, and getting medication to treat depression should be as simple as getting medication to treat high cholesterol,” said Gomez. 

The final rules also prohibit plans from using biased or non-objective information and sources that might negatively impact access to mental health and substance use disorder care when designing and applying a nonquantitative treatment limitation.

“Health care, whether for physical or behavioral conditions, is health care. No one should receive lesser care for one or the other. That’s the law. The rules we issue today make that clear,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The final rules make clear that health plans and insurers must evaluate the impact of their nonquantitative treatment limitations on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits and provide additional clarity regarding documentation requirements added to MHPAEA by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. The newly issued rules also require plans and issuers to collect and evaluate data related to the nonquantitative treatment limitations they place on mental health and substance use disorder care and make changes if the data shows they are providing insufficient access. This change will help pinpoint harmful limitations in individuals’ health coverage and remove barriers to access. In addition, the rules give special emphasis to the careful design and management of provider networks to strengthen access to mental health and substance use disorder care.

Strengthening mental health and substance use disorder parity protections has been a priority of the Biden-Harris administration and the departments, and it is a critical component of President Biden’s Unity Agenda. The final rules support the aim of improving health equity so that Americans get the care they need and deserve. 

Most provisions of the final rules apply generally to group health plans and health insurance issuers that offer group health insurance coverage starting on the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2025, but certain requirements that may take more time to implement apply on the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2026. The new rules also apply to grandfathered and non-grandfathered individual health insurance coverage for policy years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2026. 

On Sept. 19, 2024, the Department of Labor will hold a compliance assistance webinar and join Treasury and HHS in providing future guidance on the rules.

Source

The post Departments Of Labor, Health And Human Services, Treasury Issue Final Rules Strengthening Access To Mental Health, Substance Use Disorder Benefits appeared first on Policy Print.

The organization that oversees high school athletics issued a statement yesterday addressing what’s described as “misinformation” about their policies.

“The Louisiana High School Athletic Association (LHSAA) wishes to clarify any misunderstandings regarding its policy on clear bags. Contrary to recent misconceptions, the LHSAA does not enforce a universal clear bag policy across all events, with the exception of specific state championships that it directly manages,” the statement reads. “The LHSAA would like to emphasize that the decision to implement a clear bag policy is determined by individual venues and not mandated by the LHSAA. There is no existing bylaw or official position statement from the LHSAA governing the use of clear bags for events outside of those state championships organized by the LHSAA.”

The reason for the statement?

“The LHSAA is aware of misinformation circulating about a supposed clear bag policy enforced by the organization. Such claims are inaccurate and misleading. Any communication suggesting that a clear bag policy is an LHSAA-wide rule is false,” the document, which can read for yourself by scrolling down, states.

If you want to know what the policy is at a game you plan to attend – check with the venue where the game is taking place, the LHSAA says.

“These venues have the authority to establish and enforce their own security measures, including clear bag requirements,” the document reads.

Source

The post LHSAA clarifies clear-bag policy issue appeared first on Policy Print.

The world’s advice for U.S. voters—and the next White House.

I have a confession to make. I feel a sense of paralysis in these weeks leading up to the U.S. presidential election. Whether it’s the fate of Ukraine, peace in the Middle East, competition with China, or the broader question of America’s role in the world, too much is riding on who will be the next occupant of the White House. A Donald Trump presidency would be very different from a Kamala Harris one, and polls continue to show Americans are bitterly divided on how to choose between them. Key players in global crises, from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seem as if they are waiting to see who wins before they make their next big move. Perhaps that’s why it’s so difficult to cast beyond Nov. 5 and imagine how a range of conflicts and issues may play out.

Four years ago, our Fall 2020 print issue tried to examine what we called “The Most Important Election. Ever.” Little did we know we’d find ourselves at a similar crossroads in 2024. Yes, Harris has replaced U.S. President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, but many of the issues at stake—for the United States and the world—remain the same. Columnist Michael Hirsh wrote a cover essay for us about 2020; we asked him this time around to contrast the visions presented by Harris and Trump.

But back to that paralysis: What happens after Nov. 5? For starters, there’s little guarantee the U.S. public will respect the results of the election. Even if you imagine a point in the future where Americans agree on who will lead them for the next four years, the question is how the next president should unite a polarized electorate and what issues they should prioritize.

That’s a dilemma we wanted to address in our cover package, “Dear America.” Nine distinguished thinkers with lifetimes of experience in global policymaking have written nonpartisan letters of advice to the next White House—and to Americans. With the United States no longer the world’s sole hegemon, each of them considers how Washington should approach the critical challenges our planet faces.

The political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr., who popularized the term “soft power” in this magazine more than three decades ago, explores how the next president can restore U.S. standing in the world. “Political values attract only if a country lives up to them,” he writes. “Preaching democracy abroad will be judged by how well it is practiced at home.” Arancha González, a former Spanish foreign minister, builds on that with a call for “investing in a shield that would protect and preserve democracy for future generations.” Such a task, she argues, will require strengthening election systems, regulating social media, and bolstering cybersecurity.

The Nobel-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz makes the case for following the rules. “[W]e have an international trade order that enforces rules against the poor and weak … but in which the United States can do as it will,” he writes, referring to how Washington has strong-armed the World Trade Organization to serve U.S. interests. Mark Malloch-Brown, a former U.N. deputy secretary-general now based in London, argues that “what’s good for the United States is more than ever not always good for the rest of the world. … There is a dangerous divergence.” The solution, Malloch-Brown says, is for Washington to reverse its current multilateral posture and become more of a team player. It’s a sentiment echoed thousands of miles away in Singapore, from where the scholar Danny Quah calls the United States out for its “obsession with being No. 1” at the cost of global stability. “We want America in our world—just as we want China in it, too,” Quah says.

Our letter writers don’t always agree with each other. But we felt they all had one thing in common from their many years in public policy: a deep love for America and a desire to see it become more of a force for good. Other contributors include Nirupama Rao, a former Indian foreign secretary; Catherine Ashton, a former EU foreign-policy chief; Martin Kimani, a former Kenyan ambassador to the United Nations; and Jason Bordoff, a former energy policymaker in the Obama administration. The next White House—and American voters—would do well to heed their advice in mulling the difficult choices ahead.

There’s lots more in this issue, including a unique ranking of the world’s best international relations programs. No one can predict the state of the world in 2025, but here at Foreign Policy, we can at least help the next generation of policymakers figure out where to go to school.

Source

The post Introducing Foreign Policy’s Fall 2024 Issue appeared first on Policy Print.

The conversation between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris begins at 8 PM CT.

In Philadelphia Tuesday night, both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are looking to make their mark on history in a city bursting with it.

When the presidential debate kicks off, it will be the first – and perhaps only – conversation between the two major party candidates.

“People are waiting to see how Kamala will do,” said University of Texas at Tyler Professor of Public Administration Dr. Ken Wink. “I think they’re also waiting to see if Trump can defend his record as president.”

“I think Kamala Harris wants to show that Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be president, and Trump wants to show that Kamala Harris is not really qualified in a sense of being president based on her past performances,” Wink added.

The economy has consistently polled as an important issue for voters in this year’s election, and the Biden administration has faced criticism over its handling of the economy particularly after inflation hit a four-decade high in 2022.

“Harris has to be able to articulate that the worst is behind us in terms of the economy and yet we all still feel the effects of inflation, there’s no doubt about that,” said Wink. “I think that is the big policy issue that could go either way and both candidates need to do well on that issue.”

When asked during an interview with CNN late last month about her policy shifts, Harris said her “values have not changed.”

“That is an interesting quote, and I wonder if Trump will attack her truthfulness or veracity on those changes of issue positions,” said Wink.

Trump has questioned Harris’ racial identity, after expressing doubt over former President Barack Obama’s country of birth.

Criticism from the Democratic Party persuaded President Joe Biden to drop out of the race following June’s presidential debate in Atlanta.

“If people can see a pretty clear winner, and the polls swing, you know, as much as two percent toward one candidate or the other, that could very well be decisive in the election.” Wink added.

He also said that the vote share from third party candidates could impact the race, even though Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is no longer seeking the White House.

56 days remain until election day. Early voting in Texas begins on Oct. 21, and the last day to register to vote is Oct. 7.

Source

The post East Texas political expert on what to expect during Tuesday’s presidential debate appeared first on Policy Print.

The new policy, similar to those unveiled in recent months at Harvard University and Haverford College, comes after a tumultuous year at Penn.

The University of Pennsylvania announced Tuesday it will no longer make institutional statements in response to world events, except those that have “direct and significant bearing on University functions.”

The new policy, similar to those unveiled in recent months at Harvard University and Haverford College, comes after a tumultuous year at Penn that included the resignation of its president and a multiweek Gaza solidarity encampment that was taken down by police.

“It is not the role of the institution to render opinions — doing so risks suppressing the creativity and academic freedom of our faculty and students,” Penn administrators wrote in a statement emailed to the campus community. “The university will issue messages on local or world events rarely, and only when those events lie within our operational remit.”

In the last few years, Penn issued statements responding to a range of local and world catastrophes. The university condemned the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel on Oct. 7 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. University leaders called the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade a threat to “basic human rights” in a June 2022 statement and celebrated the jury conviction of Derek Chauvin, the police officer who killed George Floyd, in an April 2021 statement.

The new rules likely would preclude any of those kinds of statements issued by the university in the future.

‘Messages take sides’

Penn’s full policy, published on its website under the heading “Upholding Academic Independence,” lays out the dilemma increasingly roiling major universities: Issuing statements on political and social issues is often meaningful to those it addresses, and the practice increased during the social isolation of the pandemic. But doing so also puts the university in an obvious bind, one that Penn said is made worse by the fact that “these events across the world are almost limitless.”

“Responding to one issue inevitably highlights issues and groups that receive no message — omissions that carry their own meanings, however inadvertent,” Penn administrators wrote. “In many cases, messages take sides, or may appear to, on issues of immense significance or complexity.”

Messages left for representatives of Penn Hillel and Penn Faculty for Justice in Palestine were not immediately returned.

Proponents of the idea of so-called institutional neutrality see it as a way to maintain vibrant debate on college campuses, allowing students and faculty freedom to express their own ideas and opinions without the interference of the institution. In a campuswide email accompanying the policy, interim president J. Larry Jameson expressed that hope: “By quieting Penn’s institutional voice, we hope to amplify the expertise and voices within,” he wrote.

But critics see the position — first popularized by the University of Chicago in 1967 to avoid taking a stance on the Vietnam War — as a way for institutions to duck moral responsibility on controversial issues. After Harvard announced its own similar decision in May, Lara Jirmanus, a physician and clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, called it a “bureaucratic sleight of hand” in an interview with the Boston Globe.

“Every decision at a university is highly political,” Jirmanus said. “From what is taught, to who gets tenure, to how Harvard invests its $50 billion endowment.”

Haverford College recently announced that its president would also no longer issue presidential statements “except about matters that directly impact Haverford or higher education.”

Even while saying that the new policy will rely on a hard line between those world issues that have a direct bearing on the university and those that don’t, Penn administrators acknowledged that such a distinction is far from clear and will probably be hashed out in real time.

“No established lines separate what is or is not of direct concern to University operations,” the new policy says, “so we expect occasional disagreement about where those lines are drawn.”

Source

The post Penn says it will no longer respond publicly to world events, unless they directly affect the university appeared first on Policy Print.

The new policy platform on the Harris campaign’s website comes 50 days after Biden exited the race.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign just released a new page on its website titled, “Issues,” which includes a 23-point policy platform that comes following weeks of criticism over its absence. 

Pressure has been building on the Harris campaign to put up a policy platform on its website, similar to how former President Donald Trump and others have done in the past. Upon its release this week, however, the platform was met with even more criticism over a lack of specifics.

In particular, one conservative immigration hawk took issue with the policy platform’s failure to clarify Harris’ stance on border wall funding, and whether she still views illegal border crossings as a civil enforcement issue — or rather, a criminal one.

“The Harris campaign finally has an ‘Issues’ page, but — on immigration, at least — there’s no there, there,” Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Fox News Digital. “She doesn’t say if she’d build more border barriers. She doesn’t say whether she still wants to decriminalize border-jumping. The statement just repeats the vacuous nonsense about the ‘bipartisan’ Senate border bill, which was drafted by the Biden-Harris DHS to codify its unlawful schemes to import more illegal aliens.”

Despite indicating a potential Harris-Walz administration would “bring back the bipartisan border security bill,” the new online policy platform did not indicate where Harris stands on funding additional border wall construction. Republicans have pointed to Harris’ public support for the failed bipartisan border bill as evidence she now backs a border wall after once calling it a “medieval vanity project.” 

But Harris campaign officials have said the border bill did not include any new money for border wall construction — it just extended the timeline to spend funds appropriated during Trump’s last year as president. The bill, however, has limits to ensure the money is spent on border barriers.

“Americans should believe Harris’ prior statements and current policies as Vice President,” Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told Fox News Digital in a statement Tuesday. “She has previously stated numerous times that she opposes a border wall. And on day one of the Biden-Harris Administration, they halted construction of the border wall system.”

Meanwhile, while running for president in 2019, Harris indicated during a nationally televised debate that she would not go after illegal border crossings. In a segment on ABC’s “The View,” she reiterated her stance in a riff with the late-Sen. John McCain’s daughter, Meghan. 

“I would not make it a crime punishable by jail,” Harris said. “It should be a civil enforcement issue but not a criminal enforcement issue.”

“Harris repeatedly said during her CNN interview that her values have not changed,” Ries highlighted in her statement to Fox News Digital. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment on the criticism from Krikorian and others about a lack of specifics in its new online policy platform, but did not receive a response.

Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called the new policy platform “a late-night, half-ass, wish list of policies.” 

“If Kamala really wanted to lower costs and secure the border — why did she cast the tie-breaking vote to cause inflation and support the war on our energy industry, and why is she allowing an invasion of illegal immigrants through our southern border as we speak?”

Not long after the Harris campaign’s “Issues” page was added to its website, social media users pointed out that the new web page contained metadata with language urging voters to reelect President Joe Biden, according to The New Republic. The Biden language was quickly removed, but not before leaving the impression that the Harris campaign copied and pasted from Biden’s documents, the outlet reported.

Source

The post Harris camp’s new policy page criticized for lacking specifics on border security: ‘There’s no there, there’ appeared first on Policy Print.

The economy, a key issue for voters as the November 5 presidential election draws nearer, will have a starring role in the debate tonight between the two candidates, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and her Republican rival, former President Donald Trump. 

About 8 in 10 adults tell CBS News that the economy is a major factor in their choice at the polls, outpacing issues such as abortion and climate change. 

Each candidate will seek to convince voters that their proposals will lead to better economic conditions, ranging from bigger paychecks to lower inflation. And CBS News polling shows that Trump may have an edge with inflation-weary consumers, with about 4 in 10 voters saying prices are likely to go down if he wins — twice as many as those who believe the same would be the case with a Harris victory. 

“[I]nflation and the high cost of living are deeply impacting lower- and middle-income Americans,” said Liza Landsman, the CEO of Stash, a financial services firm that polled consumers ahead of the debate, in a statement. “What the study did shed sharper light on is how vastly different individuals’ perceive their economic condition depending on their political view.”

For instance, about 7 in 10 Trump supporters told Stash they are deeply concerned about inflation, compared with 2 in 10 Harris voters, the study found.

Economists largely rate the current economy as good, albeit with some weak spots, such as a slowing labor market. But about 42% of Americans incorrectly believe the U.S. is currently in a recession, down from about 48% last year, a new MassMutual survey found. 

“Sometimes it is difficult to separate out various doom-and-gloom factors when it is hitting your wallet directly,” Paul LaPiana, a certified financial planner and head of brand, product and affiliated distribution with MassMutual, told CBS MoneyWatch.

Even so, a number of Wall Street economists are predicting that Harris’ policies are likely to result in stronger economic growth for the U.S., while warning that Trump’s combination of tariffs and tax cuts could both spur inflation while causing the deficit to mushroom by trillions. 

Here’s what to know about three key economic issues that could influence voters. 

Inflation and grocery costs

Inflation has sapped household budgets since 2021, when prices started rising due to the impact of the pandemic, which disrupted global supply chains and prompted the federal government to pump trillions into the economy. (Both Presidents Trump and Biden signed large spending bills into law during the pandemic, authorizing stimulus payments and extra unemployment aid, among other supports).

To temper inflation, the Federal Reserve responded by hiking interest rates to their highest point in 23 years. That’s paying off, with government data on Wednesday expected to show that inflation cooled to 2.6% on an annual basis in August, its lowest since March 2021, according to financial data firm FactSet.

But lower inflation doesn’t mean that prices have come down; instead, it simply means that the rate of price hikes have moderated from their pandemic peak. 

The candidates are likely to discuss their plans to address inflation, which remains a key issue for voters given that grocery costs remain 21% higher than they were prior to the pandemic. That means a cart of groceries in 2020 that cost $150 would now set you back by $182, or $32 more at the register.

Harris has vowed to tackle grocery costs by enacting the first federal law against price gouging by food suppliers and retailers. But economists say they’re skeptical such a law could make much of an impact. 

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to end the “inflation nightmare.” But his policies, which include adding tariffs to all imported goods, would likely fuel inflation and reverse some of the progress of the last two years, some economists say.

What the candidates are pledging on taxes 

Both Harris and Trump have already made some tax pledges, with Harris vowing to increase the corporate tax rate and Trump proposing a steep cut, taking it down to 15% from its current 21%. 

Trump also wants to extend his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — his 2017 law that reduced tax rates for most individuals but provided the biggest benefits to the nation’s richest families. Many of those cuts are due to expire at the end of 2025. Trump’s vice presidential running mate, JD Vance, has also floated the idea of a bigger Child Tax Credit.

Harris, meanwhile, wants to enact more generous tax benefits, such as a $6,000 Child Tax Credit for parents of newborns and a bigger Earned Income Tax Credit. One analysis from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model found that her proposals would help more low- and middle-income families than Trump’s.

“If Democrats sweep, personal and corporate taxes and benefit spending will likely rise,” Goldman Sachs analysts said in September 3 research report. “If Republicans sweep, they will likely stay mostly unchanged.”

Housing and the American Dream 

Housing remains out of reach for millions of Americans who are now priced out of home-buying due to high mortgage rates and housing prices. 

Harris has proposed providing $25,000 in down payment assistance for Americans who have paid their rent on time for two years, with more support for first-generation homeowners. She’s also proposing tax incentives for builders of starter homes, with the goal of widening the housing supply and lowering home prices.

Trump, meanwhile, has proposed making federal land available to help with housing supply, but his campaign hasn’t offered any details. He’s also vowed to deport between 15 million to 20 million undocumented workers, which he’s blamed for increasing housing demand and pushing up prices.

But the surge in home prices preceded the recent jump in undocumented workers, the New York Times reported. And deporting so many workers, many of whom work in construction, could jeopardize the workforce that builds homes. 

Source

The post The economy is a top issue for voters. Here’s what to watch for in the Harris-Trump debate. appeared first on Policy Print.

The discussion of the need for a new tool for whistleblowers will have to wait until the next municipal election

It looks like the discussion of the need for a new tool for whistleblowers will have to wait until the next municipal election in October 2025.

Town of Cochrane Coun. Marni Fedeyko’s eight-month push to have new whistleblower rules considered in more detail was voted down at the regular council meeting Monday.

Administration presented a summary report on Fedeyko’s proposal dating back to January. Fedeyko brought forward a Notice of Motion at the Jan. 8 council meeting and an update was provided at the May 6 Committee of the Whole meeting. It was discussed again in June.

The recommendation that was ultimately accepted Monday was that council “receive the report for information only and direct Administration to take no further steps on a whistleblower program at this time.”

Council voted in favour of that recommendation, so discussion ends there. For now.

Coun. Morgan Nagel and Fedeyko voted against the motion.

Before the vote, Fedeyko cited a number of examples where a new whistleblower policy might be useful, especially where it might help create an environment where residents and employees may bring complaints forward “in a safe, confidential and anonymous way.”

She said she was “saddened” that every time this proposal has been brought forward, the debate circled around cost. She said the cost of the software she was envisioning was anywhere from six to eight thousand dollars.

“I’m shocked that we think that as a growing community, that this not something we think should be implemented,” she said, before urging any candidates thinking of running in the 2025 election to make new whistleblower program a part of their platforms.

Coun. Susan Flowers was against spending any more time on the idea.

“I’d like to see it resolved so we can get on with work we have to do. We only have one year left to go (until the next election),” she said.

Coun. Alex Reid called the idea redundant, since there are a number of ways people can bring complaints forward already, even though they may not be currently labelled as “whistleblower legislation.”

“I’m against the motion as well. The theme of whistleblowing is covered off,” he said.

He said that council had more pressing issues to spend their time on in this, the last year they will be together.

Mayor Jeff Genung said the software program under consideration only provided triage for complaints – it said nothing about how complaints would be investigated, and as such, it would be redundant. After complaints are received, they need to be investigated.

“If, in addition to that, we’re talking about hiring a third party investigator every single time this platform is engaged, now we’re talking thousands of dollars,” he said. “That’s the doubling down I can’t wrap my head around,” he said.

Source

The post Whistleblower program now a dead issue at Cochrane council appeared first on Policy Print.

The debate was heavily focused on US domestic matters—even when questions were on international affairs, both candidates sought to bring the issues back to domestic politics and policies.  

Of most relevance to Australia was the lack of interest in this region. Other than passing references—in heavily political contexts—neither the media nor the candidates raised China in any meaningful way. Notwithstanding the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, China is the most significant issue globally. 

Without China being prioritised by the two candidates or media today, we can only hope that the next administration will be struck by the realities of Beijing as the pacing military and technological threat to our livelihoods and way of life. Australia and partners like Japan, the Quad and NATO, will need to work together to ensure the next administration is focused on competing with and countering China, and does so by viewing China as a strategic rival first and not as an economic partner. 

Given the next president will immediately face a world in conflict, a further debate that is limited to foreign policy and held before the November election would be best for both US voters and America’s partners. 

On China—Bethany Allen, head of program for China investigations and analysis, and Daria Impiombato, analyst 

While the moderators never asked about China, the topic came up unprompted within the first few minutes of the debate with Harris accusing Trump of inviting ‘trade wars’ but then adding the former President ‘sold us out’ to China. In a sense this focus was not surprising because the Trump administration’s tough turn on China was one of the most significant and controversial foreign policy shifts of his term. The Biden-Harris administration has also made competition with Beijing a key platform. 

More surprising was that, other than brief references, the issue of how to manage China strategically and in the context of potential flashpoints such a Taiwan and the South China Sea did not come up at all. 

Harris and Trump went on to spar over tariffs, microchips and the pandemic response, with Harris accusing the Trump administration of allowing the sale of chips to China that served to modernise the People’s Liberation Army. Trump’s retort that the US ‘barely make any chips anymore’ and that it is Taiwan instead that’s selling them to China again demonstrated the economic lens with which he views these issues.  

This is in line with his latest stances on Taiwan, as he has repeatedly stated that the island should pay the US to defend it, and that they have ‘stolen’ the chip manufacturing business from American companies. Harris, instead, opted to focus on the CHIPS Act and her intention to win the competition with China especially on technology and artificial intelligence. 

On Alliances—Eric Lies, analyst 

What stood out, in particular for US allies the world over, was Trump’s refusal to answer the question as to whether he believes Ukraine should win in the war against Russia. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he would end the war as president-elect. A key element of deterrence is convincing potential adversaries that if they choose violence, they will be met with resolve. Responses like Trump’s, which put Ukraine and Russia on a false equivalence, corrode that confidence in US security promises and will likely make allies in the Indo-Pacific nervous, while emboldening China’s revanchist activities. 

In contrast, Harris unequivocally stated her support for allied efforts within Europe, and how she intends to continue those efforts should she be elected. It meant that a clear foreign policy difference came through between the two candidates—a more isolationist, transactional foreign policy on the one hand and an alliance-driven policy on the other.  

On Ukraine and China—Malcolm Davis, senior analyst 

On Ukraine, Harris clearly demonstrated that she understood the potential implications of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Noting that if such an outcome were realised, ‘Putin would have his eye on the rest of Europe’. This is an accurate interpretation of the stakes at play. In contrast, Trump failed to deliver a convincing response, simply saying ‘he’d get on the phone to Putin and Zelensky’. 

The risk is therefore that a second Trump Administration could reduce support for Ukraine and increase the likelihood of delivering Putin a decisive strategic victory. 

On China, both candidates avoided any real discussion of the defence and national security implications of a rising China. Instead, they focused on trade relations. Whichever candidate wins in November, however, there is a chance that they will be confronted with a major crisis with Beijing over Taiwan. This is an issue that is far more important to the United States than tariffs. 

Generally, the debate avoided any real discussion on critical and emerging technologies and the importance of maintaining US leadership. In fact, as the ASPI Critical Technology tracker shows, China now holds a dominance in high-impact research that was once held by the US. Both candidates should have dealt more with this important issue and will need to do so as president. 

On Disinformation and Migration—Mike Copage, head of the Climate and Security Policy Centre 

As the world grapples with the prospect of AI driving mis and dis-information in democracies, the debate highlighted how vulnerable American political discourse has become to the spread of disinformation without it. Pressed by moderators that there’s no evidence to back claims by vice-presidential candidate JD Vance that Haitian illegal immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Trump responded that he knew it was true because he heard it from ‘people on television’. While ridiculous at face value, the real and serious consequences of a former President and current candidate repeating clearly false, racist and anti-immigrant claims cannot be ignored. The violence perpetuated following the spread of anti-immigrant misinformation in the United Kingdom demonstrates how far that can lead without responsible leadership. 

On the Media and China—Greg Brown, senior analyst, Washington DC 

Harris had a solid showing defined by poise without policy articulation. Her supporters will feel emboldened by the strategy to distance herself from the present Administration—noting during the debate that she was neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. 

President Trump had a weaker night—notwithstanding his zingers like ‘wake the President (Biden) up at four o’clock in the afternoon’—and appeared rambling at times. He missed opportunities to attack Harris effectively. 

As usual, the debate moderators (in this case ABC News) and voters were the losers.   

The lone foreign policy issue mentioned with any repetition was migration though with a heavy domestic lens. And neither candidate provided any sense of the drivers of, let alone policy responses to, the weaponization of mass migration. The passing references by both candidates regarding Iran, Ukraine and Russia were pedestrian. 

China, the ​supposed pacing challenge and threat, received little attention. Nor did we have a discussion of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, tariffs as tools of economic warfare, how to revive the US defence industrial base, let alone to US interests across the Pacific. 

On Asia-Pacific—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow 

While understandably focused on domestic issues, it was still surprisingly how little interest there was on foreign policy in the presidential debate. Considering the growing chaos the next president will have to deal with, that was unfortunate. 

America’s China and Indo-Pacific policy was not mentioned, nor were any other aspects of foreign and security policy in any detail. We heard only some broad outlines to which we were already familiar, such as a Trump Administration that will be suspicious of its partners because of the worry that America is being exploited, that will be more open to deal-making with adversaries such as Russia, China and North Korea, irrespective of the character of their behaviour and that will potentially raise tariff barriers with wide-ranging economic effects globally. 

On the Democrat side, Vice President Harris reiterated she would strengthen partnerships and stand up to authoritarian leaders, which is a more positive starting point, but all said without much detail. 

From a foreign policy perspective, it was clearly not a substantive debate. Leaving out everything from narrow issues of nuances to nuclear policy to broad issues such as relative commitment to different theatres like Europe, Middle East and Indo-Pacific. 

Source

The post The US presidential debate: ASPI responds appeared first on Policy Print.

Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump traded blows in the first presidential debate of the 2024 race — clashing over issues including abortion, economy and foreign wars.

Fox News proposes second presidential debate

US news channel Fox Newssaid it proposed to hold a second presidential debate in October. 

The channel, which largely caters to a conservative viewership, said it had sent letters to the campaigns for both Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican rival Donald Trump, before Tuesday night’s debate. 

This invitation aside, Harris’ campaign has already offered a rematch while Trump did not commit to it. 

“The reason you do a second debate is if you lose, and they lost,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity in the spin room after the first debate. “But I’ll think about it.”

Source

The post US presidential debate: Harris, Trump clash over key issues appeared first on Policy Print.