The presidential debate accomplished more for Harris than it did for Trump

• Samantha Gross and Louison Sall at Brookings argue that Donald Trump advocates for a shift in U.S. energy policy, focusing on fossil fuels, reducing regulations, and opposing renewable energy initiatives to lower energy costs and achieve "energy dominance."
• The article asserts that Trump's ability to implement his energy agenda depends on Congress and the courts, with recent Supreme Court decisions potentially aiding his deregulatory efforts in a second term.

• Bryan Burack at Heritage Foundation writes that the Trump administration's significant foreign policy legacy was its strategic response to China's economic warfare against the U.S., emphasizing the importance of maintaining these measures for deterrence.
• The article asserts that the Biden administration has adopted a less assertive approach, reviving engagement policies with China due to concerns that aggressive economic protections might provoke conflict, which has led to counterproductive security tradeoffs.

• Brendan Duke at Center for American Progress argues that Project 2025 proposes a tax plan that raises taxes on low- and middle-income families while giving significant tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations.
• The analysis asserts that the introduction of a flat consumption tax and elimination of income taxes would result in higher costs for middle- and low-income households, shifting the tax burden away from wealthy individuals and large corporations.

• William H. Frey at Brookings argues that Vice President Kamala Harris's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate has invigorated the race, with a particular impact on female voters who have historically supported Democratic candidates.

​

• The analysis reviews that women's votes were crucial in recent elections, highlighting how post-Roe v. Wade changes and Harris’s advocacy on women's issues could lead to a significant voting surge, potentially favoring her in the 2024 election.

• Comfort Oshagbemi and David Wessel at Brookings examine why the U.S. spends substantially more on transportation infrastructure compared to other countries, highlighting limited state DOT capacity and over-reliance on consultants as key cost-drivers.
• The authors argue that limited competition and insufficient bidder outreach in the market for government construction contracts contribute to higher infrastructure costs in the U.S., and increasing bidder outreach and improving project planning can significantly reduce these costs.