7 Reasons Why CEOs Are Excited About Kamala Harris

While the emergence of Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President has generated widespread enthusiasm among her party, some may be surprised to know that many CEOs I’ve spoken with are euphoric about Harris’ candidacy. In contrast, no Fortune 100 CEOs have come out in support of Trump (Elon Musk seems to have walked back his initial endorsement), and many were lukewarm about Biden’s re-election bid. Executives’ excitement for Harris is both stylistic and substantive—with her instinctive preference for centrist governance, constructive problem solving, and collaboration over vilification.

Based on my conversations with top business leaders, here are seven key business and economic policy areas where they see potential in a Harris Presidency.

Protecting the rule of law, not the law of rulers

CEOs, even those on the dynamic frontiers of AI, cloud, crypto, social media, chip technology, and life sciences, care about the process guiding the rules of fair play. As one prominent GOP-supporting business leader told me, “business leaders prefer to invest where there is the rule of law, not the law of rulers.”

As a former prosecutor, President Harris is unlikely to repeat excesses undermining the rule of law for American businesses seen across both political parties. Harris will not follow Trump’s serial partisan interventions, inserting himself into private business and regulatory processes to inflict personal vendettas motivated by political vindictiveness, lashing out at iconic firms such as Harley Davidson, AT&T, Ford, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, Merck, Delta, Coca-Cola, and GM—or provide favors to business friends.

Trump supporters seem to wrongly feel that Trump is more hands-off, taking government out of business decision-making, but in fact Trump is more prone to servicing his personal interests. Likewise, Harris is unlikely to echo anti-capitalist, populist pitches by extremists on both sides, such as J.D. Vance declaring “it’s time America wages war on companies”, or “no more subsidies to the anti-American business class”; nor is she likely to resort to tired tropes, such as “corporate greed” and “corporate fat cat [vs.] working people.”

Measured antitrust enforcement protects American capitalism and competition 

Harris’ antitrust record as California Attorney General suggests a more measured approach to antitrust enforcement compared to the current environment and the evolving MAGA economic principles promised by Trump-Vance. For example, when campaigning to be California attorney general in 2010, Harris warned against “shortsighted” antitrust enforcement, emphasizing government “can't stand in the way of business growth and development.”

In contrast, business leaders were horrified when President Trump weaponized antitrust as a cudgel to obtain more favorable news coverage. They have similarly resented what is viewed as antitrust overreach by certain Biden officials, led by Lina Khan at the FTC and Jonathan Kanter at the DOJ. While J.D. Vance is one of Khan’s loudest defenders—recently declaring, “I look at Lina Khan as one of the few people in the Biden Administration that I think is doing a pretty good job.” In contrast, many in the business community are expecting new antitrust leadership under President Harris, who has reportedly expressed skepticism toward Khan’s expansive view of antitrust powers, echoing concerns from progressive allies such as Congressman Ro Khanna.

Balanced regulation incentivizes innovation while protecting society 

Contrary to misperceptions, businesses embrace regulation—as long as it is fair and measured—as former DuPont CEO and Business Roundtable Chair Irving Shapiro once told me, “most businesspeople are sensible and rational people. They recognize that they’ve got to meet the needs of society or they’re not going to be successful.”

Many Trump cronies never quite understood that in their misguided regulatory rollback efforts. Trump’s EPA-directed regulatory rollbacks outraged the entire car industry. Then, when the automakers pushed back, he veered ordered antitrust officials to sue the auto industry. Similarly, some business leaders have complained about regulatory overreach in the current administration on issues related to AI and crypto, in particular at the SEC and FTC. Many expect that to change with Harris given her connection to the Bay Area. 

As California Attorney General, even as she aggressively supported and enforced regulations targeting Big Tech, Harris engaged industry executives collaboratively. She created business working groups on privacy, unionization, and other regulatory regimes, curtailing corporate wrongdoing and protecting workers’ rights while avoiding needless antagonism.

By contrast, Trump’s running mate Vance said at a Wall Street Journal conference, “I’ve certainly personally been very close to the technology sector. Because of that experience, I inherently mistrust it or at least worry about its influence in the broader economy.”

Trade and foreign policy should prioritize national security and access to global markets 

The U.S. is one of the largest importers and exporters, so it is little surprise that the business community does not relish Trump’s proposal of 10% tariffs on imports from all countries—not to mention inevitable retaliatory tariffs, which could increase U.S. inflation by up to 10%.

Harris understands these dangers, as her California constituents in the tech industry are perhaps the most sensitive to tariffs: conservative estimates suggest international revenues of US tech firms are over $1 trillion annually, the most of any sector. No wonder Harris’ nomination has “reinvigorated” tech donors, who had largely limited giving to Biden this year, but are now racing to contribute millions to the vice president’s campaign. 

Similarly, Harris understands that U.S. multinationals, and the millions of Americans they employ, are reliant upon access to foreign markets as well as the value in stable foreign policy—in contrast to Trump’s threats of abandoning the long-held policy of strategic ambiguity with Taiwan or support for Ukraine, jeopardizing economic stability as much as national security.

Fair taxation keeps the American dream alive while addressing federal debt challenges

Many business leaders have found fault in both parties’ tax policy records—leaving much room in the middle for Harris to bridge the gap.

While some business leaders worked with the Trump Administration to help craft and pass the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, Trump’s own taxation proposals have become increasingly erratic, losing the support of business.

Unlike 2017, business leaders generally recognize that such tax cuts—when unmatched by proportional cuts to spending—could triple the federal deficit and balloon debt to unsustainable levels. CEOs remember that Trump tripled the federal deficit from $1 trillion to $3 trillion, while Biden-Harris cut the deficit by a third. Many in the business community were also concerned by unrealistic tax proposals proposed by misguided Biden advisors, such as a 26% tax on unrealized capital gains. By contrast, their current administration provides Harris with credibility and momentum through plunging inflation to 3.7%, 4% record low employment, wages growth exceeding inflation, and strong economic growth driving 80% of the World Bank’s 2024 forecast.

Immigration policy can accelerate innovation and economic growth 

Many see immigration as one of Harris’ key vulnerabilities, and there are obvious improvements to be made on controlling the border. However, the Biden Administration immigration policy, to which Harris has been closely aligned, appreciates the economic and cultural value that skilled legal immigrants bring to America. Of more concern to business leaders is Trump’s chronic inability to distinguish between illegal and legal immigration. Such policies led to serious destabilization in American businesses during the former president’s first term.

Ronald Reagan called America a land of immigrants in 1989, a far cry from Trump’s radical claims that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”—which were matched only by the Trump Administration’s misguided plans in 2020 to limit highly skilled H1B visa immigration sparked widespread outrage amongst CEOs. Not only are one-in-four STEM workers foreign-born, but half of all startups with revenues of $1 billion or greater have immigrant founders or co-founders—and 80% for AI startups.

All-the-above energy policies meets increased demand and climate goals

Harris’ problem-solving instincts prepare her well to steer a middle course on energy policy. 

On one hand, Trump’s cries of “drill, baby, drill” are detached from reality—with the U.S. reclaiming the title of the world’s largest oil and gas producer and producing far more under the Biden-Harris Administration than the Trump Administration.

On the other, a pragmatist by instinct whose conviction and credibility on fighting climate change is unimpeachable, Harris has come to acknowledge the negative economic consequences of banning fossil fuels overnight and divesting from all fossil fuel companies. She recognizes that energy must be affordable to families of all income levels and “believes in the power of public-private partnerships” to get us to a cleaner future. Harris can lead the U.S. through an ambitious but gradual energy transition while continuing to progress towards climate goals.

Some commentators were at first skeptical that business leaders were truly rejoicing at Harris’ nomination. But that business support is growing by the day, with business leaders excited about these seven business and economic policy challenges where they see potential in a Harris presidency. These business priorities address the top concerns of the nation’s business leaders—not to mention anything about important social safety net policies, which we defer to experts on. Vice President Harris has authentically lived a life that shows she knows the value of building bridges across sectors, countries, and communities, including the business community.

With thanks to Steven Tian, director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, and Stephen Henriques, a senior fellow at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute.