Seven potential impacts from the presidential election

Seven potential impacts from the presidential election

• Misinformation and online influencers
• Cybersecurity and voting
• Affordable Care Act
• Housing Market
• Reproductive Rights
• No tax on tips
• Drug pricing, Medicare negotiation, and broader health care impacts

As the United States prepares for a contentious and historic election, a number of policy differences are emerging, from reproductive rights and health policy to the housing market, taxes, and the cost of consumer goods. Here, Johns Hopkins Carey Business School experts share insights on seven key areas of U.S. policy and the impacts the election results could have.

Before the election: Misinformation and online influencers

David Godes, professor of marketing and economics

Summary: Godes argues that, for some, the content of the misinformation is not important. Its ability to signal to which “group” the sharer belongs, aimed at a segment of consumers, voters, or supporters, is what matters. He sees online influencers as “the 21^st century incarnation of traditional print media” --highly fragmented, catering often to very niche taste audience segments, and blurring their editorial and commercial content.

Godes: Looking at the promotional messages in the Harris and Trump campaigns, both on and offline, there’s a marked split in terms of the tone, emotion and message. One reason for this is that both campaigns seem reasonably well aligned with their underlying “products,” which, in this case, are the candidates. They’re communicating both overtly and subliminally what one should expect from them. It’s effective messaging for each campaign.

The role of online influencers in this campaign has been fascinating because it hasn’t played this big of a role, or even existed, in previous election cycles. There’s no question that, for younger demographic groups, online influencers have a significant impact, and campaigns need to pay attention.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have tried to gain favor. At the same time, influencers have been charged by the Department of Justice for working for external entities, like the recent situation with the covert Russian influence operation. This is a market that is very much in flux and not yet in equilibrium.

Back to top

Cybersecurity and voting

Javad Abed, assistant professor of information systems

Summary: Abed warns that current cybersecurity measures for the upcoming election are not sufficient to keep up with the increasingly intricate techniques AI is enabling scammers to use, and the U.S.is at risk of swayed election outcomes and a destabilized political system.

Abed: The need for robust cybersecurity defenses is urgent. These defenses must adapt, as an array of threat actors, including state-sponsored groups, cybercriminals, and hacktivists— target U.S. systems. The stakes are high; safeguarding democracy hinges on the ability to protect against cyber assaults.

Back to top

After the election: Affordable Care Act

Stacey Lee, professor of health law and ethics

Summary: Lee sees the policies proposed and promoted by the Trump campaign as threatening to medical coverage, particularly for individuals living in poverty, while those of the Harris campaign suggest expansion that could positively impact public health.

Lee: The Affordable Care Act under a Trump administration could see reductions in Medicaid funding and attempts to undermine protections for pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans may face higher premiums or even lose coverage altogether. A Harris administration would likely prioritize strengthening and expanding the ACA. Expectations include increased subsidies and efforts to close the Medicaid gap in non-expansion states. These actions could lead to improved public health outcomes and greater economic stability for families.

Back to top

Housing market

Seydina Fall, Lecturer of Real Estate and Finance

Summary: Fall sees both campaigns indicating policies that recognize the current housing crisis, with a difference in approach between demand and supply.

Fall: Both Vice President Harris and former President Trump understand that the housing crisis is a crucial issue for voters. Vice President Harris has taken a balanced approach by trying to boost demand through down payment assistance and supply through tax credits to homebuilders who build starter homes.

Former President Trump’s approach so far has been entirely supply-focused, with policies aimed at eliminating “red tape” and other regulations in construction. Boosting supply may be difficult for the federal government to implement, given that most zoning and other housing policies are enacted at the state or local government level. A Trump plan has proposed making surplus federal land available to build more housing and could increase federal taxation for short-term rentals, which could incentivize landlords to make more units available to families for long-term rental.

Regarding housing affordability, 2024 election voters need to focus not just on what the two candidates promise, but on what they can execute from their position in the federal government. Housing is a local business.

Back to top

Reproductive rights

Stacey Lee, professor of health law and ethics

Summary: Lee sees possibilities for restrictions on birth control, stricter state-level bans on abortion, and cutbacks to Planned Parenthood in a Trump win. A Harris win, she says, may mean not only protecting but also expanding access.

Lee: A Trump administration may reduce reproductive health care access. Potential rollbacks could include restrictions on contraception coverage, federal funding limitations for Planned Parenthood, and stricter state-level abortion bans. These changes may disproportionately impact marginalized communities, particularly low-income individuals and women of color.

A Harris Administration would likely prioritize expanding reproductive rights protections. Expectations include restoring funding to essential services like Title X and pursuing federal legislation to safeguard abortion access nationwide. This could significantly enhance reproductive health care access, especially in rural and underserved areas.

Back to top

“No tax on tips” 

Shubhranshu Singh, associate professor in marketing

Summary: Singh sees unintended consequences if either party rolls back taxes on tips for service workers, including a higher cost for the federal government and an increase in requests for tips from those not working on a tip-based pay scale.

Singh: Both Trump and Harris have offered their support for the idea of making tips tax-free for service workers. It made perfect sense for Trump to announce tax-free tips in the swing state of Nevada, which he lost narrowly in the previous two elections and where about 20% of workers are employed by restaurants and hotels. Given the extent of competition and the role Nevada may play in deciding the final outcome, Harris has appropriately responded by promising the same. 

However, economic implications of the proposed policy can be more complex and unintended. While the policy will certainly help some service workers, it will not offer benefits for other workers earning similar wages without tips. The policy will also incentivize the service industry, including those professions that currently do not rely on tips for compensation, to introduce and expand tip-based compensation. 

For the federal government, the actual cost of policy may significantly exceed the conservative estimate of about $10 billion per year. 

Back to top

Drug Pricing, Medicare negotiation, and broader health care impacts

Stacey Lee, professor of health law and ethics

Summary: Challenges to price controls under a Trump administration may make health care less affordable for individuals on Medicare, while Harris may look to infuse Medicare administration with more negotiating options—a potential major shift for the health care industry. Any change will impact multiple areas of the American economy.

Lee: A Trump administration may roll back Medicare’s new authority to negotiate drug prices, which could result in continued high costs for patients, with minimal regulation to curb prices. A Harris administration would likely prioritize expanding Medicare’s negotiating power. This approach could drive down costs for patients and the government, ultimately improving access to affordable medications. Such a shift could have significant implications for health care affordability and industry dynamics.

Health care policy changes under each administration have a ripple effect on the economy, labor markets, and business environments. Accessible, affordable health care is directly linked to economic productivity, influencing everything from workforce health to business competitiveness. Policy shifts can drive significant economic and social outcomes, emphasizing the critical need for equitable healthcare access.

To arrange an interview with one of our experts, please contact: Maggie Ward, Media Relations Specialist

Back to top