Trump wins the 2024 US presidential election: experts react

Republican candidate Donald Trump won the 2024 US presidential election campaign against Vice-President Kamala Harris.

The election campaign saw Harris replace current President Biden in July, following concerns over Biden's advanced age. Much of Harris' campaigning platform focused on  enshrining the right to abortion, and on Trump as a threat to democracy following the January 6 insurrection at Capitol Hill.

Trump's campaign focused heavily on tightening immigration and on the economy, and his projected win comes despite being convicted as a felon earlier this year. He survived an assassination attempt during the campaign.

Both candidates used a novel approach, speaking to nontraditional media like podcasts as well as legacy media. In recent days, Trump has threatened journalists.

Academics from across City St Georges, University of London react to the results.

Trump's economics focus overrides his felony and derogatory comments among Latino and Black voters, says Fernando Pizarro

Fernando Pizarro, Lecturer in Journalism and former broadcaster, editor and producer at NPR, Univision, ESPN, CNN, and NBC. He is particularly interested in the US, Latin America and the election process. He said:

A little more than a week ago, a comedian's remarks at a New York City Donald Trump rally calling Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage" appeared momentarily to be a motivating factor to vote for Kamala Harris for about 400,000 Puerto Ricans living in Pennsylvania, a swing state.

A day before the election, a YouGov/Univision poll seemed to back this assertion, showing that 60% of Latino voters would vote for her in the state. Even though Trump did not make the comments, the poll found that 71% of Hispanics in  Pennsylvania felt the joke showed signs of racism within the Republican candidate's campaign.

The reality of the national Hispanic vote is far more nuanced. The expected reaction to the comedian's joke, if it actually translated into votes, was too late in the race when many voters had already made up their minds and voted early or by mail in many states.

The national numbers of the Latino vote for Harris paint a very different picture. Exit polls released this Wednesday morning after the election show Harris only captured 53% of the national Hispanic vote, the worst result for a Democratic presidential candidate in more than four decades.

By contrast, Trump's 45% national support among Latinos is the best for a Republican candidate since 1980, and improves his own showings in 2016 and 2020. It even surpasses George W. Bush's high of 40% in 2004 and Ronald Reagan's 37% in 1984.

Trump's rising support among Latinos is still surprising given his hard-line rhetoric and proposals on illegal immigration and planned massed deportations. Many Latino voters, not necessarily immigrants, have been willing to overlook his talk on undocumented immigrants and even his restrictions on legal immigration during his previous administration.

Other Latino voters, particularly Cuban- and Venezuelan-Americans in South Florida, have preferred his stance against the regimes in Havana and Caracas to Biden's.

Another important factor in the Latino tilt towards Trump is his appeal among Hispanic Christians, where his positions on abortion and religious freedoms have been far more appealing, and have translated in victories in areas of the country where Democrats used to easily capture that vote.

Latino workers are also feeling the financial pinch of the economy, and many likely felt the Biden administration's policies had not been beneficial to them.

The reality is that Trump overperformed across the board, not just among Latino voters, winning in many places around the country with bigger vote margins than he received even when he lost in 2020.

One thing Trump's victory highlights is how poor a decision of the Harris campaign it was to try and court middle class Republican women by campaigning with the likes of Liz Cheney. Trying to position herself as a Republican-lite when it comes to policies on immigration or the war in Gaza now looks to be a catastrophic mistake.

Going forward, Democrats need to seriously consider what their message to the American public is. Clearly populism works and so a progressive, populist message that leans more heavily into issues like climate change, workers rights, taxing the rich etc needs to be considered. More attention should be paid towards the left wing of the party rather than the centrists. Additionally Democrats should not be afraid of engaging in the culture wars. The re-election of Trump highlights how they have lost this fight in many areas and thus need to articulate a more forceful message to fight back against the demagoguery that has clearly won for the moment.

Whilst traditional media can learn lessons from alternative media, I fear they are currently looking at the success of Twitch streamers and podcasters and asking the wrong question. It's not a case of "How can we make those content creators fit into our model?" but they should be asking "How can we make our content more suitable to that model?". In short, be less timid and more authentic.

The main social media platforms are likely going to further devolve. A Trump administration is not going to consider any serious legislation that would help protect consumers and so the tech giants will be able to continue to experiment on their user base through unfettered data collection and a further influx of unmoderated, harmful AI content.

Over the course of the campaign, Trump never really gave many specifics on policies and so it is hard to judge as of right now who is ultimately going to benefit over the next four years. But it is a relatively safe bet to say that rich, white men will see benefits. Especially those named Elon Musk.

We may have just witnessed the election of the first 'broligarchy' via the ticket of Trump, Vance and their de facto running mate, Elon Musk.

Not even the mobilisation of women voters terrified about the health and gender equality implications of reproductive rights erosion was enough to suppress the impact of toxic masculinity as a motivation for young male voters, it appears.

This is a victory for misogyny partly enabled by unregulated social media platforms and chat apps.

Misogynistic hate speech has been privileged by social media's algorithms and further boosted since the ultimate Tech Bro, billionaire Elon Musk, bought Twitter and systematically dismantled the trust and safety teams who at least maintained the appearance of fighting incitement to violence and electoral disinformation on the platform.

My UNESCO-published research on gender based online violence towards women journalists found nearly three quarters of the women journalists surveyed said they had experienced online violence in the course of their work, and 20% said they had experienced physical realm attacks, threats, and harassment connected this online harm.

White, male, Republicans were much more likely than women to overlook the First Amendment implications of political attacks on journalists by political leaders like Trump, who effectively licensed the shooting of reporters standing in front of him on the eve of the election.

The implications for both journalism and democracy are deeply alarming. Even more so for women journalists and politicians.

Of course, we need to tackle the serious problem of authoritarian politicians running on misogynistic platforms, but the viralisation of gender-based hate speech means that this is also a technology regulation problem.

The biggest challenge to technology and engineering will be that Trump will not enforce the safety and security mandates of AI.

"This is dangerous as it will continue to allow social media platforms to propagate misinformation, deepfakes and disinformation. He is going to back Elon Musk to innovate further through AI and disrupt the technology landscape.

"This can be dangerous to citizens as safety and security interdependency in AI and cyber security is still at an early stage, including in the autonomous cars, robotics, manufacturing and space engineering sectors. Unregulated AI technology innovation can be dangerous to mankind."

This election outcome will be deeply concerning to journalists in the United States and around the world. Trump has consistently attacked journalists – criticising and mocking their work – and he has pledged to toss reporters he doesn’t like in jail, if elected.

Last week in Pennsylvania, he suggested that he wouldn't mind if members of the press were killed.  And most journalists will shiver when they remember the tshirts that some Trump supporters wore during his first campaign: "Rope. Tree. Journalist. SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED".

During his first presidency, Trump and his team also clamped down on Voice of America – the country’s most influential international, public -broadcaster, which is watched by 200 million people a week. Under his administration, executives and journalists were fired and relocated, funding was frozen, and visas not renewed – to the detriment of journalism and media freedom around the world.

News organisations will be more ready this time around, with plans on how to protect their journalists and their work. But the fear is real.

This is not so much a victory for Trump but a debacle for the Democratic Party. And a major blow to popular democratic rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights.

Trump has promised to weaponise the state against political opponents, put troops on the streets to quell political protests against racism and against the war in Gaza, stop the teaching of certain ‘woke’ subjects and approaches in US schools, support removal of books critical of ‘America’ from school libraries – including on the civil rights’ movement

Trump’s second term will also have serious global repercussions – as the US in general lost interest in many of the core values, practices and institutions central to the post-1945 international system.

We have seen a collapse of Democrats’ strategy of combining ruthless support for wars with appeals to identity politics.

The exit polls showed an electorate profound anger over economic conditions.

Food insecurity rose by 40% since 2021, or 47 million people, according to USDA data. Poverty increased 67% since 2021, according to US Bureau of the Census data.  Income inequality – the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%– remains large, with the top 1% earning 26.3 times more than the bottom 99%.

As for wealth inequality, in the first quarter of 2024, the top 10% of earners owned almost two-thirds of the total wealth in the United States and the lowest 50% of earners owned only 2.5% of the total wealth.

Two thirds of voters stated that economic conditions were bad. Just under 50% said their own economic situation was worse than four years ago; 75% said inflation had caused family hardships over past 12 months; over 70% said they were angry or dissatisfied with the state of the country, only 7 percent were enthusiastic. In Pennsylvania, over 80% of voters said the US needed “total upheaval” or “substantial change.”

After months of doubt, the outcome of the US Election is now known.  However, questions about what a Trump presidency means for the United States and the rest of the world are just beginning.

The world just became a little more uncertain, so what can leaders do about it?

Many leaders we speak to describe feeling helpless and confused, uncertain what to do, but knowing they are expected to do something. Their organisations need them to provide clarity in liminal times.

Liminal experiences involve a prolonged separation from normal ways of being and doing.  As a leader in liminal times, your role should be to provide colleagues with guardrails to hold onto as they build confidence in themselves and reassurance about the future.

Rather than retreat into helplessness and cynicism, the Age of the Polycrisis can be a valuable opportunity for reflection and discovery.

The Trump administration will present legal and political challenges to the transatlantic relationship and the European Union, especially after the Biden friendly administration.

The EU is expected to shift further towards developing its strategic autonomy and further defensiveness in trade policy. Europe will be concerned at the potential intentions of the new US administration towards international institutions, from the WTO, UN to NATO.

However, the Biden administration trade policy and policy on institutions such as the WTO was far from disposed towards European ideas as to such organisations.

Global challenges as to data flows, climate, globalisation etc present acute problems for either side of the Atlantic and combined capacity will enter a new phase.

Back in 2020, Biden ran promising to be a one-term president. And yet, in the long four years since, the Democratic Party failed to build, put forward and secure a strong enough candidate to proceed him – someone the American voters know and trust.

The last three months of the Harris campaign showcased a crazy, emotional, and impressive sprint – but it really should have been a marathon.

Spending almost four years not working towards that, nor fixing the broken information environment in the US, will now have serious consequences for the Democrats and beyond.

Donald Trump’s re-election could bring significant changes in health law and policy.

These could include restrictions on abortion and gender-affirming care. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision ended the federal right to abortion, shifting regulation to the states. Under a Trump administration, Republicans potentially controlling of the House, federal ban on access to abortion, and restriction on access to medications like mifepristone, commonly used for medication abortions, could become a reality. These limitations of reproductive freedom would likely deepen existing disparities, disproportionately affecting marginalized populations.

During his campaign Trump has also proposed to put an end to gender affirming care which includes medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.

Trump threatened to dismantle Obamacare in 2016. Despite his statements on having an alternative plan, he has so far never presented a concrete proposal addressing healthcare costs and coverage. This lack of clarity raises questions around healthcare costs especially for Americans with pre-existing conditions who may face significant challenges in securing insurance coverage, leaving them in an exceptionally vulnerable position.

Vaccine safety and “clean” water is another potential issue. Trump said he would give Robert F. Kennedy Jr. access to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of Agriculture, which has raised alarm in the public health community as RFK Jr is a vocal critic of vaccines, his recent statements around removing fluoride from US water supplies could signal a potential departure from established public health practices.

Trump’s “America First” agenda could further impact the US’ role in addressing global health challenges, or even reduced engagement in global health initiatives.

The British Labour Party has long been fiercely divided over foreign policy, and particularly over its relationship to the United States and the ‘Special Relationship’ in government. The anti-imperialist left of the party has long called for a more oppositional approach to American foreign policy, which has caused severe fractures between Labour government and the party’s grassroots, notably during the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars. But Labour has never faced as severe a foreign policy and diplomatic challenge in office than that represented by the new Trump administration.

Labour’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy advocates a ‘progressive realist’ foreign policy, which he defines as a combination of the realist approach of the Attlee government’s Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who nurtured the Anglo-American alliance as a founder of NATO, and an ‘ethical’ foreign policy which emphasises using Britain’s geopolitical influence to promote aid and climate initiatives. Lammy has sought to lay the groundwork for relations with a possible second Trump administration, meeting with senior Republicans including Vice President elect J.D. Vance.

But the Labour government will struggle to deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitments to promote progressive values abroad and create a clean power alliance without American support. Lammy also faces a key challenge, which will only be exacerbated in the context of the Trump administration, that Britain’s aid and foreign policy functions have both been combined under the auspices of the Foreign Office since Boris Johnson closed the Department of International Development in 2020, meaning that Britain has no dedicated office for aid and development.

On a domestic level, Trump’s victory may also undermine the development of Labour’s progressive energy policies. The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act served as an inspiration for Ed Miliband’s plans to invest in Green Energy. The apparent rejection of this policy by American voters may discourage Labour from its clean energy ambitions.

Labour has already faced accusations from Trump that party officials have interfered in the US election by volunteering for the Harris campaign – an allegation which the Starmer government has refuted – so the Trump-Starmer relationship is off to a rocky start. Like every past Labour administration the Starmer government will face severe challenges balancing the values of Labour supporters with the need to maintain diplomatic relations with the United States - but no Labour administration has faced as severe an ideological clash and uphill battle in navigating UK-US relations as this one.

There’s been quite a lot of people referring to this as the Podcast Election. Both candidates certainly stepped into the podcast world, with Harris appearing on several shows including Call Me Daddy and Trump most notably on Joe Rogan.

Trump’s appearance on Theo Von’s pod has had 14 million views on YouTube alone while he’s amassed 45 million views with Joe Rogan on the same platform. And that’s before you start including audio downloads. He reached out to younger white men - and it has paid off.

While Trump flew to Austin and spent three hours with Rogan, Harris wanted him to travel to her and offered 45 minutes. Rogan said no. Podcasters have huge reach and with that comes power. You may have seen overnight a clip doing the rounds of a voter in Arizona saying that he was on the fence but decided to vote for Trump when Harris didn't go on the Joe Rogan podcast “It’s important to remember that it’s not just about the show itself. Podcasters are experts on getting their content out there, so audio and video clips of these shows are viewed by millions more across X, TikTok, Instagram and other platforms, once again reaching potentially new, younger voters.

It’s also not just about the podcasts they appeared on, it’s also about the news and information listeners are getting from podcasts across the board. Legacy media are now having to play catch up. Late night US talk shows have the mainstream platform but a waning influence.

The election is also an indication that podcasters and Gen Z influencers are now more important than A list celebrities. In a fragmented landscape, Taylor Swift, Beyonce and Bruce Springsteen seemingly count for less than a podcaster that you may never have heard of. The podcasters are more relatable to their audience and that now resonates more than fandom.

The incoming President has suggested new export tariffs into the United States may be imposed. This creates an additional source of uncertainty for firms that heavily export into the US.

If additional tariffs came into force, they may dampen demand for goods produced in the UK and sold in the US, creating headaches for supply chain managers.

In the past, firms have learned how to manage supply disruptions. Because of supply disruptions such as Covid or the Suez Canal blockage, firms have developed strategies to mitigate risks. These strategies are based on having the right balance between local and offshore suppliers, having redundant suppliers and keeping inventory buffers for slow-moving items. However, the new risk is now different because the demand side is affected.

Tariffs may result in sudden demand declines for selected goods. For supply chains to strive, firms need to build flexibility and agility – even if that comes at additional costs. This flexibility allows them to not only handle supply disruptions but also sudden changes in demand. Some firms may also want to diversify and reduce dependency on the US market.

Firms might also find more value in nearshoring as offshoring is often associated with long lead times. These long lead times often result in significant over-production if demand suddenly declines.

Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the US presidential elections this week has already triggered significant economic gains for the world’s largest economy in the form of a stronger dollar and a soaring stock market.

His program of tax cuts and de-regulation, coupled with a renewed emphasis on oil extraction, should help arrest inflation and boost employment. The President-elect’s plan to raise tariffs is less obviously beneficial and could end up harming the country’s trading partners, including the UK. In 2023, the US was the UK’s top export market, accounting for £191.5 billion in exports.

On the campaign trail, Candidate Trump threatened a blanket 10 per cent tariff on all imports, rising as high as 60 per cent for goods from China. A lynchpin of his “America First” strategy, these tariffs will raise prices for US consumers and costs of inputs for US factories.

They could also be met with retaliatory tariffs from other countries, escalating into a full-on trade war from which all will suffer. There is no indication, yet, that any countries will be exempt from the tariffs, but if some are, it will likely be those countries with which the US has a preferential Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Unfortunately, due to post-Brexit dithering, the UK is not one of these nations.