- Since she first ran for president in 2016, Harris has pivoted toward the political center on some issues.
- Harris once supported “Medicare for All.” Now she doesn’t.
- Harris dropped her opposition to fracking. Pennsylvania’s rich load of electoral college votes explains why.
Vice President Kamala Harris struggled to define herself when she ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
The party’s base was demanding that candidates support Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer healthcare plan, and the energy among many activists focused on discriminatory policing practices and policies after the deaths of George Floyd and other men and women in encounters with police. Harris’ views on these issues appeared to move along with those of the grassroots, but she often faced questions from the left about her level of conviction.
Where Harris is on the ideological spectrum has long been hard to pinpoint. After Joe Biden selected her as his running mate in 2020, she moved toward the center on some issues and has generally kept those positions since taking Biden’s place atop the ticket in this year’s election.
It can be difficult to separate the Republican former president and 2024 nominee’s false statements on any particular issue from his changes in policy positions over time.
Harris has not explained many of her shifts. They may help her among moderate voters in the general election, but they have left her open to criticism from the right.
Here are some issues on which her stance has changed:
Fracking
What she said then:
What she says now:
The issue: Fracking is the injection of water or other substances into the ground to ease the extraction of natural gas or oil. Critics say the environmental effects — groundwater contamination, air pollution and even seismic activity — can be devastating. The industry says that fracking can be done responsibly and safely and that securing natural gas can reduce dependence on coal.
The change: When Harris was running for president in 2019, a climate activist asked during a CNN town hall whether she would commit to a national ban on fracking on her first day in office as president. That’s when Harris said she supported a ban — a comment now often cited by former President Trump. Harris added, “We have to just acknowledge that the residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of the impact on the health and safety of communities.”
Harris made her “I will not ban fracking” comment during her Sept. 10 debate with Trump. She says she has not supported a fracking ban since 2020, the year she became Biden’s vice presidential running mate after ending her first presidential run in 2019.
Voting in California’s primary election continues through election day, Nov. 5. Read up on the races in L.A. city and L.A. County, the California statewide ballot propositions and other measures.
When asked about her position, Harris has said, “My values have not changed.” She has not expounded on the comment, but has appeared to suggest that fracking can continue because other efforts can help clean up or preserve the environment.
Political implications: Pennsylvania, a swing state with 19 electoral college votes, is key to winning the White House. Jessie Bluedorn, a New York City climate activist who asked Harris about fracking in 2019, said her family lived in western Pennsylvania, where fracking has become a common practice. The toxic effects of fracking, Bluedorn said, are “immense, from contaminated groundwater to poisonous emissions.”
The challenge for Harris is to gauge whether supporting or opposing fracking will help her most in Pennsylvania. Over the last few decades, there has been a boom in energy resources extraction there, creating jobs and giving a boost to the commonwealth’s economy.
Border security
What she said then:
What she says now:
The issue: Border arrests hit a record high in December 2023 with nearly 250,000 encounters. They declined to fewer than 60,000 in July and August, after an announcement by the Biden administration in June that it would enforce new asylum restrictions.
In addition to her role as vice president, Harris was tapped in 2021 to tackle the “root causes” of migration from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador by working to improve economic and security conditions in those countries.
Being in the United States illegally is a civil violation, not a crime. But people who cross the border illegally are often referred for criminal prosecution.
Some Democrats have advocated for decriminalizing the border and limiting the Justice Department’s ability to make criminal referrals in such cases. That movement gained traction in late 2017 after the Trump administration stepped up criminal prosecutions as part of a family separation policy in which children were placed under Department of Health and Human Services custody.
The change: Harris, as a Democratic senator representing California, spoke out in a February 2017 floor speech against Trump’s order banning immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, emphasizing that “an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” As a presidential candidate in 2019, she supported decriminalization.
Immigration is a top presidential election issue again in 2024, as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris espouse starkly different approaches to managing the border.
Harris has shifted her rhetoric since then, telling CNN in an Aug. 29 interview that “there should be [a] consequence” to crossing illegally, but not spelling out any consequences. On a policy level, she has made her support for what she calls the “toughest border control bill in decades” a centerpiece of her campaign. The bipartisan bill, killed by Republicans in Congress in February at Trump’s urging, would have added 1,500 border agents and other resources aimed at stopping gangs and smugglers.
Political implications: Immigration has been Trump’s motivating issue since he entered politics — and has been a significant vulnerability for Harris, even amid steep declines in border arrests. Trump had his biggest lead over Harris — 21% — on the issue of which candidate would better secure the border and control immigration, according to an NBC poll released Sept. 22.
The same poll found Harris leading Trump significantly over who would better protect immigrants’ rights.
The issue was arguably helpful to Democrats in 2020, when many voters were upset with Trump’s family separation policy and his ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.
But the tide appears to have shifted under Biden, as voters saw images of a border that appeared out of control. Harris is unlikely to win on the issue, but is hoping to neutralize concerns among persuadable voters that she will leave the border unchecked.
Healthcare
What she said then:
What she says now:
The issue: Medicare for All is a universal healthcare program supported by Sanders (I-Vt.). It would eliminate private insurance and place everyone on public healthcare plans, similar to many European nations.
The change: Harris, as a senator, co-sponsored Sanders’ Medicare for All bill in 2017. She modified her stance in 2019, when she was running for president, settling on a plan that allowed private versions of Medicare “that adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits” while putting most Americans on a public plan. “In America, healthcare should be a right, not a privilege only for those who can afford it. It’s why we need Medicare for All,” she wrote at the time.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump take opposing stands on the Affordable Care Act and spar over who will best protect against steep costs for medical care.
But Biden never supported Medicare for All as president, and Harris, after becoming vice president, helped him expand the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare. Her campaign has said she no longer supports Medicare for All. In the Sept. 10 debate with Trump, she emphasized her intent to “maintain and grow” Obamacare, attacking Trump for trying to repeal it when he was president.
Political implications: Medicare for All was a defining issue for progressives in the 2020 Democratic primary, but that’s no longer the case. Obamacare, initially unpopular, has support from more than 60% of Americans, according to KFF tracking polls.
Harris has attempted to play offense on healthcare, pointing to Trump’s opposition to Obamacare and the Biden administration’s success at expanding it and negotiating prescription drug costs for Medicare recipients.
Defunding the police
What she said then:
What she says now:
The issue: During the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, after the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement in 2020, many progressives argued for redirecting police resources to social programs.
The change: Harris made several sympathetic comments to the defund movement in 2020, including one on the “Ebro in the Morning” radio show in which she said the movement was “rightly” reexamining municipal budgets to “figure out whether it reflects the right priorities.”
After Biden picked her as his running mate that year, the campaign called it “a lie” to suggest either Harris or Biden wanted to defund the police. The 2021 COVID-19 spending bill passed by Democrats allotted $15 billion to violence prevention and public safety.
The Harris campaign said in a recent statement that she does not support cutting police funds.
Political implications: Public support for defunding police went from 45% in 2020 to 35% in 2022, according to Gallup.
Though statistics show crime is down from recent highs after the pandemic lockdown, both presidential candidates have leaned into the issue. Harris has emphasized her credentials as a “tough” former prosecutor, while Trump has cast her as soft on crime in an “out-of-control” country. She noted that Trump, when complaining about the numerous court cases against him, called for defunding of the Justice Department.
The two are roughly tied in public opinion on the issue of who would handle crime better, according to an ABC News poll released Sept. 15.
Mandatory gun buybacks
What she said then:
What she says now:
The issue: Many gun control advocates support not only a ban on selling new assault weapons, but also a buyback program to remove from circulation millions that have already been sold. Some want a voluntary program while others support one that would require owners to sell them to the government.
The change: Harris said several times during the 2020 campaign, including at a 2019 gun safety forum on MSNBC in Las Vegas, that she respected the 2nd Amendment, but that an assault weapon is “a weapon of war” that is “designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly” and needed to be taken off the street. “I support a mandatory buyback program,” she said.
Her campaign has since said she no longer favors a mandatory buyback, and she said during her debate with Trump that she is a gun owner who is “not taking anybody’s guns away.”
Political implications: Banning assault weapons is generally popular, according to polls. But most politicians who advocate a ban have emphasized that buybacks would be voluntary to avoid accusations that they want “to confiscate your guns,” as Trump said of Harris during the debate.
Harris favors stricter gun laws, but is wary of alarming hunters in the crucial battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Times staff writer Steve Padilla contributed to this report.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
