The pragmatist’s guide to the 2024 presidential election

It’s easy to look at a gridlocked legislature or unpredictable judicial decisions and feel like American presidential elections don’t matter. What’s the point of getting someone in the White House if they can’t get legislation on their desk to sign or veto and courts can shut down their every move? Politicians always break their promises, goes the cynical — and often reasonable — grumble. Why pay attention in the first place?

In many respects, the president is a figurehead, but the office of the presidency is a job with a concrete description and very specific levers of power that connect to many of the areas The Verge covers. For these issues and more, whoever wins on November 5th will set a direct course for the next four years and perhaps longer.

Most significantly, the president appoints executive branch personnel, such as heads of independent agencies, who then go on to set and enforce policy on antitrust, broadband, and climate change. There’s a direct chain of cause and effect between Joe Biden taking office and the Federal Trade Commission forcing gyms to let you cancel your membership, because Biden appointed a specific person known to be tough on consumer protections; similarly, Republican control of the Federal Communications Commission under former President Donald Trump resulted in the end of federal net neutrality rules, while Democratic control of the FCC under Biden resulted in a revival.

Of course, the return of net neutrality is on hold because of conservative judges, and that’s yet another explicit power the president has — they nominate judges to federal courts, a power that has lasting repercussions for every area The Verge covers. (Incidentally, that click-to-cancel rule has also been challenged in court.) Other specific powers encompass pardons, immigration, and foreign policy, including everything from war to international trade and tariffs.

There are also more nebulous powers that the president holds. Although the White House does not control the budget — that’s a power reserved for Congress — the president submits a budget proposal for the executive branch, which impacts the federal government’s priorities in a given year. And even though the president does not make laws, they will nevertheless play a big role in what kind of laws will pass — or will at least attempt to pass — in Congress. 

As president, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will help determine the future of electric vehicles, ecological disasters, and internet infrastructure in the US and, in some cases, the whole world. They’ll shape how Silicon Valley holds and wields power over consumers. More broadly, they’ll play a role in whether the government can address these kinds of questions at all.

Neither Trump nor Harris has detailed everything they’ll do in office. Harris hasn’t said whether she’ll keep key figures like FTC Chair Lina Khan. Parsing Trump’s myriad long-winded and contradictory statements is a job unto itself. And there are lingering questions about how closely Trump could hew to Project 2025: a technically unrelated series of recommendations by the Heritage Foundation that’s linked strongly to Trump’s own campaign. The proposals in Project 2025 could gut or eliminate parts of the system we have now.

By the same token, neither candidate’s previous terms in office are a precise blueprint for their future plans. Harris obviously wasn’t the key decision-maker in the Biden administration. Trump is expected to dramatically weaken the institutions that checked his power during his first term, stopping actions that ranged from a sweeping immigration ban to an attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. If we’re looking for clues about the direction of a Harris or Trump administration, though, the candidates’ own words, past actions, and track records as elected officials are reasonable guideposts.

The topics below aren’t the only ones that matter to Verge authors and readers. But they’re pressing issues that will determine what kinds of stories you’ll be reading here in the coming years as a direct result of whoever takes office in January 2025.

Harris: “​​We know that we can actually deal with this issue. The young people of America care deeply about this issue. And I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested $1 trillion in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels.” – presidential debate, September 10th, 2024

Trump: “The biggest threat is not global warming, where the ocean’s going to rise one, one-eighth of an inch over the next 400 years. The big — and you’ll have more oceanfront property, right? The biggest threat is not that. The biggest threat is nuclear warming, because we have five countries now that have significant nuclear power, and we have to not allow anything to happen with stupid people like Biden.” – interview on X with Elon Musk, August 13th, 2024

The president appoints key regulatory personnel, including the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and has the power to place scientists or skeptics in key leadership roles. The president also proposes annual budgets for these agencies.

As the world’s leading oil and gas producer and the biggest historical polluter of carbon dioxide emissions, America’s diplomatic cooperation, as well as actual action or inaction on climate change, has global consequences. The president has the authority to make treaties for the United States, giving them control over whether the country joins international agreements on climate change such as the Paris agreement. Should the US stay in the Paris agreement, the next administration will be tasked with submitting an updated climate action plan by early next year.

The next administration will also be tasked with continuing the distribution of funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was passed in 2022. The IRA includes $369 billion in spending on clean energy and climate action, which is expected to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.

The Trump administration rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations in the US and isolated the country from global climate negotiations. Trump weakened rules meant to rein in pollution from power plants and transportation, the two sectors that produce the most greenhouse gas emissions in the US. He put fossil fuel lobbyists in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency and stacked the US Supreme Court with justices whose deregulatory agenda has made it harder for federal agencies to crack down on pollution. 

Trump has said that he would “rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” He has also said he’d withdraw the US from the landmark Paris agreement, which he briefly did during his first term in office. If Trump follows the recommendations in Project 2025, he could gut key agencies responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions and studying the effects of climate change so that there are tools in place, like updated flood maps, to help Americans adapt.

Harris’ environmental track record precedes her term as vice president, stretching back to lawsuits she filed to hold polluters accountable as California’s attorney general. She’s been relatively mum about climate change on the campaign trail, however, as she courts key swing states. That includes Pennsylvania, which produces more gas than any other state aside from Texas — much of which comes from fracking. As California’s attorney general, Harris filed suit against the Obama administration to stop offshore fracking but now says she would not support a ban on fracking as president.

The Biden administration has pledged to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution by at least 50 percent from 2005 levels by the end of the decade under the Paris climate accord. The keystone legislation that gets the US most of the way there is the IRA. Harris has regularly touted her role in helping pass the IRA as well as the legislation’s success in creating jobs and boosting energy production.

Harris: “As President, she will direct her Administration to crack down on anti-competitive practices that let big corporations jack up prices and undermine the competition that allows all businesses to thrive while keeping prices low for consumers” – 2024 campaign site

Trump: “Google has been very bad. They’ve been very irresponsible and I have a feeling Google is going to be close to shut down because I don’t think Congress is going to take it, I really don’t think so. Google has to be careful.” – interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, August 2nd, 2024

The White House nominates two of the country’s most important antitrust watchdogs: the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s antitrust division (currently Jonathan Kanter); and the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (currently Lina Khan). Not only can they launch investigations and file lawsuits against individual tech companies but they can also shape broader regulatory guidelines, like the rules for when a merger should be blocked. Any federal judges who oversee an antitrust lawsuit are also presidentially appointed — albeit, obviously, not all by the current president.

That said, these officials must be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office. Agency policies can be changed by a future administration. And Congress would have to pass new laws to change the fundamentals of antitrust law, like the much-criticized “consumer harm” standard.

The Trump administration made some efforts to attack tech giants. Following a general investigation of several companies, Trump’s FTC and DOJ, respectively, sued Facebook (now Meta) and Google in late 2020. But the Trump administration’s antitrust work was frequently mixed up with Trump’s personal anger at the supposed liberal bias of tech companies, which produced confounding results like a demand that agencies rewrite speech law. During this election cycle, he’s promised to prosecute Google for “only” showing “bad stories” about him.

Biden’s appointment of Khan and Kanter put two of big tech’s biggest critics in high-level government positions. Kanter’s DOJ argued the Google search antitrust suit filed under Trump, leading to arguably Google’s biggest US legal defeat. The DOJ and FTC also filed numerous suits against a range of tech companies, including a DOJ complaint against Google’s ad tech dominance, an FTC monopoly suit against Amazon, and (failed) attempts to stop acquisitions by Microsoft and Meta. The administration has gone after tech-adjacent businesses like Live Nation-Ticketmaster and signaled stricter merger scrutiny as well.

Harris hasn’t signaled how closely she would hew to Biden’s path here — including whether she’ll keep Khan around. She was relatively quiet on antitrust during her time as a senator. But with several of the cases above still brewing, it’s an issue she likely won’t be able to avoid.

Harris: Harris has not spoken recently on net neutrality.

Trump: Trump has not spoken recently on net neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission has five commissioners, including one chair. Each must be appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, but then goes on to serve a term of five years. The chair usually resigns when there is a new president, who then appoints someone of their own choosing. A maximum of three commissioners may come from the same party. 

The math-minded will understand what these rules mean, generally: when the president is a Democrat, the FCC is 3-2 in favor of Democrats; under a Republican, the commission is 3-2 in favor of Republicans.

The FCC does many things, but most importantly, the FCC makes regulations that affect internet service providers, telecoms, and how broadband access subsidies are used. The most famous among these regulations: net neutrality.

While neither candidate has spoken directly to the issue of net neutrality during this campaign, due to the structure of the agency, the very recent history of the FCC is a good indication of what would happen under either candidate.

Almost immediately after Trump’s election in 2016, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai signaled a strong interest in overturning the net neutrality rule that was established during the Obama administration. Trump tapped him to become the new FCC chair, and the rest is history. Despite the policy’s enormous popularity among ordinary people, in late 2017 the FCC voted 3-2 along party lines to kill net neutrality.

When Biden became president, Pai — as is tradition — resigned his seat, and Biden appointed Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel as the new chair. He also nominated the legendary open internet advocate Gigi Sohn as a third Democratic commissioner. The Senate stalled on Sohn’s appointment, ultimately managing to kill her nomination. The FCC remained deadlocked until 2023, when Anna Gomez was sworn in. In April of this year, the FCC finally voted — 3-2, along party lines — to restore net neutrality. 

At the moment, the net neutrality rule is on hold, blocked by an appeals court as a direct result of a Supreme Court decision this summer. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the court’s conservative supermajority, which is stacked with Trump-nominated justices, overturned longstanding precedent and kneecapped regulatory agencies like the FCC.

Harris: “Millions of children ride on diesel school buses daily, breathing toxic fumes that can harm their health. This week, we announced nearly $1 billion to fund electric and low-emission school buses across the nation—an investment in our children, their health, and their education.” – tweet, January 12th, 2024

Trump: “I will end the electric vehicle mandate on day one, thereby saving the US auto industry from complete obliteration.” – speech at the Republican National Convention, July 19th, 2024

Trump: “I’m for electric cars. I have to be because, you know, Elon endorsed me very strongly. So I have no choice.” – speech at a rally in Atlanta, Georgia, August 3rd, 2024

One of the main ways the executive branch can influence the kind of car you buy is through tailpipe rules. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates how much pollution the auto industry is allowed to spew into the atmosphere. By setting tighter limits, the agency can effectively force the industry to sell more environmentally friendly vehicles — or risk paying steep fines for noncompliance. 

The executive branch can also incentivize consumers by offering tax credits to bring down the cost of vehicles that are pricier but produce less pollution. It can spend taxpayer money on building out the EV charging infrastructure and investing in other alternative fuel sources like hydrogen. And it can offer tax breaks to manufacturers to retrofit factories for battery production. 

It can also do the opposite of all of that: loosen pollution rules; eliminate favorable tax breaks; and slow roll (or cancel) infrastructure improvements. Doing so would send an enormous signal to automakers that they can keep polluting as usual. 

When he was president, Trump did everything in his power to forestall the inevitable rise of electric vehicles. He rolled back regulations passed under the Obama administration to force automakers to produce less-polluting vehicles. He tried to revoke California’s authority to set its own emissions standards. And he championed a plan to rewrite the tax code to eliminate credits for EV purchases. 

And yet EVs continued to sell at record numbers, an indication that market forces were having more influence over consumer demands than Trump’s policy decisions. When Biden took office, most of those efforts were reversed. But even before the Biden administration could pass its first EV-friendly policy, EV sales took off like a rocket before eventually flatlining. 

Still, the Biden administration saw EVs as a crucial piece of its plan to fight climate change. Biden directed the Environmental Protection Agency to pass new tailpipe emission standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent by 2032. He passed new tax credits for EVs that were made in North America or by its trade partners, using parts and battery components sourced from the same allies. He poured billions of dollars into EV charging infrastructure and battery manufacturing, and he did the same for trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles. 

Harris has promised to keep most of Biden’s policies in place, but she has responded to criticism from Trump that she would “force” consumers to buy expensive EVs by vowing to never ban gas car sales. 

Harris: “She’s going to support policies that ensure that emerging technologies and that sort of industry can continue to grow.” – statement from senior campaign adviser Brian Nelson to Bloomberg, August 21st, 2024

Trump: “If crypto is going to define the future, I want it to be mined, minted, and made in the USA. It’s going to be. It’s not going to be made anywhere else. And if Bitcoin is going to the moon — as we say, it’s going to the moon — I want America to be the nation that leads the way.” – 2024 Bitcoin Conference speech, July 27th, 2024

Trump: “On day one, I will fire Gary Gensler and appoint a new SEC chair.” – 2024 Bitcoin Conference speech, July 27th, 2024

The main thing a president does to create policy is appoint personnel. When it comes to crypto policy, the key role is that of the chair of the SEC, who is currently the much-embattled Gary Gensler. Trump has promised to fire Gensler “on day one” and install someone more friendly to crypto, such as Robinhood’s Dan Gallagher.

Whether the president can actually “fire” Gensler is a more complicated legal question than one would think. But regardless, Trump probably would not actually be firing Gensler. By tradition, an outgoing president directs political appointees like Gensler to submit their resignation sometime between Election Day and mid-December, leaving the next president the choice to accept that resignation and install their own pick. (Trump broke with that tradition in 2020, refusing to send out a call for resignations until the day after the January 6th insurrection.)

Harris hasn’t been especially clear about what she’ll do, but her campaign adviser, Brian Nelson, was involved in a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposal that raised crypto industry hackles.  

Though Trump is now courting crypto enthusiasts, he oversaw policies during his term in office that were often hostile to the emerging tech. “I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air. Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity,” Trump tweeted in 2019, in what the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance called a “thunderous” denunciation.

His SEC didn’t publish much guidance, although he did nominate commissioner Hester Peirce, known to some as “crypto mom.” What the Trump-era SEC did do, though, was say that US securities laws might apply to token sales and then create a new cyber unit for monitoring initial coin offerings, among other things. It also went after celebrities who’d endorsed ICOs, including DJ Khaled and Floyd Mayweather. It rejected outright an attempted Bitcoin exchange-traded fund, or ETF, and requested that some companies withdraw their applications. (A Bitcoin ETF was finally approved under Gary Gensler’s SEC earlier this year.) It sued Kik and Telegram over token sales. Oh, and the SEC also initiated the Ripple Labs case.

Meanwhile, FinCEN proposed new rules for crypto and gave a shortened time period for response — which was extended after industry outcry. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published guidance for stablecoins. And most controversially, SEC official William Hinman said that, in his opinion, Ethereum isn’t a security.

Harris’ record on crypto is thinner. Though she’s served as the VP of an administration the crypto community has largely perceived as hostile, she’s signaled that she’s willing to reset policy. Harris recently said she would support a “regulatory framework” for cryptocurrencies and other digital assets to protect buyers.

Harris: “And when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law.” – remarks at the Democratic National Convention, August 22nd, 2024

Trump: “When I’m reelected, I will continue to fight against the demented late-term abortionists in the Democrat Party who believe in unlimited abortion on demand and even executing babies after birth.” – speech at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference, June 22nd, 2024

The most impactful thing either candidate can do is sign whatever legislation comes out of Congress — either codifying access to abortion as laid out in Roe v. Wade or mandating a federal abortion ban. Harris has said she supports eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe. Trump has suggested he’d sign a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks, though he’s also said he wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban and believes that the issue should be left up to the states.

Even if Congress doesn’t pass legislation on abortion, the president still has discretion over the Food and Drug Administration, which can work to make birth control pills, other contraceptives, and abortion medication more or less available. Under Trump, the FDA could reverse regulations allowing pharmacies to dispense mifepristone, one of the pills used for medication abortions. Trump’s allies — including the Heritage Foundation, the primary architect of Project 2025 — have floated the idea of using the Comstock Act to ban the shipping of mifepristone and misoprostol, which would effectively ban medication abortion everywhere in the country. Trump has not publicly commented on whether he’d do this.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade during Biden’s term, but it wouldn’t have been possible without Trump’s nomination of three justices during his last term. 

During his term, Trump reinstated and expanded a global gag rule on abortion that prevented international organizations from getting US funding if they provide abortion services or refer patients for abortions — even if those services are provided with the organizations’ own funds. Trump also implemented a domestic gag rule prohibiting taxpayer-funded clinics from making abortion referrals. The rule also forbade clinics that get federal money from sharing space with abortion providers. 

Under Biden’s administration, the FDA has allowed pharmacies to dispense mifepristone, one of the pills used for medication abortions. The Biden administration also required federal agencies to issue guidance to ensure that FDA-approved contraceptive medications are available for free under the Affordable Care Act. 

After Roe was overturned, the Biden administration directed the Pentagon to pay for service members’ travel for abortion care. Biden also issued regulations strengthening privacy protections for people who seek abortions, specifically designed to protect women living in states where abortion is illegal who travel elsewhere for the procedure.

As California attorney general, Harris signed onto a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold reproductive rights. She also co-sponsored a law that required “crisis pregnancy centers,” which try to steer women away from abortion information, to clarify that they are not licensed medical facilities. The Supreme Court later granted an injunction blocking the law, ruling it was likely unconstitutional.

Harris: “Federal agencies have a distinct responsibility to identify and manage AI risks because of the role they play in our society, and the public must have confidence that the agencies will protect their rights and safety.” – VP Fact Sheet, March 28th, 2024

Trump: “We will repeal Joe Biden’s dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI Innovation, and imposes Radical Leftwing ideas on the development of this technology. In its place, Republicans support AI Development rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing.” – 2024 Republican Party platform

The president can write executive orders laying out guidance for the government’s use of AI, requiring federal agencies to set standards for artificially generated content, among other things.

If Harris is elected, it’s likely that the White House’s AI policy will remain consistent with that of Biden’s, who has worked with major companies to limit bad behavior without actually putting hard policies in place. Harris’ allies have told The New York Times that her stance toward tech regulation will likely be similar to what we’ve seen over the past four years. Trump, on the other hand, plans to revoke Biden’s executive order on artificial intelligence, which lays out regulations around generative AI. He may issue AI-related orders of his own, some of which have already been drafted by his allies. 

As the commander in chief, the president also directs the military, which is increasingly reliant on AI-powered defense tech. The America First Policy Institute, led by several Trump-era administration officials, reportedly wrote an executive order to launch a series of “Manhattan Projects” for new military technologies and create “industry-led” agencies to evaluate AI models. One section of the framework is titled “Make America First in AI.” According to The Washington Post, which reviewed the documents, these policies will likely benefit tech companies that already have contracts with the Pentagon, including Anduril, Scale, and the data-mining firm Palantir.

In 2019, Trump signed the “Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” executive order. The order called for a “concerted effort” to promote AI and a “sustained investment” in AI research and development initiatives, but critics noted that it didn’t allocate any federal funding toward these initiatives. A separate executive order issued in 2020 established guidance for federal agency adoption of AI. 

Trump’s budget plan for fiscal 2021 boosted funding for nondefense AI research and development. Shortly before Trump’s term ended in January 2021, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy established a National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office.

The Biden-Harris administration has balanced AI adoption with regulation. The administration has required federal agencies to hire chief AI officers, and in 2023, the National Science Foundation and 10 other federal agencies partnered with AI developers focused on democratizing access to research. Earlier this year, Biden and Harris met with CEOs of several companies — including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google — to discuss AI. The conversation reportedly focused on energy usage, the capacities of grids and data centers, and semiconductor manufacturing.

Harris: “We need to deal with the owner, and we have national security concerns about the owner of TikTok, but we have no intention to ban TikTok.” – interview on This Week on ABC, March 24th, 2024 

Trump: “For all of those that want to save TikTok in America, vote for Trump! The other side’s closing it up. But I’m now a big star on TikTok. We even have TikTok check, and we’re setting records. We’re not doing anything with TikTok, but the other side’s gonna close it up, so if you like TikTok, go out and vote for Trump.” – video on Truth Social, September 4th, 2024

It’s not actually clear what anyone can do here, because we’re still waiting for a key court decision. Thanks to a law signed by Biden earlier this year, TikTok could be just months away from a ban if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, doesn’t sell it. But an appeals court is currently deliberating on whether this violates the First Amendment rights of ByteDance and TikTok users. If it does, the odds of anyone meaningfully banning TikTok — or issuing other hugely punitive measures to encourage a ByteDance spinoff — are low.

If US courts uphold the law, ByteDance will be on the hook for either a sale or a ban, but the incoming administration will have options to shape that process. The president is responsible for determining what counts as a successful divestiture, and the attorney general can enforce civil penalties against American platforms that allow TikTok to operate if it’s banned. The bill also allows for pursuing action against other large social networks owned by foreign adversaries — although the category is clearly designed to mainly include TikTok.

The TikTok ban is actually Trump’s idea, from back in 2020. As president, he attempted to block TikTok from the US via a series of executive orders, targeting not only TikTok but also WeChat and other Chinese apps. His efforts were largely stymied by courts, however, and the orders were immediately reversed by Biden. He’s warmed to TikTok since then (possibly because he’s learned he’s popular on it), but given his overall focus on limiting China’s power, it’s not clear whether that’s a lasting change.

The Biden administration, conversely, ended Trump’s ban effort but later supported a divest-or-ban law. For now, Harris herself is among the various politicians who have used TikTok for campaigning while expressing national security concerns about it. She joined TikTok in July.

Harris: “I applaud the Senate for passing the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act today. This bipartisan legislation will help protect children’s mental health, safety, and privacy online.” – tweet, July 30th, 2024

Trump: “If Big Tech persists, in coordination with the mainstream media, we must immediately strip them of their Section 230 protections. When government granted these protections, they created a monster!” – speech at a rally in Greenville, North Carolina, October 15th, 2020

Regulating how kids can use social media and changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — two of the biggest recent speech issues on the table — depend on Congress passing legislation. The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act’s (KOSPA) tortured legislative history is evidence that that’s not easy. On top of that, courts are dealing with a slew of lawsuits that could render parts of KOSPA unconstitutional, and the First Amendment is set up to make speech regulation very difficult to implement.

The White House and federal agencies can apply more subtle pressures, however. An administration can contact social network operators privately or publicly to suggest certain moderation decisions, and the president can direct agencies (primarily the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission) to investigate companies’ behavior — although they’re barred from outright punishing companies for speech they dislike, which would constitute jawboning. Presidents also appoint the judges who decide complicated speech lawsuits.

Trump signed FOSTA-SESTA, the first Section 230 carveout in decades, aimed at restricting sex work content. (On top of direct negative effects for sex workers, you can thank it for the demise of Craigslist personals.) He made an abortive attempt to hollow out Section 230 further via executive order, but it was quickly revoked by Biden. He frequently accused tech companies of anti-conservative bias in areas like content moderation, implicitly threatening antitrust investigations as payback for perceived slights. When it comes to broader free speech issues, he’s called to strip broadcast licenses from TV stations over stories he disliked, and he’s attempted to do drastic things like deploy the military on protestors.

Harris has been a longtime proponent of limiting Section 230, part of a long-running focus on “online predators” like sex traffickers. She was one of FOSTA-SESTA’s numerous cosponsors while in the Senate, and she was among a group of attorneys general who asked Congress for a carveout like it back in 2013. (The amendment was supposed to facilitate taking down Backpage.com, which Harris would play an instrumental role in shuttering.) Harris later said she supported decriminalizing sex work — a position she may or may not still hold. But she’s gone on to support bills like the EARN IT Act, so her support for Section 230 limits may not have waned.

Beyond 230, the Biden administration was accused of social media jawboning in the case Murthy v. Missouri, which went all the way to the Supreme Court before Biden scored a victory. Harris, however, wasn’t a central player in this saga.

Additional reporting from Jasmine Arielle Ting