WASHINGTON – The presidential administration influences various aspects of American life, ranging from tax obligations to the availability of government assistance for medical bills, and even appointing Supreme Court justices who can determine critical life-and-death issues.

While it’s hard to foresee every challenge that a president will face, many significant issues will demand attention from the next leader starting January 2025.

Republican hopeful Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris have yet to provide detailed plans for their potential presidencies, but there are pressing matters that will need to be tackled by whoever wins.

The resolution of these challenges will be influenced by several variables, including the party composition of Congress, stock market trends, and international relations.

“In general, I expect that most legislative actions will be prompted by deadlines, especially if there isn’t unified party control,” remarked Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University and a congressional expert, to YSL News.

Most legislation requires 60 votes to be passed in the Senate, allowing the minority party to block undesirable bills. Thus, presidents working with an opposing party in Congress often resort to executive actions, a strategy that can lead to legal challenges and be reversed by future administrations.

Despite these challenges, the next president will need to find a path forward.

Tax Policies Under Trump

One of the most critical policy questions the next president will face is whether to maintain the Trump tax cuts enacted in 2017, which significantly altered the federal tax system. This decision could dramatically affect what other policy initiatives can be pursued.

“In comparison, everything else pales next to the expiring 2017 tax cuts,” stated David Super, a Georgetown Law professor who specializes in legislation and policy, to YSL News.

For many everyday Americans, the changes made did not significantly alter what they owed in taxes, leading to indifference regarding the extension of the tax cuts. However, Super noted that eliminating these laws would greatly affect federal revenue. The wealthiest citizens and businesses reaped the most benefits from the tax cuts.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which includes various provisions for individuals and families, has temporary measures that are set to expire by the end of 2025. Conversely, many provisions that impact businesses will phase out over the following three years.

Some of the most impactful expiring provisions include reduced tax rates and a doubled standard deduction, both of which will revert to previous levels. The child tax credit will decrease from $2,000 per child to $1,000 per child.

In May 2023, the Congressional Budget Office projected that maintaining these individual tax provisions would reduce federal tax revenues by $2 trillion over a decade. Additionally, they estimated that extending business tax provisions would lower federal tax collections by $953 billion over the same period.

The implications of these financial matters are substantial, as the actions of the next president and Congress will influence the feasibility of other policy initiatives, such as addressing potential shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare, expanding the child tax credit, or tackling rising expenses.

According to Super, the issue of child care is pivotal.

“If they extend financial support for child care, it could significantly limit funding for many other programs that candidates might want to implement. This situation makes it challenging for either candidate to envision their plans until they understand the outcome of this decision,” Super stated.

Super anticipates that the incoming president, no matter who it may be, will likely aim to revise tax cuts to include appealing modifications such as boosting the Child Tax Credit.

End of Obamacare subsidies

In 2021, Congress enhanced financial support for individuals purchasing their own health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, broadening eligibility for this assistance. However, these increased subsidies are scheduled to end in 2025, leaving the next president to determine whether to collaborate with Congress to renew them.

When the extensions expire, millions who have relied on these improved subsidies for almost five years may face steep hikes in their premiums, sometimes even doubling. As highlighted in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s annual enrollment report, 11.1 million out of 21.4 million Americans using the marketplace in 2024 benefit from the higher subsidies.

“If these subsidies are no longer available, many individuals will struggle to afford health insurance, and a portion might opt to go without coverage, leading to predictable negative consequences,” Super mentioned.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that permanently continuing the subsidies would cost approximately $335 billion over the next decade.

Funding for the government

The new president will likely need to collaborate with Congress to prevent a potential government shutdown within their first six months, an occurrence that could lead to the closure of national parks, furloughing millions of federal workers, including food safety inspectors, and shutting down passport offices.

Congress has not yet passed the required spending bills ahead of the annual deadline of September 30. It is anticipated that lawmakers will implement a temporary funding measure to keep the government running until December. Post that, further extensions are likely to keep operations active into early spring, which will coincide with the expected deadline for increasing the government’s borrowing limit (similar to raising a credit limit).

“There is hope that Congress will finalize funding in December to cover the fiscal year, but it is more probable that there will be several short-term measures leading to a spring funding conflict for the new administration,” remarked Will Dunham, previously a key policy aide for former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Republican lawmakers have a history of leveraging discussions about raising the debt ceiling as a means of political negotiation. The exact timeline for when a decision on the debt limit must be made is uncertain, but it has typically coincided with spending discussions in recent years, especially when one party controls the presidency while the other party dominates Congress.

Conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza

Military support for Ukraine amidst the Russian invasion has historically seen bipartisan backing. However, as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is set to retire from his leadership role in December, Binder noted that the Senate may become significantly more aligned with Trumpian policies if Republicans gain control after the upcoming elections.

“The outcome of this election is crucial; who wins the White House and the Senate will significantly impact future decisions,” she stated.

Harris might opt to relax some of the restrictions that Biden has imposed on the usage of American weapons, including a ban on Ukraine utilizing certain arms for strikes within Russian territory, noted Super.

The situation in Gaza, where Israeli forces are attempting to eliminate the terrorist group Hamas from the Palestinian population, could largely depend on the leadership, Super added. Former President Trump maintains a close connection with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in contrast to Harris, who does not share the same rapport with Biden. Moreover, Harris is under considerable pressure from progressive activists to prevent Israeli forces from harming Palestinians.

“Biden’s administration likely represents the peak of support for Israel within the Democratic Party,” observed Binder. Biden and Harris are making efforts to broker a ceasefire.

Dunham mentioned that whether financial aid for the two ongoing conflicts is viewed separately or together will depend on factors like the depletion rate of current Ukraine aid and the developments happening abroad.

Supreme Court Vacancies

The ages and health conditions of several Supreme Court justices suggest that the next president might have the opportunity to appoint up to three justices in the upcoming term, potentially altering the court’s balance or reinforcing the conservative majority for many years.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, many significant decisions based on previously established legal principles—such as the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage—are expected to face new challenges in the forthcoming years.

The issue of abortion rights may also re-emerge in front of the court. Harris has vowed to support the reinstatement of protections once provided by Roe (an endeavor complicated by the Senate’s 60-vote requirement), while Trump has argued that the decision should reside with the states. Some Republicans in Congress are advocating for a nationwide ban on abortion.

At 76, Justice Clarence Thomas stands as the oldest justice on the Supreme Court, whereas Justice Samuel Alito is 74. Together, they are acknowledged as the most conservative members of the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, aged 70, has experienced recent health concerns, leading some Democrats to speculate about her potential retirement.

Generally, justices do not give public announcements before retiring.

Historically, most of the 116 Supreme Court justices in U.S. history have retired in their early 80s, though there is no mandatory retirement age for these lifetime appointments. Many justices tend to consider the political affiliation of the president who might appoint their successor, as explained by Carolyn Shapiro, a Supreme Court expert at Chicago-Kent College of Law, in conversation with YSL News.

“Justice decisions often involve weighing who the current president is and if they are comfortable with that person selecting their successor. This is one of the problems with lifetime appointments; justices can take such politics into account,” Shapiro remarked.

Thomas was chosen by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, while Alito was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005.

“If Donald Trump wins, it’s very likely that Justices Alito and/or Thomas will choose to retire, allowing him to appoint replacements who are either equally conservative or possibly more so, and significantly younger,” Shapiro stated. On the other hand, they may choose to remain if Harris wins, she believes.

Sotomayor, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009, might think about retiring if Harris wins and has the chance to appoint her successor, Shapiro noted.

“There’s the potential for a president to appoint at least three justices: two of the most conservative justices and one liberal. This highlights how crucial the Supreme Court’s composition is when voting. If you are opposed to the court’s current trajectory, you should support the candidate who is unlikely to add more justices of that mindset, which would be President Harris,” Shapiro clarified.

Immigration

Recently, there has been a significant decline in border crossings, and both presidential candidates are discussing their intentions to alter immigration policies.

Trump has suggested the idea of conducting large-scale deportations of individuals residing in the country illegally, which could have various legal and economic repercussions. The political dynamics within Congress will influence whether this initiative receives funding.

In her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris mentioned that she would support the bipartisan border security legislation proposed earlier this year, which Trump encouraged Republicans to reject. This bill aimed to increase detention facilities while making it more difficult for individuals to qualify for asylum, as well as increasing the annual number of green-card-eligible visas for the next five years. Additionally, it guaranteed that children of H1-B visa holders would remain eligible for green cards once they reached the age of 21.

However, Dunham commented that it is unlikely this bill will be revisited unless significant modifications are made. He also noted that movement on this front is unclear without a pressing deadline or a major crisis needing attention.

“That bill faced a strong defeat,” he said. “For any immigration policy changes to gain traction, it will require significant evolution from that original proposal to secure the 60 votes needed for passage.”