Which Candidate is Better for Startups?

An Entrepreneur-Investor’s Perspective on the Harris-Trump Debate and Beyond

As someone who’s built, scaled, and invested in companies—I know that politics and public policy can shape the trajectory of entire industries.

It’s not just about tax rates or tariffs. It’s about how these decisions influence ecosystems, innovation, and opportunities. After watching the recent Harris-Trump debate, I’m thinking not just about the immediate impacts, but how these policies will create or constrain the conditions that startups—and the investors behind them—need to thrive.

In my role guiding companies through market intelligence and strategic growth decisions, I’ve seen firsthand how seemingly small shifts in policy can create massive ripple effects. Whether you're an investor, a founder, or both, it’s critical to ask: which candidate’s vision will set the stage for growth, innovation, and long-term value creation?

Harris’s Vision: Building the Ecosystem

Kamala Harris talks a lot about an “opportunity economy,” and while that might sound like campaign rhetoric, I believe she would focus on creating the conditions that allow innovation to flourish, and that’s where the real potential for startups lies.

One example is her proposed $50,000 tax deduction for new small businesses. No one’s going to claim that this deduction will radically change the landscape overnight. But in the context of a broader strategy, it’s about lowering the barrier to entry for entrepreneurship. Early stage founders will appreciate how every bit of extra runway or relief from cash pressure gives companies more time to focus on building and innovating, rather than just surviving.

Harris talks about emerging technologies—from AI to quantum computing to clean tech—and indicates prioritizing public investment in cutting-edge sectors that can help create new markets and accelerate private innovation. When the government backs technology infrastructure, it’s like adding rocket fuel to the areas where we’re already seeing significant growth. For investors, that’s the kind of fertile ground you want to be in—where external support amplifies the market opportunity.

In my work helping clients assess high-growth markets, I’ve seen how a well-timed public push in a sector can act as a multiplier effect. Harris’s focus on building talent pipelines, through workforce development and infrastructure investment, makes sure that as your startup scales, you’re not left scrambling for top-tier talent. It’s about ensuring that the ecosystem is primed for sustainable growth—not just quick wins.

Trump’s Approach: Quick Gains but Strategic Risks

There’s no question that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation appeal to investors who are focused on immediate returns. When taxes drop, companies keep more cash, which can be reinvested or returned to shareholders. This is particularly attractive if you’re invested in a late-stage startup nearing profitability. But this approach is tactical, and tactics can sometimes miss the big picture.

Where Trump’s platform starts to become more concerning is in its reliance on tariffs and protectionism. I’ve worked with clients who have had to rethink entire market strategies due to sudden trade restrictions or tariff hikes. When a 20% tariff on foreign goods is introduced, it doesn’t just add cost to your supply chain—it forces startups to reassess their go-to-market plans. If you’re scaling a hardware company that relies on global components, that extra 20% can push you into restructuring mode when you should be focused on growth.

In fact, I’ve seen how trade policy volatility can make or break growth-stage companies. If your startup just raised a $5 million Series A, and 10-20% of that capital is tied up in international supply chains, a tariff doesn’t just increase costs—it cuts into the strategic flexibility you need to scale. This is where Trump’s policies introduce unnecessary risks, which can compound over time.

Our work helps clients model out the potential impact of macro trends on their long-term growth strategies. And from that perspective, uncertainty in trade policy introduces execution risk that’s hard to price. Yes, you might benefit from a lower tax rate today, but if your entire model is thrown into chaos by shifting tariffs, that’s not a net positive.

Capital Gains and Carried Interest: Playing the Long Game

For investors, capital gains taxes and carried interest are understandably high on the radar. Trump’s low capital gains and protection of carried interest are built to favor those looking for immediate liquidity. But if you’re an investor only focused on today’s tax rates, you might be missing the bigger opportunity.

As entrepreneurs and investors we know that it’s not just about minimizing taxes on the gains you make—it’s about maximizing the gains themselves. Harris’s policies might raise capital gains taxes slightly, but they also create the conditions where startups grow bigger and deliver larger exits. I’ve seen time and again how investing in long-term value creation—through better infrastructure, talent, and market conditions—leads to outsized returns.

Let’s say you’re exiting a portfolio company and standing to make $20 million in gains. Under Trump’s plan, you’d owe about $4 million in taxes (20%). Under Harris, you might owe closer to $5.6 million (28%). Sure, that’s a higher tax bill. But under the right market conditions, the startup you’re backing could have grown into a $100 million company instead of $50 million. In that scenario, you’re still coming out far ahead—because the value creation is so much higher.

At Emerging Strategy, we work with clients navigating these types of long-term growth plays. We help companies position themselves in markets that are poised for exponential growth. Harris’s vision, focused on innovation and infrastructure, is more aligned with those long-term growth strategies.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Where Should You Place Your Bet?

After evaluating both platforms, it’s clear that Trump’s approach offers short-term, tactical gains. Lower taxes, fewer regulations, and immediate capital gains benefits are attractive for near-term exits. But for those of us thinking about the future of startups, this strategy comes with substantial risks—particularly around trade policy volatility and a lack of support for long-term innovation. Trump is obsessed with old-school industries such as oil and gas with little or no thought about the industries and opportunities of tomorrow and the investment and incentives needed to drive the next wave of innovation and growth.

In contrast, Harris’s platform is built on a strategic, long-term vision. She’s playing a bigger game, investing in the infrastructure, talent, and innovation that will allow startups to grow into industry-defining companies. It’s the kind of environment where larger exits become possible, even if you pay a bit more in taxes when you cash out.

In my experience, guiding companies and investors through complex market landscapes, the firms that win aren’t the ones focused on quick tactical victories. They’re the ones that invest in strategic growth, that position themselves in markets with strong tailwinds and create sustainable competitive advantages.

So, what kind of founder or investor are you? Are you chasing short-term gains, or are you in this to back the companies that will shape the future?

What's your perspective on how these policy proposals may affect your startup or your portfolio?