Biden and Trump offer worlds-apart contrasts on issues in 2024’s rare contest between two presidents

1 / 2
President Joe Biden talks with the US Border Patrol and local officials, as he looks over the southern border, on Feb. 29, 2024, in Brownsville, Texas, along the Rio Grande. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 05 May 2024
Follow

Biden and Trump offer worlds-apart contrasts on issues in 2024’s rare contest between two presidents

  • Their track records and plans leave no doubt that the man voters choose in November will seek to shape the landscape of American life in ways wholly distinct from the other

WASHINGTON: Joe Biden and Donald Trump are two presidents with unfinished business and an itch to get it done.

Their track records and plans on abortion, immigration, taxes, wars abroad — you name it — leave no doubt that the man voters choose in November will seek to shape the landscape of American life in ways wholly distinct from the other.
The choices, if the winner gets his way, are sharply defined. The onward march of regulation and incentives to restrain climate change, or a slow walk if not an about-face. Higher taxes on the super rich, or not. Abortion rights reaffirmed, or left to states to restrict or allow as each decides. Another attempt to legislate border security and orderly entry into the country, or massive deportations. A commitment to stand with Ukraine or let go.
At no time in living memory have two presidents, current and former, competed for the office. Not since Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, both Republicans, in 1912, and that didn’t work out for either of them — Democrat Woodrow Wilson won that three-way race.
More than a century later, voters again get to judge two presidents on their records alongside their promises for the next four years. Here’s where they stand on 10 of the top issues:
Abortion
BIDEN: The president has called for Congress to send him legislation that would codify in federal law the right to an abortion, which stood for nearly 50 years before being overturned by the Supreme Court. He has also criticized statewide bans on abortion in Republican states and says he will veto any potential nationwide ban should one come to his desk. In the absence of legislation, his administration has taken narrower actions, such as proposals that would protect women who travel to obtain abortions and limit how law enforcement collects medical records.
TRUMP: The former president often brags about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion. After dodging questions about when in pregnancy he believes the procedure should be restricted, Trump announced in April that decisions on access and cutoffs should be left to the states. He said he would not sign a national abortion ban into law. But he’s declined to say whether he would try to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone. He told Time magazine in recent interviews that it should also be left up to states to determine whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor their pregnancies.
Climate/Energy
BIDEN: In a second term, Biden could be expected to continue his focus on implementing the climate provisions of his Inflation Reduction Act, which provided nearly $375 billion for things like financial incentives for electric cars and clean energy projects. Biden is also enlisting more than 20,000 young people in a national “Climate Corps,” a Peace Corps-like program to promote conservation through tasks such as weatherizing homes and repairing wetlands. Biden wants to triple the group’s size this decade. Despite all this, it’s unlikely that the US will be on track to meet Biden’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030.
TRUMP: His mantra for one of his top priorities: “DRILL, BABY, DRILL.” Trump, who in the past cast climate change as a “hoax” and harbors a particular disdain for wind power, says it’s his goal for the US to have the cheapest energy and electricity in the world. He’d increase oil drilling on public lands, offer tax breaks to oil, gas and coal producers, speed the approval of natural gas pipelines and roll back the Biden administration’s aggressive efforts to get people to switch to electric cars, which he argues have a place but shouldn’t be forced on consumers. He has also pledged to re-exit the Paris Climate Accords, end wind subsidies and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden administration targeting energy-inefficient kinds of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.
Democracy/Rule of law
BIDEN: Protecting democracy has been the raison d’etre behind Biden’s decision to run for reelection. In a symbolic nod to the Revolutionary War, Biden delivered his first campaign speech of 2024 near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where he spoke of George Washington’s decision to step down as the leader of the Continental Army after American independence was won. During the Jan. 5 speech, Biden said this year’s presidential contest is “all about” whether US democracy will survive and he regularly condemns Trump’s denial that he lost the 2020 general election. Biden has called the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol a “day that we nearly lost America — lost it all.”
TRUMP: The former president, who famously refused to accept his loss to Biden in 2020, has not committed to accepting the results this time. “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results,” Trump recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country.” He has said he will pardon the Jan. 6 defendants jailed for assaulting police officers and other crimes during the attack on the Capitol. He vows to overhaul the Justice Department and FBI “from the ground up,” aggrieved by the criminal charges the department has brought against him. He also promises to deploy the National Guard to cities such as Chicago that are struggling with violent crime, and in response to protests, and has also vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Biden.
Federal government
BIDEN: The Biden administration is already taking steps to make it harder for any mass firings of civil servants to occur. In April, the Office of Personnel Management issued a new rule that would ban federal workers from being reclassified as political appointees or other at-will employees, which makes them easier to dismiss. That was in response to Schedule F, a 2020 executive order from Trump that reclassified tens of thousands of federal workers so they could be fired more easily.
TRUMP: The former president vows an overhaul of the federal bureaucracy, which he has long blamed for stymying his first term agenda: “I will totally obliterate the deep state.” He plans to reissue the Schedule F order stripping civil service protections. He’d then move to fire “rogue bureaucrats,” including those who ”weaponized our justice system,” and the “warmongers and America-Last globalists in the Deep State, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the national security industrial complex.” He’s pledged to terminate the Education Department and wants to curtail the independence of regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission.
Immigration
BIDEN: The president continues to advocate for the comprehensive immigration bill he introduced on his first day in office, which would grant an eight-year pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the US without legal status, with a faster track for young immigrants living in the country illegally who were brought here as children. That legislation went nowhere in Congress. This year, the president backed a Senate compromise that included tougher asylum standards and billions more in federal dollars to hire more border agents, immigration judges and asylum officers. That deal collapsed on Capitol Hill due to Trump’s opposition. Biden is currently considering executive action on the border, particularly if the number of illegal crossings increases later this year.
TRUMP: The former president promises to mount the largest domestic deportation in US history — an operation that could include detention camps and the National Guard. He’d bring back policies he put in place during his first term, like the Remain in Mexico program and Title 42, which placed curbs on migrants on public health grounds. And he’d revive and expand the travel ban that originally targeted citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. After the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, he pledged new “ideological screening” for immigrants to bar “dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs.” He’d also try to deport people who are in the US legally but harbor “jihadist sympathies.” He’d seek to end birthright citizenship for people born in the US whose parents are both in the country illegally.
Israel/Gaza
BIDEN: The war in Gaza, far more so than other national security considerations, has defined Biden’s foreign policy this year, with significant political implications. He has offered full-throated support for Israel since Hamas militants launched a surprise deadly assault on Oct. 7. But as the death toll in Gaza continues to climb, Biden has faced massive backlash at home. His administration is working to broker a temporary ceasefire that would release some hostages held by Hamas, which would also allow for more humanitarian aid to enter the war-torn region. Biden also calls for a two-state solution, which would have Israel existing alongside an independent Palestinian state.
TRUMP: The former president has expressed support for Israel’s efforts to “destroy” Hamas but he’s also been critical of some of Israel’s tactics. He says the country must finish the job quickly and get back to peace. He has called for more aggressive responses to pro-Palestinian protests at college campuses and applauded police efforts to clear encampments. Trump also proposes to revoke the student visas of those who espouse antisemitic or anti-American views.
LGBTQ Issues
BIDEN: The president and White House officials regularly denounce discrimination and attacks against the LGBTQ community. Shortly after he took office, Biden reversed an executive order from Trump that had largely banned transgender people from military service, and his Education Department completed a rule in April that says Title IX, the 1972 law that was passed to protect women’s rights, also bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The new rule was silent on the issue of transgender athletes.
TRUMP: The former president has pledged to keep transgender women out of women’s sports and says he will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that “only two genders,” as determined at birth, are recognized by the United States. He promises to “defeat the toxic poison of gender ideology.” As part of his crackdown on gender-affirming care, he would declare that any health care provider that participates in the “chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth” no longer meets federal health and safety standards and won’t get federal money. He’d take similarly punitive steps in schools against any teacher or school official who “suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.” Trump would support a national prohibition of hormonal or surgical intervention for transgender minors and bar transgender people from military service.
NATO/Ukraine
BIDEN: The president has spent much of his time rebuilding alliances unraveled by Trump, particularly NATO, a critical bulwark against Russian aggression. Since the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden has pledged unceasing support to Kyiv and he made an unannounced visit there in February 2023 in a show of solidarity. His administration and Congress have sent tens of billions of dollars in military and other aid to Ukraine. The latest tranche of aid totaled $61 billion in weapons, ammunition and other assistance and is expected to last through this year. Continued US assistance is critical, Biden says, because he argues that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not stop at invading Ukraine.
TRUMP: The former president has repeatedly taken issue with US aid to Ukraine and says he will continue to “fundamentally reevaluate” the mission and purpose of the NATO alliance if he returns to office. He has claimed, without explanation, that he will be able to end the war before his inauguration by bringing both sides to the negotiating table. (His approach seems to hinge on Ukraine giving up at least some of its Russian-occupied territory in exchange for a ceasefire.) On NATO, he has assailed member nations for years for failing to hit agreed-upon military spending targets. Trump drew alarms this year when he said that, as president, he had warned leaders that he would not only refuse to defend nations that don’t hit those targets, but “would encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are “delinquent.”
Tariffs/trade
BIDEN: This is where Biden and his protectionist tendencies — in a continued appeal to working-class voters — have some similarities with Trump. Biden is calling for a tripling of tariffs on Chinese steel, a move that would shield US producers from cheaper imports. The current tariff rate is 7.5 percent for both steel and aluminum but Biden wants that to go to 25 percent. Biden has also said he opposes the proposed acquisition of US Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel, because it is “vital for it to remain an American steel company that is domestically owned and operated.”
TRUMP: The former president wants a dramatic expansion of tariffs, proposing a levy of perhaps 10 percent on nearly all imported foreign goods. Penalties would increase if trade partners manipulate their currencies or engage in other unfair trading practices. He would also urge Congress to pass legislation giving the president authority to impose a reciprocal tariff on any country that imposes one on the US Much of his trade agenda has focused on China. Trump has proposed phasing out Chinese imports of essential goods including electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals and wants to ban Chinese companies from owning US infrastructure in sectors such as energy, technology and farmland. Whether higher tariffs come from a Biden administration or a Trump one, they are likely to raise prices for consumers who have already faced higher costs from inflation.
Taxes
BIDEN: In his State of the Union address, Biden proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and the corporate minimum tax to 21 percent as a matter of “fundamental fairness” that will bring in more money to invest in Americans. The current corporate rate is 21 percent and the corporate minimum, raised under the Inflation Reduction Act, is at 15 percent for companies making more than $1 billion a year. Biden also wants to require billionaires to pay at least 25 percent of their income in taxes and to restore the child tax credit that was enacted under his 2021 COVID-19 relief package, but has since expired.
TRUMP: The former president has promised to extend the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017 and that are due to sunset at the end of 2025. That package cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and roughly doubled the standard deduction and child tax credit.


Report: Serbia’s President Vucic cuts short US visit and returns home after falling ill

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

Report: Serbia’s President Vucic cuts short US visit and returns home after falling ill

Vucic suddenly fell ill during a meeting in the US
He was admitted to the Belgrade Military Hospital upon arrival

BELGRADE: Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has cut short a visit to the United States and returned to Serbia over an unspecified health emergency, state RTS television reported on Saturday.
Vucic suddenly fell ill during a meeting in the US and decided to return home after consulting doctors, the report said. He was admitted to the Belgrade Military Hospital upon arrival, it added.
Vucic was previously in Miami, Florida, where he had met with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Vucic had said he also was hoping to meet with US President Donald Trump.
Richard Grenell, US presidential envoy for special missions, expressed hope that Vucic would recover. “Sorry to miss you but hope all is ok,” Grenell wrote on X.
It was not immediately clear what happened and Vucic’s office said they will inform the public later. Vucic, 55, is known to have high blood pressure.
Serbia’s populist leader also has said he would travel to Russia later this month to attend a Victory Day parade in Moscow, despite warnings from European Union officials that this could affect Serbia’s bid to join the bloc.

A notorious drug gang is in the crosshairs of a French police investigation of prison attacks

Updated 10 min 47 sec ago
Follow

A notorious drug gang is in the crosshairs of a French police investigation of prison attacks

  • Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said one of the suspected organizers of last month’s prison attacks claims to have ties with the DZ Mafia
  • The Paris prosecutor said 21 people detained for suspected involvement

PARIS: Anti-organized crime specialist investigators probing a wave of attacks on prisons and prison staff in France are looking at the possible involvement of a notorious drug cartel, the Paris prosecutor said Saturday.
The so-called DZ Mafia is suspected of being one of the main narco-trafficking networks working out of the southern French port city of Marseille, which has a long history as a hub for the drug trade and banditry associated with it.
Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said at a news conference Saturday that one of the suspected organizers of last month’s prison attacks claims to have ties with the DZ Mafia. She said police investigators will examine “the real or supposed influence of the DZ Mafia” in the violence.
Several prisons were targeted by gunfire and arson, including attacks on prison workers’ homes and on cars at a prison service school, in the Paris area and elsewhere, the prosecutor said.
The letters “DDPF” were graffitied on some targets, believed to stand for “défense des prisonniers français,” which translates as “defense of French prisoners.”
The Paris prosecutor said 21 people detained for suspected involvement in the violence have been handed preliminary charges for attempted murder and other alleged crimes.
French authorities in recent months have stepped up policing against drug trafficking, concerned about growing cocaine use in France and violence associated with the trafficking of that and other drugs.


Waltz ouster adds to tumult in Trump’s national security team but consolidates power in fewer hands

Updated 55 min 39 sec ago
Follow

Waltz ouster adds to tumult in Trump’s national security team but consolidates power in fewer hands

  • The staff shake-up comes as the administration confronts foreign policy issues
  • The Pentagon, too, has been a source of tumult, with Hegseth directing firings of top military officers and now ousting his own top civilian advisers in response to leak allegations

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump’s removal of national security adviser Mike Waltz brings further disruption to a national security team that has already endured scrutiny over using the Signal messaging app to discuss sensitive military operations as well as mounting questions over the leadership of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the firing of the four-star general who led the National Security Agency.
The staff shake-up comes as the administration confronts foreign policy issues that include Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear ambitions, a trade fight with China and conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine that have defied easy resolutions despite Trump’s initial confidence that he could settle both wars quickly.
But Waltz’s departure also presents an opportunity for Trump to consolidate foreign policy in just a few hands, with the Republican president asserting even more power over decision-making and relying on a select group of people who have entirely embraced his “America First” agenda.
Those influential voices include special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who on Thursday was named to replace Waltz on an acting basis while Waltz was nominated as the US ambassador to the United Nations.
“I would think he has just about what he wants” in terms of consolidated power, said William Banks, founding director of what is now called the Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law. “There aren’t many outliers.”
Gaining Trump’s confidence or losing it
Rubio may once have seemed an unlikely choice for such prominent positions given that the onetime Trump rival and hawkish conservative was derided by Trump as “Little Marco” during the 2016 presidential campaign.
But since then, the former Florida senator has proved adept at aligning himself with Trump’s foreign policy positions, presiding over a massive overhaul of the State Department while steering clear of some of the pitfalls that other national security leaders have encountered.
Waltz, for instance, faced intense criticism in March after revelations that he added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private text chain on an encrypted messaging app that was used to discuss planning for an airstrike against Houthi militants in Yemen.
He also was considered to be part of a neoconservative wing of the Republican Party that had supported the war in Iraq and other US military interventions abroad, including in Syria and Libya, that have now found disfavor in today’s GOP. The former Florida congressman has advocated for further diplomatically isolating Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has viewed at moments with admiration.
The Pentagon, too, has been a source of tumult, with Hegseth directing firings of top military officers and now ousting his own top civilian advisers in response to leak allegations. There are now multiple vacancies in key positions at a critical time for the military. Other missteps have included a broad edict for the military services to erase images celebrating diversity, leading to the brief removal of online content of prominent figures such as Jackie Robinson and causing a public outcry.
Reports of Elon Musk being offering a classified Pentagon briefing on China and Hegseth posting airstrike plans in two Signal chats with dozens of people have spurred calls for the defense secretary’s firing. But Trump has stood by him.
Trump’s national security team could be “charitably” described as “a work in progress,” said Daniel Fried, a former US ambassador to Poland and a National Security Council official under both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, citing what he said were concerns about coordination and portfolios.
“I’m not saying that the Trump foreign policy team is doomed. But the lack of coordination, the lack of consistency, the sense of chaotic decision-making isn’t just a media myth,” Fried said.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy
The national security adviser post, established in 1953, matters to the functioning of a cohesive government. That official is intended to serve as a hub in coordinating information, soliciting advice among agencies and developing policy recommendations for the president.
But the argument for balance in policymaking is unlikely to resonate with Trump. Over the course of his career, he has claimed expert knowledge on everything from Islamic militants to taxes and technology.
Heather Conley, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration, said Trump often gives greater weight to advice and recommendations from television and social media than his senior advisers.
“There is very little role for policy coordination because the president is clearly setting the policy on a daily, hourly basis,” Conley said.
The NSC didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Even as Trump has elevated Rubio, there are signs that Trump also has welcomed the input of a far-less conventional source: far-right activist Laura Loomer.
Last month, she appeared to take credit for Trump’s firing of Air Force Gen. Tim Haugh as head of the NSA and the Pentagon’s Cyber Command after a 33-year career in intelligence and cyber operations. Loomer said she had raised questions to Trump about Haugh’s ties to retired Gen. Mark Milley, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Trump’s first term but later became a critic, and she questioned Haugh’s loyalty.
On Friday, Loomer said she recommended to Trump in a private meeting last month that he remove Waltz from his job.
Changes from the first Trump administration
The Waltz ouster notwithstanding, Trump has tried to project a more ordered administration than during his first term. Those four years were marked by big personnel changes among his national security leadership and bitter disagreements with officials he felt were trying to rein him in or box in his choices.
He replaced three national security advisers, and fired an FBI director and secretary of state. He clashed with one defense secretary who resigned after differing with Trump over the abrupt withdrawal of US troops from Syria and dismissed another who broke with him over using the military during racial justice protests in 2020.
The removal of a national security adviser with views not in perfect alignment with his own may help free Trump from some of the constraints he felt from government agencies in his first term.
Yet at a moment when Trump is trying to find endgames to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza while trying to negotiate an Iran nuclear deal and waging a global tariff war, leaning on Rubio to serve in both roles may be suboptimal.
Appearing Thursday night on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Rubio centered his comments on the foreign policy news of the day — including the US role in trying to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine — rather than on a leadership transition that now has him juggling two major positions.
“The fact that Rubio has multiple titles may mean that his stock is rising, but not necessarily,” Fried said. “And that’s part of the problem. If it’s not clear who is in charge and it’s not clear where you go to get answers, that’s not a recipe for leverage. It’s a recipe for uncertainty and paralysis.”


Kremlin calls Ukrainian response to Putin’s ceasefire offer ambiguous, calls for clarity

Updated 03 May 2025
Follow

Kremlin calls Ukrainian response to Putin’s ceasefire offer ambiguous, calls for clarity

  • Zelensky also said that Ukraine, given the continued war with Russia, could not guarantee the safety of any foreign dignitaries who came to Moscow for the May 9 parade
  • Russia’s Foreign Ministry said his comments amounted to a threat

MOSCOW: The Kremlin said on Saturday it wanted a definitive response from Ukraine to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer of a three-day ceasefire next week, criticizing the reaction so far as ambiguous and historically wrong.
Putin on Monday declared a three-day ceasefire to mark the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Soviet Union and its allies over Nazi Germany in World War Two.
The Kremlin said the 72-hour ceasefire would run on May 8, May 9 — when Putin will host international leaders on Moscow’s Red Square, including Chinese President Xi Jinping — and May 10.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appeared to rule out such a brief ceasefire earlier on Saturday, saying he was only ready to sign up to a ceasefire that would last at least 30 days, an idea Putin has said needs a lot of work before it could become a reality.
Zelensky also said that Ukraine, given the continued war with Russia, could not guarantee the safety of any foreign dignitaries who came to Moscow for the May 9 parade.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said his comments amounted to a threat, while Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said nobody could guarantee that the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv would survive to see May 10 if Ukraine attacked Moscow during the May 9 celebrations.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov convened a special conference call after Zelensky’s comments.
He told reporters that Putin’s three-day offer had been a test to assess Kyiv’s readiness to search for a peaceful settlement to end the war.
“The reaction of the Ukrainian authorities to Russia’s initiative to introduce a ceasefire is a test of Ukraine’s readiness for peace. And we will, of course, await not ambiguous but definitive statements and, most importantly, actions aimed at de-escalating the conflict over the public holidays,” Peskov said.
He accused the Ukrainian authorities of espousing “neo-Nazism,” an allegation Kyiv has repeatedly rejected as false, and of not considering the victory over Nazi Germany to be important enough to mark properly.
Peskov also commented on media reports that Ukrainian soldiers will take part in World War Two commemorations in Britain, calling the move “sacrilege.”


Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wins a second three-year term

Updated 03 May 2025
Follow

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wins a second three-year term

  • Opposition leader Peter Dutton conceded defeat in Saturday’s election
  • The Australian Electoral Commission’s projections gave Albanese’s ruling center-left Labour Party 70 seats

MELBOURNE: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has become the first Australian prime minister to win a second consecutive three-year term in 21 years.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton conceded defeat in Saturday’s election, saying, “We didn’t do well enough during this campaign, that much is obvious tonight, and I accept full responsibility for that.”
“Earlier on, I called the prime minister to congratulate him on his success tonight. It’s a historic occasion for the Labour Party and we recognize that,” he added.
The Australian Electoral Commission’s projections gave Albanese’s ruling center-left Labour Party 70 seats and the conservative opposition coalition 24 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, the lower chamber where parties need a majority to form governments. Unaligned minor parties and independent candidates appeared likely to win 13 seats.
Australian Broadcasting Corp. respected election analyst Antony Green predicted Labor would win 76 seats, the coalition 36 and unaligned lawmakers 13. Green said Labor would form a majority or minority government and that the coalition had no hope of forming even a minority government.
Energy policy and inflation have been major issues in the campaign, with both sides agreeing the country faces a cost of living crisis.
Opposition leader branded ‘DOGE-y Dutton’
Dutton’s conservative Liberal Party blames government waste for fueling inflation and increasing interest rates, and has pledged to ax more than one in five public service jobs to reduce government spending.
While both say the country should reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Dutton argues that relying on more nuclear power instead of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind turbines would deliver less expensive electricity.
The ruling center-left Labour Party has branded the opposition leader “DOGE-y Dutton” and accused his party of mimicking US President Donald Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency.
Labor argues Dutton’s administration would slash services to pay for its nuclear ambitions.
“We’ve seen the attempt to run American-style politics here of division and pitting Australians against each other and I think that’s not the Australian way,” Albanese said.
Albanese also noted that his government had improved relations with China, which removed a series of official and unofficial trade barriers that had cost Australian exporters 20 billion Australian dollars ($13 billion) a year since Labor came to power in 2022.
A cost of living crisis as the country faces generational change
The election is taking place against a backdrop of what both sides of politics describe as a cost of living crisis.
Foodbank Australia, the nation’s largest food relief charity, reported 3.4 million households in the country of 27 million people experienced food insecurity last year.
That meant Australians were skipping meals, eating less or worrying about running out of food before they could afford to buy more.
The central bank reduced its benchmark cash interest rate by a quarter percentage point in February to 4.1 percent in an indication that the worst of the financial hardship had passed. The rate is widely expected to be cut again at the bank’s next board meeting on May 20, this time to encourage investment amid the international economic uncertainty generated by Trump’s tariff policies.
Both campaigns have focused on Australia’s changing demographics. The election is the first in Australia in which Baby Boomers, born between born between the end of World War II and 1964, are outnumbered by younger voters.
Both campaigns promised policies to help first-home buyers buy into a property market that is too expensive for many.
The election could produce a minority government
Going into the election, Labor held a narrow majority of 78 seats in a 151-seat House of Representatives. There will be 150 seats in the next parliament due to redistributions.
A loss of more than two seats could force Labor to attempt to form a minority government with the support of unaligned lawmakers.
There was a minority government after the 2010 election, and the last one before that was during World War II.
The last time neither party won a majority, it took 17 days after the polls closed before key independent lawmakers announced they would support a Labor administration.