The headlines today speak for themselves. “Harris forces Trump on the defensive in heated debate,” says the New York Times. “Harris forces Trump on the defensive,” writes the Washington Post. “Harris tried to throw Trump off track. He fell for it repeatedly,” emphasizes CNN.

The common thread of yesterday’s US presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump seems to have been that she repeatedly laid out bait that he fell for.

Just eight weeks before Election Day, Harris and Trump attempted to make their case to voters in a 90-minute debate. In their first meeting on stage in Philadelphia, the candidates discussed hot topics such as inflation, abortion, immigration and foreign policy.

Harris used pointed, sharp remarks, accusing Trump of belittling people and claiming that foreign leaders were laughing at him. Trump, visibly unsettled, often contradicted rather than attacked. “She won every round. Trump never landed a punch,” said historian and former Ronald Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett. wrote on X.

Marco Vicenzino, a geopolitics expert, echoed this sentiment, telling FRANCE 24 that it was “the most defining evening in Harris’ political career.”

“Trump allowed Harris to provoke him,” he added.

immigration

Harris went on a high note during a question about immigration, going on the offensive and mocking Trump’s rallies, suggesting that attendees should leave early “out of exhaustion and boredom.” Harris’s dig at the beginning of the segment was a success by any measure. Instead of addressing the issues raised by the moderators, including some that Trump typically sees as his political strengths, he ended up focusing heavily on the entertainment aspect of his rallies.

His response then devolved into unsubstantiated claims, such as that Haitian immigrants in one Ohio town were stealing and eating people’s pet cats and dogs. Trump also vilified immigrants in an earlier response for the cost of living and inflation, blaming them for destroying the economy. He claimed that people were “flooding in” from “prisons and detention centers, from mental institutions and asylums” to take jobs that are “currently held by African-Americans and Hispanics and also unions.”

Read morePet eating, child murder: Fact-checking the claims made during the Harris-Trump debate

Harris countered with an impassioned defense of foreign contributions to the U.S. economy, pointing to the importance of migrant workers in key sectors such as health care, agriculture and technology. She called Trump’s portrayal of immigrants “fear-mongering” and criticized his administration’s handling of the southern border, particularly the family separation policy.

To sum up her argument, Harris used a strategic move that appealed to both progressives who favor looser immigration policies and moderates who seek common-sense reforms: She emphasized her stance on making the immigration system more humane and contrasted her vision with Trump’s focus on border security and deportations. She recalled that the former president had killed a bipartisan bill she supported to strengthen security at the Mexican border. “He’d rather campaign on a problem than solve it,” she scoffed.

Business

US polls suggest that the public disappointed by the Biden administration’s handling of the economy, particularly inflation. But Harris used the point of contention to draw attention to Trump’s tariffs, which she called the “Trump sales tax,” and mentioned Project 2025, a controversial plan for a future Republican administration to which the former president has repeatedly denied any connection.

“Trump can deny any knowledge of Project 2025, but I know from experience as a political candidate that if Trump wins, it will be a blueprint because it is the only plan that exists,” Bartlett wrote on X.

Trump defended his comprehensive tariff plan, which he previously suggested could fund child care, boost manufacturing, curb immigration and encourage the use of the U.S. dollar. He also stressed that the Biden administration has kept many of the tariffs he imposed during his first term. But his defense left little room for an effective counterattack against Harris on economic issues. Trump’s insistence on returning to his tariff-heavy approach seemed disconnected from the more immediate economic concerns of many voters, which hinge on high living costs and inflation.

Harris emphasized her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on tax breaks for first-time home buyers, young families and new businesses – as well as providing incentives for companies to build affordable housing.

In his closing argument, Trump finally made an argument that could have given him the upper hand earlier in the debate. When Harris detailed her platform, the Republican candidate rejected the claim that Harris had failed to “fix the border” and “create jobs” as part of the Biden administration.

“She should leave immediately, go to the beautiful White House … and do the things she wants to do but hasn’t done – and won’t do,” Trump said.

abortion

Although a majority of the US population disapproved After the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Trump defended his handling of the abortion issue by saying it was what the people wanted, but his back-and-forth on the issue in recent weeks left his speech seeming “disjointed” to many.

While Trump attempted to soften his stance on the issue by criticizing the ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and expressing support for exceptions in cases of rape or death of the mother, he also falsely argued during the debate that some states allow abortions after a baby is born, as ABC News anchor Linsey Davis corrected. “There is not a state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born,” Davis interjected.

Will abortion rights issues on the ballot in nine states affect electoral outcomes?

02:21

To view this content, you must enable ad tracking and audience measurement.

Accept
Manage my selection

Harris was arguably the most vocal on the abortion issue, making a personal appeal to those affected by restrictive state laws that she dubbed “Trump abortion bans.” She pointed to her opponent’s inconsistency on the issue and warned that Trump’s lack of clarity posed a threat to the reproductive rights of women across the country. She described his stance as a sustained attack on women’s autonomy.

Foreign policy

In foreign policy discussions, Harris touched on Trump’s past negotiations with the Taliban and his plans for secret talks at Camp David, the presidential residence in Maryland. She highlighted his controversial stance on NATO, with Trump reiterating that he views the alliance as a club.

Trump argued that the war in Gaza would not have broken out if he were in charge, claiming that his tough stance on Israel had kept opponents in check. He accused the Biden administration of lacking a strategy, while Harris shot back, pointing out that Trump’s policies such as cutting aid to Palestinians and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem may have fanned the flames of the conflict.

Read moreKamala Harris is in line with US voters who are demanding a change in policy on Gaza

On Ukraine, Trump boasted that Putin would not have dared to invade under his leadership, pointing to his “tough” approach and his relationship with the Russian president as proof. Harris did not hold back in stressing the need for steady support for Ukraine, countering that Trump’s isolationist tendencies were undermining NATO and emboldening Putin.

On China, Trump continued his hardline rhetoric, arguing that his tariffs and trade wars were necessary to protect American jobs. Harris countered that the tariffs had hit American farmers and consumers harder than China, and suggested diplomacy and coalition-building were more effective strategies. She also pointed to Trump’s praise of authoritarian leaders, claiming it showed a disturbing pattern of undermining democratic norms.

After the debate, Trump complained that he had been cornered by both Harris and the moderators, accusing them of nepotism. Although it is still unclear whether the candidates will face each other again before November, the Harris team immediately called for a second debate, signaling the confidence of the Democratic camp.

“The key question is what impact (the debate) had on centrist, independent voters in the seven crucial swing states that will determine the outcome of the election,” Vicenzino concluded.

“In my opinion, a lot of these independent voters are looking for a real political debate, which they didn’t get last night. What they got was more hype and more personal attacks.”