This is a Cato special podcast. I'm Caleb Brown. For many Americans, this specter of a second Trump presidency offers no upside. And for others, no downside. Cato's Alex Narasta says on at least the policy front, there's a bit of both.

Forgive me, Alex, but I want to start with something sort of totally different, but it does

have strong policy implications, which is, what do you see as the policy impact of somebody,

you know, it hasn't happened in our lifetime serving non-consecutive terms in the White House.

I don't think there'll be any measurable impact,

except perhaps there'll be more that the person can undo in a second term, and he'll be more targeted

against the person who served as president in between his terms. I think it also means that

people who are opposed and politicians who are opposed to his policies will have a much

better model

of what the president will do in his second term that's non-consecutive and will have had

many years to think about it, to consider it, and to consider how to counter those policies.

Let's start with the upside, if we can.

What do you, from our perspective, what do you view as the potential benefits relative to Kamala Harris of a second Trump presidency?

There are several upsides to a second Trump presidency over a Kamala Harris administration.

The first thing to keep in mind that will be relevant for all my comments is that the president

has an enormous amount of power, unilaterally through executive orders and other executive

actions to change policies.

So I want to keep that, want the listeners to keep that in mind, and I'll go through where

that matters the most.

On energy policy, I think President Trump will be very good.

I think I'll see more allowance for fossil fuel exploration and extraction in the United States.

A lot of very expensive regulations that have been proposed, like the clean power plant

...