Kamala Harris 2019 vs. 2024: The Evidence She Doesn’t Believe Her Own Words
Kamala Harris 2019 vs. 2024: The Evidence She Doesn’t Believe Her Own Words
We are continuously reintroduced to Kamala Harris, but perhaps we already know enough about her to understand that she is not what America needs or wants.
For many Americans, Kamala Harris was little more than a footnote on the political landscape until Joe Biden literally imploded on the debate stage against Donald Trump. Following the debate, Biden’s poll numbers, already struggling, began to crash, and the Democrats were in a panic—leading Democratic leadership to swoop to "save democracy" by installing Kamala Harris as their presidential nominee.
Let’s not forget this isn’t the first time Harris has made a run for the White House. For the 2020 election, she went up against a crowded field of Democrats wanting to unseat Trump, but her campaign fizzled out before it even hit the Iowa caucuses. She dropped out before a single voter could cast a vote for her. The Democrats made it clear they did not want Harris to represent them. Today, Harris sits at the top of the ticket, still a relative unknown to anyone not obsessed with news and politics like us. Her campaign knows this and is doing its best to "reintroduce" Harris to voters while simultaneously attempting to erase her past.
However, in the age of technology, the internet never forgets. Thanks to her brief campaign and failed vice presidency, along with her long political career, there is a wealth of video footage that clearly reveals who Kamala Harris is.
The Harris we are being "reintroduced" to in 2024 is starkly different from before. In 2019, Harris was assertive and decisive and generally provided straightforward answers to challenging questions. By 2024, her responses have devolved into meandering, emotional narratives that skirt around vague, half-baked policy positions. The shift is striking: Harris in 2019 spoke with conviction; Harris in 2024? Not so much. The difference? I believe that back then, she genuinely believed in what she was saying. Now, she’s doing her best to hide her true self because if she came at voters honestly about her positions, she knows she would never make it to the White House. Instead, she meanders around questions, making sure to hit the talking points that her handlers say will resonate most with voters.
I will show the dramatic differences between Harris’s 2019 positions and her 2024 rhetoric on key issues like fracking, immigration, gun control, and more. These changes aren’t just in policy; they’re evident in her tone, messaging, and overall approach. Harris, in 2024, isn’t revealing her true self, which is by design. But I love to dig for the truth, so let’s dig deeper and see what we find.
Policy Shifts on Key Issues: 2019 vs. 2024
Fracking and Energy Policy
Back in 2019, Kamala Harris made her position on fracking abundantly clear. During a CNN climate change town hall, when asked if she would support a ban on fracking, she responded without hesitation: "There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking." She even promised to sign an executive order to ban it on public lands on day one of her presidency. No qualifications, no hedging—just a clear, definitive stance.
Let’s break that down. Banning fracking would have huge consequences, especially in energy-rich states like Pennsylvania—an essential battleground for Harris in 2024. It’s not just about rising energy prices; it’s about thousands of jobs tied to the fracking industry. Rising energy costs affect everything from manufacturing to groceries. Yet, in 2019, Harris didn’t flinch. She doubled down, articulating her broader plan to limit fossil fuels and promote green energy, regardless of the economic fallout.
Now, fast forward to 2024, and her position has shifted dramatically. In an interview with Dana Bash, Harris claimed she "made it clear" back in 2020 that she supported fracking.
Spoiler alert: she didn’t. She conveniently latched onto Biden’s more moderate stance, attempting to erase her earlier call for a ban. This isn’t a change in perspective; it’s a calculated pivot aimed at winning over voters in states where fracking is a lifeline. What happened to the bold, progressive Harris of 2019? She’s been replaced by a candidate willing to say anything for votes.
Just as her position on fracking shifted, her stance on immigration reveals a similar pattern of political convenience.
Immigration and the Border
One of the primary issues Harris is most vulnerable to is border security. It is clear that in 2024, she is doing everything possible to separate herself from the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration—and from her past self. Most recently, she visited the border town of Douglas, AZ, where she gave a 20-minute speech and had the obligatory photo op in an attempt to rebrand herself as tough on illegal immigration. Her past record, however, tells a very different story.
In front of an enthusiastic crowd at Cochise County College, just two miles from the southern border, Harris declared, "Those who cross our borders unlawfully will be apprehended and removed and barred from reentering for five years." She went on to say, 'We will pursue more severe criminal charges against repeat violators, and if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum." She concluded her speech by emphasizing that while "many people are desperate to migrate to the United States, our system must be orderly and secure."
These words are a stark contrast to her previous position where, for years, Harris insisted that "undocumented immigrants are not criminals." Throughout her career, Harris championed policies that facilitated illegal immigration by opposing measures designed to enforce border security. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she endorsed sanctuary city policies that protected illegal immigrants, including juvenile offenders, from federal enforcement. She also supported the Trust Act as California’s Attorney General, a state law limiting local law enforcement's ability to detain individuals solely for immigration purposes unless they had been convicted of serious crimes. By opposing ICE detainers and backing the Trust Act, she further eroded cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.
In the Senate, Harris continued to advocate for lenient immigration policies. She was a vocal proponent of the DREAM Act, which paved a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, and consistently opposed Trump-era efforts to tighten border security. Critics argued that her approach incentivized illegal immigration by minimizing consequences for unlawful entry. She was particularly blunt about Trump’s proposed border wall, dismissing it as a “vanity project.”
Harris has made her views on ICE crystal clear on several occasions, most notably during an interview with Kasie Hunt on MSNBC, where she expressed support for abolishing ICE, and during a Senate confirmation hearing where she went so far as to equate ICE with the KKK. For years, she has been a prominent voice against strong border enforcement.
In 2024, we see Harris attempting to straddle the line between her previous progressive positions and the grim realities of the ongoing border crisis. When Dana Bash pressed her on why the Biden-Harris administration waited three years to address the border crisis, where the most conservative estimate of illegal entries into the U.S. is 6 million to 7.2 million, Harris deflected entirely. Instead, she pointed fingers at Trump and touted a so-called "bipartisan" border bill that, in reality, does little to secure the border.
This bill would codify the "catch and release" policy, allow 1.8 million illegals into the U.S., and fund sanctuary cities—all while neglecting to boost deportations or construct the wall. Harris’s strategy is transparent: blame the previous administration, promote a toothless bill, and dodge real solutions.
Even more revealing, during a town hall with Oprah, Harris dodged a direct question about border security, opting once again to blame Trump. Despite being pressed, she promised to reintroduce the same ineffective immigration bill. It’s clear: her 2024 rhetoric is designed to deflect responsibility while still catering to open-border advocates, all without offering any meaningful policy proposals.
Gun Control
Kamala Harris’s anti-gun stance is nothing new. Her record on gun control stretches all the way back to her days as San Francisco’s District Attorney, where she aligned herself with the most restrictive gun control measures in California. In 2004, she stood side by side with then-Mayor Gavin Newsom to promote Proposition H, a ballot measure that sought to ban handguns in San Francisco. Proposition H aimed to make it illegal for residents to possess handguns within city limits, except for law enforcement officers and certain security professionals. It also proposed banning the sale, distribution, and transfer of firearms and ammunition throughout the city.
During the press conference, Harris’s stance was clear: not only did she support banning handguns, but she suggested intrusive measures to enforce it. "Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible," Harris declared. This rhetoric goes beyond even her more recent proposals like banning AR-15s or instituting a mandatory buyback program. Proposition H passed in 2005 but was struck down by a California court in 2006, which ruled that cities could not enact their own firearm regulations, as such matters were governed by state law.
As DA, Harris’s anti-gun stance went beyond just assault weapons or AR-15s. She supported government control over personal firearm ownership, period.
Fast forward to 2019, and Harris was still unambiguous about her views on gun control. At the March for Our Lives 2020 Gun Safety Forum in Las Vegas, she supported a mandatory buyback of AR-15s, asserting that the government should force gun owners to sell their AR-15s back to the state. She even reiterated this on Jimmy Fallon’s show, pledging to use executive action to ban the import of AR-15-style firearms. And on the debate stage, she said that if she needed to, she would use an executive order to ban AR-15s. When Biden pointed out that was unconstitutional, she quipped, "Instead of saying no we can’t, let’s say yes, we can." Harris was steadfast: aggressive gun control measures were essential, and she was ready to act.
However, in 2024, she has attempted to soften her gun control narrative. During the ABC debate with Trump, she claimed she was a gun owner like her running mate Tim Walz, who has also been vocal about banning AR-15s. Then, during her Oprah town hall, she again stated that she was a gun owner—and quipped, "If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting shot." Unsurprisingly, this raised eyebrows and went viral, especially given her past stance.
When asked about the type of firearm she owns, her staff remained tight-lipped, leaving many to speculate about this convenient story right before an election. But her once-firm support for mandatory buybacks has suddenly disappeared, and no one is bothering to ask why. Instead, she now claims, "No one wants to take your guns," a notable departure from her 2019 rhetoric. Which one are we to believe?
While attempting to convince the American people that she has experienced a drastic change of heart overnight on the most relevant political issues for this election, no one is looking to her other very progressive positions that she has boldly supported in the past.
Healthcare and Other Progressive Issues: 2019 vs. 2024
Kamala Harris's handling of healthcare and other progressive issues is another clear example of how her positions change depending on the audience and the political moment. In 2019, she was all-in on some of the most far-left ideas, offering direct and unapologetic support for sweeping reforms. By 2024, however, her tone has shifted significantly, and many of those bold promises are nowhere to be found.
Healthcare - 2019
In 2019, Harris didn’t hesitate to position herself as a staunch progressive when it came to healthcare. During the Democratic debates, she proudly raised her hand to signal her support for eliminating private health insurance, endorsing a single-payer system like Medicare for All. She followed that up during a CNN town hall with Jake Tapper, where she again affirmed that she would end private insurance, forcing millions of Americans onto a government-run plan. No wiggle room, no nuanced explanation—Harris was all-in on dismantling the existing healthcare system to cater to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
She took it even further in an interview with Tapper where she agreed that healthcare, including free access to services, should be extended to illegal immigrants. In 2019, she wasn’t just on board with the idea of universal healthcare—she was advocating for universal, government-funded healthcare for everyone, including undocumented immigrants.
Healthcare - 2024
Fast forward to 2024, and Harris’s stance has changed. Today, there’s no mention of eliminating private health insurance or pushing for Medicare for All. We don’t know exactly where she stands on the issue as she has not been asked during the whopping two interviews she has granted. Instead, during her speeches, she talks in vague, non-committal terms about “lowering costs” and improving access to healthcare—essentially a watered-down version of the bold plans she once supported. Gone are the days of calling for a complete overhaul of the healthcare system; now she’s playing it safe, catering to a more moderate audience that isn’t quite ready to hear about dismantling private health insurance. This shows once again how quickly Harris pivots when it's politically convenient.
Reparations and Decriminalization of Sex Work - 2019
Harris’s approach to other progressive issues, like reparations and decriminalizing sex work, further illustrates her inconsistency. During a February 26, 2019, interview with The Root, Harris spoke boldly on these topics. When asked if she supported decriminalizing sex work and reparations for Black Americans, Harris didn’t hesitate: she gave a quick, unequivocal “yes” to both.
But if you think that candor was consistent across the board, think again. Just a day earlier, on February 25, 2019, Harris appeared in an interview with The Grio, where she was asked about reparations. This time, her answer was far less direct. Instead of giving a straight “yes” like she had the day after, Harris launched into a long-winded history lesson about racism in the U.S. Then she pivoted to discussing her LIFT Act—a tax credit proposal she claimed would benefit Black families. She made no real commitment to reparations and instead used the opportunity to push her economic agenda. No clear answer, no direct support for reparations—just political hedging.
These two interviews, taken only a day apart, expose the way Harris shifts her message depending on who she’s talking to. When speaking to a predominantly progressive audience with The Root, she’s all-in on reparations and decriminalizing sex work. But with The Grio, a lifestyle publication, she dodges and reframes the conversation, careful not to alienate the broader, more moderate audience.
Decriminalization and Radical Policy Support - 2019
In 2019, Harris was ready to take her progressive stances even further. When filling out an ACLU questionnaire, she expressed support for decriminalizing federal drug possession for personal use. Harris even went as far as supporting taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for both detained immigrants and federal prisoners. In 2019, there was no progressive policy too extreme for Harris to endorse, and she seemed happy to stake her campaign on these radical reforms.
2024: A Softer, More Cautious Approach
Fast forward to 2024, and Harris is nowhere near as vocal about these issues. Her support for decriminalizing drugs and government-funded healthcare for illegal migrants, including gender transition surgeries for detainees—Harris no longer touts these policies as proudly as she did in 2019. Instead, she sticks to the safer, broad talking points, avoiding any real discussion of the far-left ideas she once championed. It’s a predictable move from someone who knows that owning up to those radical policies might cost her with voters who aren’t as far left as she’d like.
Shift in Rhetoric and Communication Style
What’s perhaps most revealing isn’t just the shift in Kamala Harris’s policy positions but also in her rhetoric. In 2019, she spoke with conviction. Whether on fracking, immigration, or gun control, she didn’t shy away from taking bold, often controversial positions. Even when those positions carried significant political risks, Harris remained direct.
But in 2024, we see a different Harris—one who relies on emotional appeals rather than clear, concrete solutions. Take her recent responses on the economy. When asked how she plans to lower prices—something everyone knows is directly linked to energy costs—Harris sidesteps the question. Instead, she leans into emotional stories about her middle-class upbringing and her "understanding" of struggling families. It’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not an answer. Eventually, she rolls out proposals that do little to tackle high energy prices, which are pushing up costs for gas, groceries, and everyday goods. Her approach seems more about tugging at heartstrings than providing real solutions.
This pattern of evasion pervades her responses on nearly every issue in 2024. Whether discussing immigration, gun control, or the economy, Harris dodges tough questions, deflects blame, and leans on emotional appeals. This is a far cry from the decisive, solutions-oriented candidate we saw in 2019. That’s because the Harris from 2019 truly believed in what she was saying, while the Harris of today does not.
Conclusion: Will the Real Kamala Harris Please Stand Up?
The difference between Kamala Harris in 2019 and 2024 is stark—and deeply revealing. In 2019, she was a candidate who, despite her flaws, spoke with conviction about her progressive positions. She made it clear that she was committed to radical policies that would have fundamentally altered the American way of life—whether it was banning fracking, dismantling private health insurance, or embracing the decriminalization of sex work and drug use. These were not empty promises. Harris believed in these ideas and pushed for them with a boldness that made her a darling of the progressive left. And let’s not forget—Democratic voters rejected her back then.
But now, in 2024, Harris is portraying a very different image, one that she hopes will resonate with a broader electorate. She’s trying to sell herself as a more moderate, pragmatic leader, carefully dodging questions and hiding her true positions behind vague promises and emotional appeals. Her attempt to reinvent herself is nothing more than a calculated lie—a desperate bid to win the White House. She hopes voters will forget her long history of supporting damaging progressive policies, but the truth is, she hasn’t changed. Harris is not who she’s pretending to be, and if she makes it to the White House, you can be sure she will fall back into her progressive ways.
The stakes are high. If Harris and the Democrats succeed in eliminating the filibuster, there will be no stopping her from implementing the very policies she once championed so enthusiastically. Whether it’s government control over healthcare, aggressive gun confiscation, or open-border policies, her progressive agenda will be back in full force. And make no mistake—these are the same ideas that have already proven to be deeply unpopular and dangerous to the American way of life.
The American people deserve to know who Kamala Harris truly is. The version of her campaign in 2024 is a carefully curated lie meant to win votes, but people can't be who they are not. Once in power, she will reveal her true self again—and by then, it may be too late to undo the damage.
The real question is, can the American people see through the facade before it’s too late?