As the rumours surrounding the dumpster and the false claims of thrown-out ballots spread, Ben Johnson, a local tech entrepreneur, tweeted at L Lin Wood, a lawyer who led efforts to challenge the 2020 results in Georgia and Michigan on behalf of Trump.

Johnson claimed to have “the source video for ballots found in the dumpster in Spalding County”, as reported by the Daily Beast, citing since-deleted posts.

Less than a year later, Johnson, whose posts also appear to support pro-QAnon conspiracy theories, became chair of the Spalding County election board.

Most recently, in August, Gabriel Sterling, a top Republican election official in the state, posted on X that the “actual evidence points to no fraud” in Georgia’s 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022 elections.

Johnson shot back, “Gabe’s pic[ture] is beside the definition of #gaslighting on dictionary.com”

But Dexter Wimbish, a local lawyer and one of two Democratic members on the election board, feels there is more behind Johnson’s appointment. Prior to 2020, the election board was divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats. The fifth and final member was chosen by coin toss.

But after the election, Republican state legislators passed a law mandating that three top county judges instead choose the final board member. As those judges are conservative, Wimbish explained, the change all but guaranteed that Republicans would dominate the board.

“I really believe that Spalding County is sort of a test site for the right in terms of coming up with local strategies to to interfere with the election process,” Wimbish said.

He pointed to a recent decision by the board to require hand-counting audits of one local and one federal race, which he argued could lead to protracted litigation after election day, while stoking confusion.

Concerns peaked when Georgia’s state board passed new election rules that allowed county officials to investigate and potentially not certify election results in some cases. A report by Pro-Publica identified Spalding, along with Troup and Ware, as counties in Georgia with election boards dominated by election sceptics that could have outsized influence in light of those rules.

However, a Georgia judge has since declared the new rules “illegal, unconstitutional and void”, saying that local officials were mandated to certify the election results. The state’s Supreme Court has said it will not intervene before the election.

But in places like Spalding County, there may still be trouble, local observers warn.

Wimbish, the Democrat member of the Spalding County election board, told Al Jazeera, “it’s clear that the majority of the board welcomes litigation because they think the litigation is going to bring about their their desired outcome…I still think there’s a strong possibility that we’re going to see some sort of election controversy in Spalding County with the upcoming election.”

Elbert Solomon, the vice chair of the Spalding County Democratic Committee, has also been a vocal critic of the new board.

“Here in Spalding, if they could come up with some reason not to certify the election, I believe they would,” Solomon told Al Jazeera from his office in Griffin.

“They have the majority vote.”

For his part, Johnson has maintained during public meetings that the board seeks to act in a non-partisan manner. He did not respond to a request for an interview from Al Jazeera.

Israelis, if they could, would vote by a large margin for Trump — the polls show that very clearly. But whoever wins, the long-term impact will probably be limited.

Israeli society, not to mention the government, is more opposed to Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution than it has been in decades. No U.S. president is likely to change that. President Harris would probably put more pressure on Israel to reach a cease-fire and open up talks with the Palestinians. But she would be unlikely to, say, cut off military support to Israel.

President Trump would perhaps be less bothered about Israel allowing Jewish settlers back into Gaza, as part of the Israeli government would like to do. He also talks a much more aggressive line on Iran than Harris, which pleases many Israelis. But you don’t quite know which side of the bed he’s going to wake up on. You get the sense he’s more risk averse than he sounds, and he recently appeared to rule out trying to topple the Iranian regime.

Because of that unpredictability, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel he can take more advantage of a Harris administration. So the internal Israeli thinking might be more nuanced than it seems.

Russia and Ukraine

Anton Troianovski is The Times’s Moscow bureau chief.

This is an election that matters massively to Russia and Ukraine. Trump has said it is President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded. Ukrainians worry that a President Trump would force a quick and dirty peace deal favorable to Russia. They hope a President Harris would continue to support them on the battlefield.

However, in Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin sees much less of a difference between Trump and Harris on Ukraine than we might think. He believes that both Trump and Harris are going to be less committed to Ukraine than Biden.

Putin wants a deal, something that he can call a victory. He believes that Ukraine is a puppet of the United States. So he believes he can only get that deal in a negotiation with the U.S. president. He has publicly backed Harris. That might seem disingenuous, or counterintuitive, but Putin may think he can do business with her.

There is one way in which a Trump victory would unambiguously strengthen Putin: It would mean an America that’s far less engaged in the world and in Europe, which Putin sees as his rightful sphere of interest.

China

Keith Bradsher is The Times’s Beijing bureau chief.

Whoever wins, the next U.S. president will be a hawk on China. But the people I speak to in Beijing are divided about which candidate would be better for China. The trade-off centers on two issues: tariffs and Taiwan.

Chinese economic officials are very aware that Trump has called for blanket tariffs on China’s exports, which could pose a serious threat to China’s economy. This is a country that is enormously dependent on foreign demand, especially from America, to keep its factories running and its workers employed. Manufacturing creates a lot of wealth, and it offsets China’s very serious housing market crash.

Meanwhile, the Chinese foreign policy world sees advantages to Trump’s winning the election.

China feels increasingly hemmed in by U.S. efforts, particularly by the Biden administration, to strengthen alliances with many of China’s neighbors: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India and above all Taiwan. Harris would probably continue those efforts. Trump is much less committed to building and maintaining international alliances.

And Trump has also shown much less interest in defending Taiwan. That is very welcome in Beijing.

Europe and NATO

Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent for The Times, covering Europe.

For Europe, this U.S. election feels like the end of an era, whatever the outcome.

Depending on whom you talk to in Europe, a Trump victory is either a nightmare or a gift. Europe’s growing band of nativists — in Hungary, Italy, Germany and elsewhere — regard Trump as the leader of their movement. If he regains the White House, he would normalize and energize their hard line on immigration and national identity.

Meanwhile, most western European leaders are deeply anxious. Trump’s talk of slapping 20 percent tariffs onto everything sold to America, including European exports, could spell disaster for Europe’s economy. And, of course, Trump has repeatedly talked about leaving NATO.

Even if the United States doesn’t formally leave NATO, Trump could fatally undermine the alliance’s credibility if he says, “I’m not going to go fight for some small European country.”

If Harris wins, there is a feeling that she, too, will be preoccupied at home and more concerned with China, and will expect the Europeans to do more for themselves. There is a palpable sense in Europe that Biden was perhaps the last U.S. president to be personally attached to an alliance forged in the Cold War.

Global trade

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics.

Donald Trump says “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary. More beautiful than love, more beautiful than respect.”

So this election is, among other things, a referendum on the entire global trade system, with U.S. voters making a choice that could affect the entire world.

Harris, if elected, would maintain targeted tariffs on Chinese goods on national security grounds. Trump is promising something much, much more aggressive, setting tariff levels that haven’t been seen in nearly a century: 10 to 20 percent on most foreign products, and 60 percent or more on goods made in China.

This would hit more than $3 trillion in U.S. imports, and probably cause multiple trade wars, as other countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Most economists say we could end up with more tariffs, less trade, lower income and growth — a poorer world, essentially.

Can Trump just do that? Yes, he can. He has broad legal authority. And that would mean the United States is undermining the big international trade rules that it helped to create.

South Africa

John Eligon is The Times’s Johannesburg bureau chief.

There are some interesting differences in how people in Africa see Harris and Trump. Despite the fact that Trump has vulgarly dismissed African countries, some see him as a strong leader who gets things done. In many ways he resembles a lot of autocratic African leaders.

Harris, in Africa, is known for spending time in Zambia when she was growing up, as the granddaughter of an Indian diplomat stationed there. And her being of African descent resonates very deeply. She is seen as being very much of the continent.

Biden — and presumably Harris — wants African countries to decarbonize, because many still rely on fossil fuels for energy. Trump would probably not have that focus, and so his presidency might be desirable for countries that want to continue burning coal and oil and gas, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into the clean energy transition.

South Africa is feeling a push and pull between the West, where it has the strongest economic ties, and the alliance of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, among others). It seems plausible that if Trump wins, he will be much more isolationist, and might have no problem watching countries like South Africa and Ethiopia draw even closer to BRICS.

Mexico

Natalie Kitroeff is The Times’s Mexico City bureau chief.

Mexico is facing significant challenges if Trump is elected. There will almost certainly be heightened tensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico is the biggest U.S. trading partner, and it could face heavy tariffs. And it will be the next-door neighbor of a president who has threatened to use the U.S. military on Mexican soil.

But Mexico anticipates a tough immigration regime whoever wins. Under President Harris, that would probably mean continuity with the Biden administration policies that have become much more restrictive over time. Migration is a shared issue. Migrants from all over the world pass through Mexico to get to the U.S. border, and the United States can’t control the flow of migrants without Mexico’s assistance.

Trump has promised to deport 11 million people, mostly to Latin America — though experts are dubious that such a feat is even feasible. But even a small number of deportations could have huge consequences throughout the region.

Mexico has some leverage. But its leaders could really be backed into a corner by an emboldened Trump. And they know it.

Climate

Somini Sengupta is The Times’s international climate reporter.

The stakes could not be higher. The United States has emitted more carbon than any country in history, and is the second-biggest emitter right now after China. What it does next will impact the entire world’s ability to avert catastrophic climate change.

If Harris is elected, she is likely to press ahead with Biden’s policies of shifting to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Less clear is whether she will restrict oil and gas production, as the United States is now producing more oil and gas than any country ever has.

Trump, if he wins, may not scrap the Biden-era policies altogether. But he could overturn dozens of measures that regulate emissions from cars and power plants, eviscerating the country’s ability to reduce emissions fast enough.

Trump’s actions could also leave China without serious competition in renewable energy technology like batteries and electric vehicles. China is already leading that race.

Whoever wins the U.S. election, the energy transition is already in motion. But speed and scale matter. Trump could slow the transition to a crawl, with potentially disastrous consequences for the climate, and the world.