A governing scenario · Reviewed September 22, 2026
Maggie Hassan Beyond 100 days.
Hassan's security and affordability themes depend on technical competence across agencies. Compliance obligations should be tested against measurable risk reduction, rather than the number of new reports required.
A hypothetical presidency, not a claim of candidacy or an election forecast. Policy effects below are analytical possibilities conditional on authority, financing and delivery.
The selected themes below come from this person’s series coverage. A source passage is separated from our analysis of implementation. The proposed federal pathway is an analytical translation, not a newly discovered promise. Unselected issues remain outside this review.
01 · Mixed executive and legislative authorities
AI governance and deployment
Series context · Series discussion
Hassan's 2025 signature file is AI security. On Dec. 5, 2025 she and Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) introduced the bipartisan Reliable Artificial Intelligence Research Act of 2025, creating federally funded research competitions to harden AI systems and reveal how they make decisions: “we need to make sure that these systems are secure and that they make reliable decisions... strengthen our defenses against bad actors and foreign adversaries like China, who may utilize AI to hurt Americans.” She also co-sponsored prior…
Separate federal procurement and agency practice from proposed duties on private developers; define the harms and systems covered.
What must change for the result to endure
Obtain necessary legislation and build testing, enforcement and appeal capacity that can adapt as technology changes.
Drill down: failure modes and the test of success
Where it can stall: Testing expertise, rapidly changing models and fragmented authority can leave formal standards disconnected from actual risk.
Evidence that would change the assessment: Independently measured failures, redress, adoption quality, compliance burden, competition and workforce adjustment. Compare outcomes with the pre-policy baseline and affected groups that did not receive the intervention; distinguish outside shocks from the policy’s contribution.
Before assigning a net winner: obtain the actual proposal, funding source, affected population, transition plan and independent cost estimate. An announcement, sponsorship or appropriation alone does not establish the final effect.
02 · Mixed executive and legislative authorities
Border security and interdiction
Series context · Limited or mixed evidence
On Sept. 18, 2025 her office announced: “To the President's Desk: Senator Hassan Passes Major Bipartisan Bill to Address Fentanyl Crisis” — her fentanyl-crisis legislation passed Congress. As an HSGA member she has focused on drug interdiction and holding agencies accountable on fentanyl precursor trafficking. The digest did not capture the exact name and number of the passed bill — a verification caveat noted below. The enforcement pieces are presidential levers: interdiction surges, CBP and DEA tasking, and…
Set lawful priorities, staffing and oversight for interdiction and enforcement, separating criminal networks from legitimate activity.
What must change for the result to endure
Obtain legislation and resources for new authorities or sustained capacity, with review and redress procedures.
Drill down: failure modes and the test of success
Where it can stall: Deterrence depends on adaptation by illicit networks; arrests or seizures alone do not measure harm prevented.
Evidence that would change the assessment: Overdose and victimization trends, error rates, case outcomes, border wait times and cost per sustained reduction in harm. Compare outcomes with the pre-policy baseline and affected groups that did not receive the intervention; distinguish outside shocks from the policy’s contribution.
Before assigning a net winner: obtain the actual proposal, funding source, affected population, transition plan and independent cost estimate. An announcement, sponsorship or appropriation alone does not establish the final effect.
03 · Mixed executive and legislative authorities
Drug prices and payment intermediaries
Series context · Series discussion
Hassan pairs with Republicans on prescription-drug costs. On Aug. 25, 2025 she and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced bipartisan legislation to combat Big Pharma patent abuse and lower prescription drug costs; on July 9, 2025 she introduced a bipartisan bill to cut Medicare waste, fraud and abuse. On July 1, 2025 she issued a statement blasting Senate Republicans' reconciliation budget bill as one that would “take away health care from millions of Americans.” Medicare negotiation and patent-abuse enforcement at…
Use existing purchasing, competition and transparency tools while defining the products, intermediaries and patients affected.
What must change for the result to endure
Legislate payment or benefit changes where needed, with safeguards for supply and continuity of treatment.
Drill down: failure modes and the test of success
Where it can stall: A lower reported price is not a patient saving if rebates, eligibility or availability change in the opposite direction.
Evidence that would change the assessment: Net and out-of-pocket prices, access denials, shortages, pharmacy closures and payer spending. Compare outcomes with the pre-policy baseline and affected groups that did not receive the intervention; distinguish outside shocks from the policy’s contribution.
Before assigning a net winner: obtain the actual proposal, funding source, affected population, transition plan and independent cost estimate. An announcement, sponsorship or appropriation alone does not establish the final effect.
Beyond the opening hundred days
How Hassan’s agenda could develop
Choose the governing conditions. These scenarios test mechanisms and tradeoffs; they do not assign election odds, assume passage, or predict a numerical economic result.
Assume the specific proposal wins the votes and funding it requires; party control alone is insufficient.
Years 1–2
Use the first two years to enact the specified law, finish required procedures and start delivery.
Years 3–4
By years 3–4, evaluate actual use, costs and unintended effects; amend or stop ineffective components.
Years 5–10
In years 5–10, assess whether later governments retain the law, financing and operating capacity. This horizon does not assume reelection.
Chart 4 · From agenda to durable governance
Theme
What this scenario requires
What can interrupt it
AI governance and deployment
Obtain necessary legislation and build testing, enforcement and appeal capacity that can adapt as technology changes.
Testing expertise, rapidly changing models and fragmented authority can leave formal standards disconnected from actual risk.
Border security and interdiction
Obtain legislation and resources for new authorities or sustained capacity, with review and redress procedures.
Deterrence depends on adaptation by illicit networks; arrests or seizures alone do not measure harm prevented.
Drug prices and payment intermediaries
Legislate payment or benefit changes where needed, with safeguards for supply and continuity of treatment.
A lower reported price is not a patient saving if rebates, eligibility or availability change in the opposite direction.
Conditional winners and losers
Who could gain—and who could bear costs
Chart 5 · Qualitative exposure map. These groups can overlap: the same person can gain as a worker and pay more as a consumer or taxpayer. No net ranking is possible without specified legislation, financing and independent estimates.
The channels below assume the relevant policy is enacted and delivered as designed. Benefits remain conditional on implementation.
AI governance and deployment
Potential beneficiaries
Users, workers and responsible developers could benefit from more reliable systems and clearer accountability.
Potential costs and risks
Developers and adopters may face costs or slower deployment; poorly designed rules can entrench large firms or restrict lawful use.
Check the result: Independently measured failures, redress, adoption quality, compliance burden, competition and workforce adjustment.
Border security and interdiction
Potential beneficiaries
Communities exposed to trafficking or violence could benefit if interventions reduce actual harm.
Potential costs and risks
Families, lawful travelers, importers and labor-dependent firms may face errors, delays or disruption; enforcement expands fiscal costs.
Check the result: Overdose and victimization trends, error rates, case outcomes, border wait times and cost per sustained reduction in harm.
Drug prices and payment intermediaries
Potential beneficiaries
Patients and payers could gain if negotiated savings reach the pharmacy counter and preserve access.
Potential costs and risks
Manufacturers, intermediaries and some providers may lose revenue; supply and investment effects depend on the payment design.
Check the result: Net and out-of-pocket prices, access denials, shortages, pharmacy closures and payer spending.
Keep the source trail intact
Original articles and citations
The original reporting and analysis remain unchanged. Citations below are retained from those articles and are not all independently revalidated in this extension. Consult the linked passage, date and underlying document before treating a proposal or officeholding assertion as established fact.
The framework sources explain institutions and constraints; they do not support a numerical forecast or endorse these scenarios. Read the full method ↗