Kamala Harris has left the possibility of a 2028 presidential campaign deliberately ambiguous, telling interviewers that she is “not done” as she promotes her new memoir, 107 Days. The book, released in September, looks back on the tumultuous episode in which she replaced then-President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee after his withdrawal from the 2024 race and went on to lose the general election to Donald Trump.

Harris’s public reticence about her long-term political plans underscores a deeper strategic calculation inside the Democratic Party. For senior figures in Washington and for the party’s state-level apparatus, the prospect of a Harris candidacy in 2028 forces competing calculations about timing, coalitions and messaging. Her standing as a former vice president and a nationally known figure with a diverse background gives her a built-in national profile that could shift the dynamics of any primary field that emerges.

Beyond domestic politics, an open-ended Harris candidacy would reverberate internationally. Foreign governments and markets watch presidential succession politics closely; an eventual bid would prompt renewed scrutiny of U.S. commitments on issues ranging from NATO posture to Indo-Pacific strategy. Allies who had to recalibrate during the 2024 transition would be attentive to whether a Harris campaign signals a return toward the policy priorities associated with the Biden-Harris team or new emphases born of the 2024 defeat.

Harris’s book tour interviews have also functioned as a broader narrative effort to frame her role in what was an unusual episode in American politics: the replacement of an incumbent president as a party nominee mid-cycle. The memoir’s title, 107 Days, signals an attempt to set the record on a compressed and consequential period. How the public and party officials receive that framing will shape her political capital going forward.

At home, Harris’s comments complicate calculations in key states where Democratic infrastructure is already adapting to post-2024 realities. Local and state leaders in places such as California, where her political roots run deep, must balance competing interests — from cultivating new leaders to responding to renewed interest in national figures. Even as intra-party debates over direction and electability continue, Harris’s high profile ensures she remains a central reference point in those conversations.

For potential rivals within the Democratic coalition, the possibility of a Harris candidacy is a factor in deciding whether to enter a crowded 2028 field or position themselves differently. It could encourage consolidation among centrist forces or, conversely, sharpen progressive efforts to present a contrast. For the party’s strategic planners, the calculation extends to messaging about democracy, governance and the lessons the party will draw from the 2024 defeat.

Whatever Harris ultimately decides, her statement that she is “not done” keeps alive questions about leadership, accountability and the party’s path back to competitiveness. In an era where U.S. elections are closely watched around the globe, the domestic deliberations that follow will have ripple effects on alliances, adversaries and the global political order that depends on knowing who might lead the United States in the next presidential term.