Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

115th Congress on trade, 2017-2018

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal:Legislative Branch
115th Congress, 2017-2018
Issues
Domestic policy
Key votes • Energy and the environment • Healthcare • Immigration
Economic policy and government regulations
Key votes • Budget • Financial policy • Taxes • Trade
Foreign policy and national security
Key votes • Iran nuclear deal
See also: Federal policy on trade, 2017-2020

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress authority over international trade. It states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

"President Trump Hosts a Meeting with Members of Congress on Trade," February 13, 2018

As of April 2018, the 115th Congress had not taken up any major trade legislation. The Trump administration has been working to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) since April 2017, but Congress has not been involved in the process. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said that Congress would take up and pass a veto-proof bill if the administration attempted to leave NAFTA. Hatch said, "He [Trump] certainly knows how to negotiate, and that's certainly part of his negotiating posture. But yeah, I'm concerned because we can't afford to pull out of NAFTA."[1]

This page tracks the comments of members of the 115th Congress on trade deals, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP), and Congress' response to any other trade deals or renegotiations the Trump administration pursues. Click on the timeline below to learn more about each headline.

July 11, 2018: Senate approves non-binding resolution calling for congressional role in implementing tariffs


Trump Administration (first term)

US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg

President Donald Trump
Vice President Mike Pence
Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term
Policy positions
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues
Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade
Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity
Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration

On July 11, 2018, the United States Senate voted 88 to 11 to approve a resolution calling for lawmakers to include in a government funding bill language that would provide for a congressional role in implementing tariffs for national security reasons. The resolution is non-binding, meaning that lawmakers are not required to include such language in the legislation. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said, "I think it's significant that, as many of us have discussed with the president and his Cabinet, that there's some anxiety about ... tariffs. I think it's just a way to make that point." Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who voted against the resolution, said, "I just don't understand why this body continues to try to tie the hands of this president at every turn. The president is committed to creating a more level playing field for our workers and our companies here at home to compete."[2]

June 12, 2018: Inhofe blocks Corker amendment to reign in Trump on tariffs

On June 12, 2018, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) blocked legislation that proposed requiring President Donald Trump to get congressional approval to enact tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs that could harm national security, from getting a vote. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Corker wanted the amendment to be added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).[3]

Speaking about his decision to block the amendment from being attached to the NDAA, Inhofe said, "I will do all I [can] to help him to get that on as an amendment, but not to the defense authorization bill. I think this would cause a lot of damage. The House agrees with this." Inhofe said that members of the House opposed the amendment. The administration also said that Trump would not sign the NDAA with the amendment included.[3]

Corker criticized his colleagues for not wanting to challenge Trump’s authority on tariffs. He said, "'Gosh, we might poke the bear,' that is the language I've been hearing in the hallways. 'We might poke the bear.'" He added that the Senate was "becoming a body where, well, we'll do what we can do, but my gosh, if the president gets upset with us, then we might not be in the majority, and so let's don't do anything that might upset the president."[3][4]

May 10, 2018: Ryan sets NAFTA deadline

On May 10, 2018, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) guidelines, the Trump administration had until May 17, 2018, to submit to Congress a final NAFTA deal if it wanted Congress to vote on the agreement before the end of the year. TPA, also known as fast-track authority, is a legislative procedure that requires Congress to cast a simple up or down vote without amendments on trade deals negotiated by the president. The president is required to notify Congress 90 days before signing the agreement.[5][6]

Ryan said, “As the author of TPA, we have to have the paper — not just an agreement. We have to have the paper from USTR by May 17 for us to vote on it this year, in December, in the lame duck. ... So there are a handful of unresolved issues, and I’m just not — I don’t want to make news, but we’ll see if they can get this done by May 17 and give us the paper to Congress, which then we could have this vote in December. If they can’t, then we won’t."[6]

Formal NAFTA negotiations with Canada and Mexico began on August 17, 2017.

April 12, 2018: Trump tells economic advisors to consider re-entering TPP

On April 12, 2018, Trump told National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to explore re-entering the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP).[7]

After a meeting on trade, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said, “The president multiple times reaffirmed in general to all of us and looked right at Larry Kudlow and said, ‘Larry, go get it done.'"[7]

On January 23, 2017, Trump signed a memorandum withdrawing the United States from negotiations involving the TPP. In March 2018, 11 nations—Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam—signed the deal, which was renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.[7]

April 3, 2018: Trump administration releases list of Chinese imports that could be subject to a 25 percent tariff

On April 3, 2018, the Trump administration released a list of Chinese imports that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) was considering subjecting to a 25 percent tariff. The list targeted $50 billion in Chinese imports across 1,300 categories of products, including medicines, medical equipment, machine tools, chemicals, dishwashers, televisions, automobile parts, aircraft engines, industrial robots, some semiconductor production equipment, and electric vehicles, among other goods. The list did not include shoes, clothing, mobile phones, personal computers, laptops, or furniture.[8][9]

The list was published “[a]s part of the U.S. response to China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of U.S. technology and intellectual property. … Following USTR’s Section 301 investigation, President Trump announced in March that the United States will impose tariffs on approximately $50 billion worth of Chinese imports and take other actions in response to China’s policies that coerce American companies into transferring their technology and intellectual property to domestic Chinese enterprises,” according to the USTR.[9]

Earlier in the day, President Donald Trump told reporters, “We intend to get along with China, but we have to do something very substantial about the trade deficit. I campaigned on that, I talked about that.”[8]

According to the USTR, “The total value of imports subject to the tariff increase is commensurate with an economic analysis of the harm caused by China’s unreasonable technology transfer policies to the U.S. economy, as covered by USTR’s Section 301 investigation.”[9]

The tariffs did not go into effect immediately. The items on the list had to undergo a public notice and comment process before the USTR made a final decision about whether to impose the tariffs. A public hearing on the proposed tariffs was held on May 15, 2018, at the International Trade Commission. Businesses then had until May 22, 2018, to state their objections to the proposed tariffs. After that, the USTR had 180 days to decide whether to impose the tariffs. On April 4, 2018, Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow said, "I doubt if there'd be any concrete action for several months... Nothing concrete has actually happened. These are proposals, but the message is clear."[9][10]

Iowa Sens. Joni Ernst (R) and Chuck Grassley (R), who represents one of the largest soybean-producing states, expressed concern about the Trump administration's long-term trade plan with China. Ernst said, “Every town hall I go to, trade or tariffs is one of the big questions. That’s what’s on their mind. They are starting to question the president and where we’re going with this. I need for him [Trump] to understand that we’re hurting in the Midwest and this is not helping.”[11]

Grassley said, “If the federal government takes action on trade that directly results in economic hardship for certain Americans, it has a responsibility to help those Americans and mitigate the damage it caused.”[11]

In a speech to farmers and business owners in Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "Many of you are in agriculture. We are a great exporter of an agricultural product. I am nervous about getting into trade wars and I hope this doesn't go too far. ... I'm not a fan of tariffs, and I am nervous about what appears to be a growing trend in the administration to levy tariffs. This is a slippery slope, so my hope is that this will stop before it gets into a broader tit-for-tat that can't be good for our country."[12]

April 4, 2018: China responds by threatening to impose tariffs on U.S. imports

On April 4, 2018, China’s State Council responded to the U.S.’ list of proposed tariffs saying that it would impose tariffs on 106 types of U.S. goods, including soybeans, beef, sorghum, some commercial passenger planes, and sport-utility vehicles, among other goods.[13]

According to The Wall Street Journal, “Chinese government officials described China’s response as defensive and forced upon Beijing in hopes of compelling the U.S. into talks to ease the countries’ trade frictions.”[13]

Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao called for negotiations between China and the U.S., saying, “Both sides have put their lists on the table. Now it’s time for negotiations.”[13]

Trump commented on the trade announcements in a tweet, writing, “We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!”[14]

April 5, 2018: Trump calls China’s response unfair; directs USTR to consider tariffs on $100 billion in imports from China

On April 5, 2018, President Donald Trump said that China’s decision to release a list of proposed tariffs on 106 types of U.S. goods was unfair. In response, he directed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to consider imposing tariffs on an additional $100 billion in imports from China.[15]

Trump said in a statement, “Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers. In light of China’s unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs. I have also instructed the Secretary of Agriculture, with the support of other members of my Cabinet, to use his broad authority to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests. Notwithstanding these actions, the United States is still prepared to have discussions in further support of our commitment to achieving free, fair, and reciprocal trade and to protect the technology and intellectual property of American companies and American people. Trade barriers must be taken down to enhance economic growth in America and around the world. I am committed to enabling American companies and workers to compete on a level playing field around the world, and I will never allow unfair trade practices to undermine American interests.”[15]

China’s Commerce Ministry responded to the announcement, saying, “The Chinese side will follow suit to the end, not hesitate to pay any price, resolutely counterattack and take new comprehensive measures in response. … We will listen to its [the Trump administration’s] words and watch its actions.”[16]

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) commented on the announcement, saying, “Hopefully, the president is just blowing off steam again. But, if he’s even half-serious, this is nuts.”[16]

On April 6, 2018, Trump wrote in a tweet, “Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not! Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!” Shortly after his first tweet, Trump wrote, “We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!”[17][18]

March 8, 2018: Trump announces a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports

On March 8, 2018, President Donald Trump signed paperwork to put in place a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which "provides the President with authority to adjust imports being brought into the United States in quantities or under circumstances that threaten to impair national security.” Based on reports from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the administration concluded that foreign imports of aluminum and steel were weakening the domestic production of these materials and could result in the U.S. not being able to support infrastructure projects or produce weapons, tanks, and aircraft that ensure national security.[19]

The administration said that Canada and Mexico were excluded from the tariffs and that discussions about steel and aluminum would continue as North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation talks continue. The administration also said that the tariffs could be modified or removed on a country-by-country basis.[19]

While signing the paperwork, Trump said, "Today, I am defending America’s national security by placing tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminum. … This has been an assault on our country.”[20]

The tariffs took effect on March 23, 2018.[21]

On April 10, 2018, China filed a trade case at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the tariffs. According to The Hill, "China, which has requested 60 days of consultations with the United States, argues that the tariffs are inconsistent with WTO rules and has said that the United States imposed the duties as a safeguard measure that countries use to counter export restrictions by other nations. China’s complaint argues that the United States hasn’t shown that steel and aluminum imports hurt domestic producers and it hasn’t followed the proper procedures in pursuing the tariffs."[22]

Background: Trump announces plan to impose steel and aluminum tariffs

On March 1, 2018, during a listening session at the White House with representatives from the steel and aluminum industries, President Donald Trump said that his administration would announce tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on imported aluminum in an attempt to support U.S. steel and aluminum industries.[23]

Speaking about the U.S. steel and aluminum industries, Trump said, “People have no idea how badly our country has been treated by other countries, by people representing us that didn’t have a clue. Or if they did, then they should be ashamed of themselves because they’ve destroyed the steel industry, they’ve destroyed the aluminum industry, and other industries, frankly, when you look at all the plants, the car plants, automobile plants that moved down to Mexico for no reason whatsoever, except we didn’t know what we were doing. So we’re bringing it all back.”[23]

The administration's decision to impose tariffs was based on reports from the U.S. Department of Commerce "that determined imports of steel and aluminum are eating away at domestic production capacity in those two sectors and pose a threat to U.S. national security interests," according to Politico. The Commerce Department found that having to import metal hurt that military's ability to make weapons, tanks, and aircraft.[24]

Trump spoke about the potential threat to national security, saying, “And when it comes to a time when our country can’t make aluminum and steel — and somebody said it before, and I will tell you, you almost don’t have much of a country. Because without steel and aluminum, your country is not the same. And we need it. We need it even for defense, if you think. I mean, we need it for defense. We need great steelmakers, great aluminum makers for defense. So we’ll probably see you sometime next week. We’ll be signing it in. And you will have protection for the first time in a long while, and you’re going to regrow your industries. That’s all I’m asking. You have to regrow your industries.”[23]

Although Congress controls international trade, the administration "is using a Cold War-era law that allows an administration to unilaterally impose restrictions such as Mr. Trump’s metals tariffs on national-security grounds. Congress gave the president that power through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962," according to The Wall Street Journal.[25]

March 22, 2018: Trump suspends aluminum and steel tariffs for some countries

On March 22, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from certain countries would be suspended until May 1, 2018. The countries not subject to the tariffs were Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the member countries of the European Union, and South Korea. According to the White House, "These suspensions are based on factors including ongoing discussions regarding measures to reduce global excess capacity in steel and aluminum production by addressing its root causes."[26][27] =

February 13, 2018: Trump discusses steel and aluminum tariffs with Republican members of Congress

On February 13, 2018, Trump said that he was considering imposing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. He said, “They are dumping and destroying our industries. We can’t let that happen.” Trump added that although the tariffs could result in higher prices, it would mean keeping more jobs in the steel and aluminum industries. He said, “I want to keep prices down, but I also want to make sure that we have a steel industry and an aluminum industry, and we do need that for national defense.”[28]

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) warned Trump that higher tariffs could have negative consequences. He said, “We need to be careful here that we don’t start a reciprocal battle on tariffs. We make aluminum and we make steel in Missouri, but we buy a lot of aluminum and we buy a lot of steel as well.”[28]

The meeting came with “about 60 days left to make a decision whether to assess penalties under Section 232 of a 1962 trade law that gives the president the power to apply higher tariffs and quotas on imported steel and aluminum for national security reasons,” according to The Hill.[28]

January 30, 2018: Senators send letter to Trump asking him to modernize NAFTA

On January 30, 2018, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and 35 other senators sent a letter to President Donald Trump asking him to keep the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in place and modernize the trade deal. The text of the letter appears below.[29]

“ We write today to reaffirm the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and congratulate you on efforts to modernize the agreement and put America first. You have the opportunity to unleash the American economy like no President has done before and fuel historic growth.

NAFTA has driven U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico to approximately $1.3 trillion annually. Whether manufacturers, farmers, or insurance providers, a wide range of industries in the U.S. have benefitted from this agreement and American consumers are reaping those benefits, too. Canadians and Mexicans buy nearly $500 billion worth of U.S. manufactured goods each year, translating to $37,000 in export revenue for every American factory worker, and U.S. agricultural exports to the two countries have quadrupled under the agreement from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $38.1 billion in 2016.

NAFTA supports 14 million jobs, representing thousands of jobs in each of the 50 states. Despite all of its benefits, however, we can do better and there are opportunities to improve the agreement. Modernizing NAFTA to increase market access, expand energy exports to maximize domestic energy production and including provisions on intellectual property and e-commerce will make this agreement even more beneficial to the United States.

Mr. President, your leadership has jump-started our economy. The recent tax reform bill is already leading to economic success across all industries and the stock market is at record highs. The next step to advance the economy requires that we keep NAFTA in place, but modernize it to better reflect our 21st century economy. We look forward to working with you and your Administration to make that modernization a reality and bring Americans even greater economic success.[30]

”

Along with Gardner, the following senators signed the letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga), John Thune (R-S.D.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

February 16, 2017: DeFazio releases Blueprint for America’s New Trade Policy

On February 16, 2017, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced H Res 132—the Blueprint for America’s Future Trade Policy—as a starting point for renegotiating or replacing NAFTA. DeFazio said, “For the first time in nearly a quarter-century, we have an opportunity to replace NAFTA and build a fair trade policy that works for all Americans. After working with labor stakeholders and fair trade advocates, we have come up with principles that will serve as the foundation of a sustainable trade policy that will bring jobs back to the U.S. while protecting America’s environment, workers, consumers, and sovereignty.” The resolution also called on President Donald Trump to begin negotiating NAFTA by June 1, 2017, and to withdraw from the renegotiation talks if a deal was not met within one year.[31]

DeFazio said that any NAFTA replacement had to include the following:


Trump Administration (first term)

US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg

President Donald Trump
Vice President Mike Pence
Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term
Policy positions
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues
Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade
Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity
Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration
“
  • Require Strong Labor & Environmental Standards—and Ensure They are Enforced
  • Add Strict, Enforceable Disciplines to Fight Against Currency Manipulation
  • Eliminate Procurement Provisions that Undermine Buy America
  • Require Imports and Foreign Companies Operating in the U.S. to Adhere to U.S. Laws
  • Lower the Cost of Prescription Drugs
  • End Tribunals that Undermine U.S. Trade Enforcement Laws, Such as NAFTA’s Chapter 19
  • Require Foreign Operators to Comply with U.S. Transportation Laws
  • Require Strong Rules of Origin on Cars, Auto Parts, and Other Manufactured Goods
  • Eliminate the Dangerous ISDS Provision that Undermines U.S. Sovereignty
  • Protect U.S. Energy Policy[30]
 ”

As of April 2018, no action had been taken on the legislation.

Support from labor leaders

Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka both expressed their support for DeFazio's resolution.

Hoffa said, “Rep. DeFazio’s NAFTA resolution provides a roadmap for the USTR and the administration to follow if they truly want to fix this broken trade agreement. Free trade agreements like NAFTA have undermined our manufacturing industry for decades, sending millions of jobs overseas. It is long past time to negotiate fair trade agreements that protect working families and provide good jobs here in America.”[31]

Trumka said, “As we’ve said all along in regards to renegotiating NAFTA, 'the devil’s in the details.' The blueprint being laid out today puts working people first. It promotes trade policies that create jobs, raise wages, breathe life into our communities and expand the American Dream. We are ready to move forward with a new direction on trade and this is just the beginning.”[31]

April 26, 2017: NAFTA members agree to begin renegotiating NAFTA

In his contract with American voters—the ”100-day action plan to Make America Great Again”—President Donald Trump said that he would "announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205." Article 2205 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows the parties of the agreement to modify the agreement with the consent of the other members or to withdraw after giving six months notice.[32][33]

On February 1, 2017, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced that he would start trade negotiations to reform NAFTA in May, after a 90-day consultation period with Mexican businesses. Trump acknowledged this 90-day period. On April 26, 2017, during a call with Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump agreed to renegotiate, instead of terminate, NAFTA.[34][35]

May 18, 2017: Trump notifies Congress of intent to renegotiate NAFTA

On May 18, 2017, the Trump administration sent Congress a formal notification of intent to renegotiate NAFTA. This notification stated the 90-day consultation period for the United States and set formal negotiations with Mexico and Canada to begin on August 16, 2017. According to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the notification did not detail what the administration intended to change in the agreement.[36]

August 17, 2017: NAFTA members begin renegotiation process

On August 17, 2017, representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico began talks regarding renegotiating NAFTA. The discussion started with the dispute resolution process. The United States sought to do away with the dispute-resolution panels, while Canada and Mexico called to maintain the panels.[37]

January 23, 2017: Trump withdraws from TPP

In his contract with American voters—the ”100-day action plan to Make America Great Again”—Trump said that he would "announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership" during his first 100 days in office. Calling the TPP "a potential disaster for our country," Trump reiterated his promise to withdraw from TPP in a video released on November 21, 2016. He added, "Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back on to American shores."[38]

On January 23, 2017, Trump signed a memorandum that withdrew the United States from negotiations involving the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP). The action ended U.S. involvement in the multilateral trade deal, which had not been ratified by Congress.[39]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) praised Trump’s decision to leave the TPP, saying TPP is “dead and gone. Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers then I would be delighted to work with him. For the past 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals … which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers."[40]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized the decision, saying, “President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a serious mistake that will have lasting consequences for the American economy and our strategic position in the Asia Pacific region."

Other opponents of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the TPP argued that doing so would hurt the United States’ credibility, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.

Jiawen Yang, a professor of international business and international affairs at George Washington University, said, “Some trade partners would be very disappointed if the U.S. withdraws from [the TPP] and it would become more difficult for the U.S. to initiate other international economic and trade agreements or arrangements.”[41]

Jon Lieber, U.S. director at the Eurasia Group, said that leaving the deal would put China at an advantage in the region. He said, “The TPP was really all about China, and the U.S. trying to create a regional trading bloc that would project U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific as a bulwark against Chinese influence. The partner countries are going to have to look inwardly and also to China, who, as the second biggest economy in the world, is actively trying to promote their influence throughout the region.”[41]

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

What is NAFTA?

See also: North American Free Trade Agreement The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States to eliminate trade barriers and promote trade competition between the three nations. Provisions of the agreement include the elimination of trade duties on many goods, reductions in tariffs, intellectual property enforcement, and agreements for favorable treatment of investors from these three nations. NAFTA came into effect on January 1, 1994, and superseded a prior trade agreement between the United States and Canada, the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement. In addition to this agreement, two side agreements were passed to address other concerns: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation.[42]

What impact could Congress have on NAFTA?

If President Donald Trump decided to withdraw from NAFTA, he would have to give Canada and Mexico six months' notice. If Trump did try to withdraw, Congress would likely try to keep the U.S. in the agreement since the trade deal has bipartisan support. According to scholars and trade officials in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, Congress could pass legislation to keep NAFTA intact, "pass new laws designed to boost its own authority over trade agreements", or "pass a law that preemptively eliminates Trump’s ability to unilaterally give Canada and Mexico notice of withdrawal."[43]

When asked if Congress could prevent Trump from leaving NAFTA, Phil Levy, a senior economist for trade on President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, said, "It took Congress to pass NAFTA and it should take Congress to kill NAFTA. These agreements are not treaties, but rather international deals that only come into effect when Congress passes 'implementing legislation.' As things stand, there is some ambiguity, because the agreement itself allows for countries to withdraw, and the president would be the one to initiate such a withdrawal. But a president should not be able to revoke a law unilaterally. Further, the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power 'To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' Congress could pass new legislation clarifying this constitutional assignment of responsibilities."[43]

Members of Congress on NAFTA

  • March 12, 2017: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said that she was worried about the Trump administration's policies harming the agriculture industry. She said, “I have been worried because other countries have pushed back: ‘You want us to build a wall, well we’re not going to take your corn.' If we’re talking about renegotiating Nafta, we actually stand to lose ground in agriculture—so we would really have to work that very, very carefully.”[44]
  • February 20, 2017: Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas), expressed concern about Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposal to pass a 20-percent across-the-board tax on imports and the administration's proposal to renegotiate NAFTA. Cornyn said, “I talked to group of people from Texas today, from San Antonio, and I said the two things that concern me the most about the Texas economy are the negotiation of NAFTA and the border adjustment tax. There’s some uncertainty about the direction of the administration. For my state it’s a big deal, and I would argue it’s also a big deal for the country. Six million American jobs depend on bi-national trade with Mexico alone.”[45]
  • February 20, 2017: Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "Michigan's the heart and soul of the American Auto Industry. And since NAFTA passed, we have seen factories shuttered, jobs lost, and real incomes drop for too many people." Dingell discussed legislation that she and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced to renegotiate NAFTA. The legislation proposed changing NAFTA’s rules of origin requirement. She said, “Forty percent of (a vehicle) can be made in Asia and still be labeled a vehicle ‘made in North America.' So the rules of origin are tilted and not fair and point blank, must be strengthened by closing those loopholes.” She also said that currency manipulation needed to be addressed. She said, “I know our workers. We can compete with anybody in the world. But we can’t compete with the bank of Japan. We need a level playing field and we need to do something to address it.”[46]

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

What is TPP?

See also: The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: An overview

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade deal that was negotiated by the United States and 11 Asia-Pacific countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The goals of the trade deal were to promote trade and strengthen the relationships between the 12 nations by reducing and eliminating tariffs, fostering competition, and creating greater opportunities for businesses. The countries also agreed to promote environmental protection practices and enforce laws protecting workers. On January 23, 2017, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum withdrawing the United States from negotiations involving the TPP.[47][48]

On April 12, 2018, Trump told National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to explore re-entering the TPP.[7]

What impact did Congress have on TPP?

President Barack Obama (D) wanted Congress to vote on TPP before he left office, but Congress declined to hold a vote on the TPP. Because the trade deal was not ratified by Congress, President Donald Trump (R) was able to sign a memorandum that withdrew the United States from TPP negotiations and ended U.S. involvement in the multilateral trade deal on January 23, 2017.[39][49]

Background

Despite opposition from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Trump during the 2016 election, the Obama administration pushed members of Congress to vote on the TPP. After Trump won the presidential election, members of the administration stopped lobbying Congress to pass the deal, knowing that it would not survive without renegotiation under a Republican-controlled Congress and White House. Matt McAlvanah, a spokesman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, wrote in an email, "We have worked closely with Congress to resolve outstanding issues and are ready to move forward, but this is a legislative process and it's up to congressional leaders as to whether and when this moves forward.”[49]

On November 9, 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that the Senate would not vote on the TPP in 2016. He said, "It's certainly not going to be brought up this year,” when asked about the TPP. He added that Trump, who opposed the deal, would be given the discretion to decide if the deal, and any other trade deals, should be voted on, renegotiated, or scrapped.[50]

Noting the bipartisan opposition in Congress to the TPP, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in September 2016 that there was no point in voting on the trade deal because it would fail. He said, "You bring it up, it's going to go down. I don't think we should bring up a bill that is going to go down."[50][51]

Support for TPP

  • November 23, 2016: House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said, "I respect President-elect Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw from TPP, but I am convinced that we have to reach these customers if we want to get America's economy moving again. ... Our new president has exceptional negotiating skills. As he examines new and old trade agreements, my advice is simple: Keep what works for America, fix what doesn't, but keep us in those regions fighting for new sales and new U.S. jobs."[52]
  • November 23, 2016: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that despite Trump's decision to abandon the TPP, he would continue “to advance strong trade policies ... and ensure we secure the best possible trade deals for American workers and entrepreneurs.”[52]
  • November 29, 2016: During an interview on November 29, 2016, House Subcommittee on Trade Chairman Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) said, “Do I think the TPP may go forward? Yes, I do. Do I think it might be going forward in the current form that it is in? I don’t know. It could be bilateral agreements, it could be multilateral agreements in pieces, it could be all in one piece. But I’m not going to give up on it. ... The substance of the agreement drives the process. So if we can get to a place where the substance is agreeable to the members, the issues that they have concerns over have been addressed, then I think the process moves forward. So, I always have hope.”[53]

Opposition to TPP

  • 2016: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) formed the group Our Revolution after he ended his presidential campaign. One of the group’s stated goals was to oppose trade deals that hurt American workers, including the TPP.[54][55]
  • As a Democratic presidential candidate, Sanders criticized the TPP. On June 27, 2016, Sanders said, “The Democratic Party must go on record in opposition to holding a vote on the trade deal during the lame-duck session of Congress and beyond. … During the next days and weeks we will reach out to a large grassroots movement of working people, environmentalists, human rights advocates and religious groups to support an amendment to the platform in strong opposition to the TPP. If we succeed, we will be in a very strong position to stop a vote and to fundamentally rewrite our trade agreements in order to end the race to the bottom and to lift up the living standards of people in this country and throughout the world.”[56]
  • May 2015: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), an critic of the TPP, opposed the investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision in the trade deal, which critics argued would allow foreign businesses to challenge U.S. labor and environmental laws. Warren argued that ISDS would unfairly favor multinational corporations, allow foreign businesses to change or ignore American labor laws and environmental regulations, and hurt American workers. In May 2015, Warren wrote, "ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court."[57] She repeated the criticism during a September 2016 conference call hosted by the advocacy group Public Citizen. She said, “It [ISDS] allows companies to challenge foreign laws they don’t like and potentially win millions or even billions of dollars from taxpayers. … Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge laws outside of the legal system is a bad deal for everyone except those corporations. That’s why I oppose ISDS.”[58]

Members of Congress on trade policy

  • April 22, 2018: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) discussed the impact of Trump’s proposed tariffs on China. She said, “We appreciate the president and his stance against China but, for the meantime, it is hurting our farmers and ranchers. ... When we hear about tariffs out in the news, the markets drop. When you see lean hog futures going down. When we see the price of soybeans in the market going down. Corn. Whatever it might be. That really hurts our farmers. ... We do get concerned when we talk about tariffs. I understand the need to protect American jobs, but American farmers are holding American jobs. We need to find a pathway forward and I do hope the president can do that.”[59]
  • April 3, 2018: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wrote in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, “When China responds to our protection of strategic industries from their aggression with tariffs of their own on other goods, the net effect can be a more productive U.S. economy. At the same time, the administration and Congress should be prepared to help ease the impacts of retaliation on industries and workers by developing novel and innovative ways to maintain total demand for affected products like agricultural goods. … Perhaps no other action on the table has the potential to bring fairness to our global trade balances like relative currency value, and the important precedent that it could set for the resolution of future negotiations with countries of like circumstance. The increase in U.S. borrowing costs that would occur as a result of this action should be a message to Congress to get its fiscal house in order, not a reason to pass on this negotiating point.”[60]
  • December 2017: During a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said that he was frustrated with the approach the administration was taking in negotiating trade deals, including bilateral agreements with Pacific Rim countries that were part of the TPP trade deal. He said, “There’s a number of frustrations with their approach including — as I’ve told the ambassador before — they need Congress to ratify it under [Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)] and so they don’t seem to be paying that much attention to what members of the Senate think." Trade promotion authority (TPA), also known as fast-track authority, is a legislative procedure that gives Congress "the authority to review and decide whether any proposed U.S. trade agreement will be implemented," according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.[61]
  • April 11, 2017: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Trump did not accomplish anything during his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He also criticized Trump for not labeling China a currency manipulator. Schumer said, “When it comes to China, President Trump has been all talk and no action. … Whenever we do anything in concert with the Chinese, we accomplish nothing to help American jobs. … One of the greatest promises you have broken to the American people who elected you was that you were going to get tough on China. We Senate Democrats are willing to work with you to push back on the Chinese.” According to The Hill, Schumer also said that “Trump should crack down on intellectual property theft by Chinese companies, declare China a currency manipulator, penalize China’s subsidization of certain commodities such as aluminum and pressure the Chinese government to allow American companies greater access to its domestic market.”[62]
  • Schumer added that House Democrats would release their own trade reform package. He said, “We’re going to be coming up with a very strong trade package, much of it aimed at China. We’re working on it in a way with many of the committees in the Senate that are involved and we’ve talked to the House about it.”[62]
  • March 12, 2017: Speaking about the Trump administration's trade policy, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said, “My concern is that they’re making it too difficult to enter into trade agreements. I’m concerned that when we remove ourselves from the playing field of multilateral opportunities, our trading partners will look elsewhere for leadership—and that leadership can come from countries that don’t follow the same norms and values that we do."[44]
  • February 23, 2017: While speaking at the U.S. Agriculture Department’s annual Agricultural Outlook Forum on February 23, 2017, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) said that although Trump did not offer him a specific timeline for negotiating bilateral trade agreements, he said that Trump recognized the importance of exports to the economy. Conaway said, "But what he did say was particularly heartening in the sense that they discovered trade deficits have two pieces: imports, of course, but exports are a big deal. So I was heartened to find out they understand we really do need to keep exporting. Shrinking exports would make the trade deficits worse and all the disadvantages associated with that. So that was encouraging to me."[63]
  • February 22, 2017: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said that she was confident Trump would be able to renegotiate trade deals once Robert Lighthizer, Trump's nominee for U.S. trade representative, was confirmed. Collins said, “I agree with the president that there were many poorly negotiated trade agreements that have cost us manufacturing jobs in our state and throughout our country. His approach to renegotiation I believe will be better refined once he’s brought on a special trade representative. ... I believe he [Lighthizer] will be good. If we can have a trade policy that helps preserve our manufacturing base, that would be great progress." Collins also discussed the proposed border tax, which would impose a 20 percent tax on imported goods. She said, "Now, I do see problems with the border tax that is being proposed. If you look at the amount of trade we have with Canada every single day, that could cause retaliation by the Canadian government that might hurt some of our small businesses and small employers in our state. I’m also not sure what would be the impact on the mill in Madawaska, the Twin Rivers mill, where the pulp is produced on one side of the border and the paper on the other side of the border. So, would there be a tax? That doesn’t make sense. There are a lot of issues to work out.”[64]
  • February 17, 2017: After meeting with National Trade Council chief Peter Navarro on February 17, 2017, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said, “The administration officials today offered few details about the administration’s objectives on trade and no strategy for how it plans to achieve them. In some cases, the officials’ message conflicted with recent statements made by the president regarding his trade policy. In other cases, the message appeared to contradict congressional directives on trade that became law in 2015.”[65]
  • February 14, 2017: After hearing the Trump administration's four trade goals and 13-point agenda for trade during a meeting on February 14, 2017, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “I’m not sure where they’re going. They clearly have a different view on some of these trade matters than has been the sort of traditional Republican trade view on Capitol Hill.” Thune added that the Trump administration should work to negotiate bilateral trade deals with TPP and NAFTA countries. He said, “If you don’t like NAFTA then we need bilats with these countries. Let’s get after it. The concern is we lose ground if we don’t."[45]
  • December 5, 2016: After Trump said that his administration would impose a 35 percent tariff on the goods sold by companies that leave the U.S., House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, “I don’t want to get into some type of trade war. ... I think there are other ways to achieve what the president-elect is talking about, but the only way you can do any of this is you’ve got to do tax reform. And that’s why I think that will be a cornerstone of what we do.”[66]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Business Insider, "One of Trump’s closest allies says Congress will defy the president if he makes a move that could start a trade war," February 27, 2018
  2. ↑ The Hill, "Senate takes symbolic shot at Trump tariffs," July 11, 2018
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 The Hill, "Corker: GOP becoming 'cult-like' on Trump," June 12, 2018
  4. ↑ The Hill, "Corker rebukes Republicans afraid to anger Trump on tariffs: 'We might poke the bear!,'" June 12, 2018
  5. ↑ USTR.gov, "Trade Promotion Authority," accessed May 14, 2015
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Politico, "Ryan says May 17 is deadline to assure 2018 NAFTA vote," May 10, 2018
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 The Hill, "Trump to explore entering Pacific trade pact he once called 'a disaster,'" April 12, 2018
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Announces Tariffs on $50 Billion of China Imports," April 3, 2018
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 USTR.gov, "Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products," April 3, 2018
  10. ↑ Twitter, "Fox Business," April 4, 2018
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Tariff Showdown Shifts to Intense Negotiation Period," April 5, 2018
  12. ↑ The Hill, "McConnell ‘nervous’ Trump tariffs will hurt the country," April 4, 2018
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 The Wall Street Journal, "China Tariffs Threaten U.S. Cars, Planes and Soy in Response to Trump," April 4, 2018
  14. ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump," April 4, 2018
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Additional Proposed Section 301 Remedies," April 5, 2018
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Weighs Tariffs on $100 Billion More of Chinese Goods," April 6, 2018
  17. ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump," March 6, 2018
  18. ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump," March 6, 2018
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump is Addressing Unfair Trade Practices That Threaten to Harm Our National Security," March 8, 2018
  20. ↑ The Hill, "Defying GOP, Trump orders steel and aluminum tariffs," March 8, 2018
  21. ↑ Politico, "Trump readies tariffs with few exceptions," March 8, 2018
  22. ↑ The Hill, "China files trade case at WTO over Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs," April 10, 2018
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by President Trump in Listening Session with Representatives from the Steel and Aluminum Industry," March 1, 2018
  24. ↑ Politico, "Trump blasted at home and abroad for plan to impose steel, aluminum tariffs," March 1, 2018
  25. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump’s Steel-Tariffs Plan Rattles GOP Lawmakers," March 2, 2018
  26. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "President Trump Approves Section 232 Tariff Modifications," March 22, 2018
  27. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Proclamation Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States," March 22, 2018
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 The Hill, "Trump spars with GOP lawmakers on steel tariffs," February 13, 2018
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Gardner.Senate.gov, "Gardner, 35 Senate Colleagues Outline Way Forward on NAFTA," January 30, 2018
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 DeFazio.House.gov, "Rep. Peter DeFazio Introduces Resolution Outlining Principles for New Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada," accessed February 21, 2017
  32. ↑ Donald Trump, "Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter," accessed November 23, 2016
  33. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Poised to Pressure Mexico on Trade," November 21, 2016
  34. ↑ CNN Money, "Trump wants to 'speed' up NAFTA talks, calls deal a 'catastrophe'," February 1, 2017
  35. ↑ NPR, "With Billions At Stake, Trump Agrees To Mend NAFTA — Not End It," April 27, 2017
  36. ↑ Washington Post, "Trump administration formally launches NAFTA renegotiation," May 18, 2017
  37. ↑ Morningstar, "Nafta Talks Open With Spat Over How to Resolve Tariff Conflicts," August 17, 2017
  38. ↑ The Guardian, "Trump to withdraw from Trans-Pacific Partnership on first day in office," accessed November 22, 2016
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement," accessed February 9, 2017
  40. ↑ The Guardian, "Bernie Sanders supports Trump's TPP order while McCain criticizes opting out," January 23, 2017
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 ABC News, "Trump and Trade: How the President-Elect Could Tear Up TPP and Nix NAFTA," accessed November 20, 2016
  42. ↑ NAFTA Secretariat, "North American Free Trade Agreement," accessed November 22, 2016
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Vox, "We asked 6 experts if Congress could stop Trump from eliminating NAFTA," October 26, 2017
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Republicans Pose Growing Challenge to Trump’s Trade Agenda," accessed March 13, 2017
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 The Hill, "Angst in GOP over Trump's trade agenda," accessed February 21, 2017
  46. ↑ Michigan Radio, "Dingell hopes President Trump will act on re-negotiating NAFTA," accessed February 21, 2017
  47. ↑ Office of the United States Trade Representative, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership," accessed February 3, 2016
  48. ↑ Medium.com, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Preamble," accessed February 3, 2016
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 The Hill, "White House gives up on passing the TPP," accessed November 21, 2016
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 Reuters, "McConnell dashes hopes for Pacific trade deal vote before Trump takes office," accessed November 9, 2016
  51. ↑ The Washington Examiner, "Ryan: Obama's TPP would 'go down' if it came to a vote," accessed November 21, 2016
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 Politico, "Pritzker to China: More reform needed," accessed November 30, 2016
  53. ↑ The Seattle Times, "Rep. Dave Reichert thinks TPP trade deal not dead, despite Trump’s promise to dump it," accessed December 5, 2016
  54. ↑ Newsweek, "Bernie Sanders Launching Political Group Called Our Revolution," accessed November 21, 2016
  55. ↑ BernieSanders.com, "Stand with Bernie against the Trans-Pacific Partnership," accessed November 21, 2016
  56. ↑ The Hill, "Sanders urges Dems to oppose holding TPP vote," June 27, 2016
  57. ↑ Washington Post, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose," accessed May 13, 2015
  58. ↑ Morning Consult, "Warren Slams ISDS Provision in Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal," accessed November 21, 2016
  59. ↑ The Hill, "GOP senator: Trump tariffs are hurting US farmers," April 22, 2018
  60. ↑ Politico, "Rubio: China retaliation can make U.S. stronger," April 3, 2018
  61. ↑ The Hill, "GOP frustration rises with Trump on trade," December 26, 2017
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 The Hill, "Democrats seek to reclaim trade from Trump," accessed April 11, 2017
  63. ↑ Politico, "Trump pushes China currency back into the spotlight," accessed February 24, 2017
  64. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Sen. Collins sees common ground with Trump administration on trade," accessed February 23, 2017
  65. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Congress Tests Trump Officials on Trade," accessed February 17, 2017
  66. ↑ The Hill, "GOP leader declines to back Trump tariff plan," accessed December 6, 2016
v • e
115th Congress, 2017-2018, Issues
Domestic policyCongressLogo.png
Economic policy and government regulations
Foreign policy and national security


v • e
President Donald Trump's policies (first term)
OverviewsUS-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg
Domestic policy
Economic affairs and regulations
Foreign affairs and national security
Trump's second term overviews
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=115th_Congress_on_trade,_2017-2018&oldid=10186502"