International Trade
International trade arrangements have been controversial for some decades. Each international trade agreement has been preceded by a major debate about whether the benefits of reducing trading barriers outweigh the costs, particularly for American workers.
Despite the US not having made new free trade agreements with new countries in the last couple decades, US tariff rates had been steadily declining for decades to about 2% on average. This changed in 2018 when the Trump administration imposed substantially higher tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels and washing machines, as well as many Chinese imports in response to allegations that they were violating international trade rules. The Biden administration repealed the tariffs on those products, but has continued the tariffs on Chinese imports, and is planning on expanding them further.
For the first time in several decades, calls for the US to re-adopt protectionist policies by increasing tariffs on most goods have entered mainstream political debates. This was initiated by former president Donald Trump’s campaign proposal to impose 10-20 percent tariffs on imports from all countries. If enacted, this would be a violation of the US’ free trade agreements and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and would mark a historic shift in the international trade regime.
|
HAVING INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS |
|
Survey: PPC, September 2024 Respondents were asked whether they approve or disapprove of “the US, together with other countries, promoting international trade by having agreements to have low tariffs on a mutual basis and to abide by agreed-upon rules?” An overwhelming majority of 81% approved, including 74% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. This result was strikingly bipartisan, considering that more Republicans found the counter arguments convincing, than they did the arguments in favor of promoting international trade. Demographics More Details Briefing
They were asked how familiar they were with the idea of promoting international trade through such agreed-upon rules. The majority of respondents reported being familiar (very 20%, somewhat 45%), with no significant differences between Democrats and Republicans. Arguments General Economic Growth and Unequal Costs/Benefits Expanding Access to Markets and Competing with Subsidized Foreign Companies The Impact on Jobs Effect on Poverty Around the World Final Recommendation An overwhelming majority of 81% approved, including 74% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. This result was strikingly bipartisan, considering that more Republicans found the arguments against promoting international trade convincing, than they did the arguments in favor. Demographics Results in Six Swing States Results from 2019 Survey A similar survey by PPC in 2019 asked respondents a very similar proposal, but tariffs were not specifically mentioned. They were asked whether they approve of “the US, together with other countries, promoting international trade, through a set of agreed-on rules that seek to lower barriers to trade and to ensure trade is done fairly.” An overwhelming majority of 88% approved, including 84% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. Thus, approval of the US promoting international trade dropped by several percentage points from 2019 to 2024: by seven points nationally, eleven points among Republicans, and five points among Democrats. However, this change could be the result of differences in the question, specifically the fact that the 2024 survey asked about “low tariffs” while the 2019 survey asked about “lower barriers to trade”. Related Standard Polls
Until recently, the belief that international trade is good for creating jobs in the US garnered bipartisan majority support. While it still has majority support overall (58%) and among Democrats (69%), it is no longer the Republican position, with just 47% saying international trade is good for creating jobs (52% bad), down from 64% in 2018. (Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2024) When offered the option of expressing ambivalent feelings about free trade agreements, large numbers have selected that option, sometimes even a plurality. The number who express positive views have far outweighed those with negative views:
Large majorities -- bipartisan up until recently -- have supported specific free trade agreements with Europe and among the Pacific nations:
When respondents have been given the opportunity to express support for free trade agreement coupled with programs to mitigate the effects on American workers, a clear majority has favored them:
Framed as a question about protecting American jobs or creating American jobs, a large bipartisan majority has favored increasing exports over restricting imports:
However, when the question has been framed as protecting American jobs or helping US consumers, a majority has favored restrictions, with Democrats moving from divided in 2018 to a clear majority favoring some restrictions in 2024:
|
|
Survey: PPC, September 2024 Respondents were asked whether they prefer:
A bipartisan majority of 68% chose to continue to have low tariffs, including 60% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing They were then presented a proposal for deviating from that position on international trade, by having the US raise tariffs on all imports to 10-20 percent: First, they were presented a briefing on current US tariff policy: As discussed previously, the US has trade arrangements with almost all countries – through free trade agreements or through the World Trade Organization – in which each country has agreed to keep tariffs low on a mutual basis and abide by agreed-upon rules. As a result, US tariffs on imports, on average, are about 2%. Also, as discussed, when countries violate the rules the US can raise tariffs, as it has with China. The proposal was then presented in detail: A proposal has been put forward for the US to raise tariffs on imports from all countries to 10-20%. So, US businesses that import products would go from paying an average fee of 2% on imports, to paying a fee of 10-20%. This would be a violation of the trade arrangements that the US currently has with nearly all countries, including its main trading partners (Canada, Mexico and the European Union). Arguments Final Recommendation
A bipartisan majority of 68% chose to continue to have low tariffs, including 60% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats. Results in Six Swing States Related Standard Polls Standard polling has found majority or plurality support for more tariffs when no information is provided about what the current tariff rate is, and no other options are provided.
However, once respondents are given the opportunity to choose between raising, lowering or keeping tariff rates the same, support for raising tariffs drops well below half.
Further, majorities consistently say that higher tariffs not have a positive impact on the economy:
|
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents about a free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. At the time (May 2019) there was a debate about whether the US should continue to be part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was established in 1994. Asked whether they favor or oppose, “the US being in the NAFTA agreement,” 72% were in favor, including 55% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. More Details NAFTA Respondents were first reminded about the history of NAFTA: As you may recall, the US, Mexico and Canada have had a free trade agreement since 1994 called the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA. It lowered or eliminated tariffs on most products sold between the three countries, increasing the amount of trade. They were then asked whether they favored or opposed the US continuing to be in the agreement. A bipartisan majority favored it (72%), including 55% of Republicans as well as 88% of Democrats. US-Mexico-Canada Agreement Recently, the US administration negotiated some new terms for the NAFTA agreement, which was renamed the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), seeking to address some concerns. Congress is in the process of deciding whether to adopt this new agreement. Here are some of the main changes. The new agreement:
Respondents evaluated arguments for and against these changes. The arguments in favor did slightly better overall than those against. Finally, asked what their representatives in Congress should do in regard to USMCA, a bare majority of 53% said they should vote for it, including a robust 64% of Republicans. Thus, with the changes to the free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada with the UMCA legislation, Republican support grew stronger. Democrats, however, came down against the USMCA legislation, with a modest majority of 54% opposed. However the Democrats response to the pro and con arguments make it clear that their opposition to the USMCA legislation was driven by their support for greater free trade with Mexico and Canada, not opposition, and appeared to be satisfied with the existing NAFTA agreement. The argument against the USMCA based on the negative effects of free trade with Canada and Mexico was rejected by a majority, while the argument that it compromises free trade principles was found convincing by a large majority. Demographics
Related Standard Polls
But a few months later a very large majority of Democrats confirmed their support for a North American free trade agreement by effectively saying that, even with the new changes, the agreement will be good for the United States.
|
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents were asked whether they approve or disapprove of “the US continuing to be part of the World Trade Organization,” 72% approved, including a modest majority of Republicans approved (54%) and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (89%).
|
|
Survey: Deliberative Democracy Lab, 2019 Respondents were presented with the following briefing material as part of an in-person deliberation by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019: Under the Obama administration, the US negotiated two large trade agreements — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, and others) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (with the European Union). These deals would have further reduced tariffs on trade and increased protections for workers, the environment, and US intellectual property abroad. However, President Trump withdrew from these agreements before Congress could ratify them, leaving both deals in limbo. Critics of global free trade say American manufacturing jobs have been lost in these deals. Wages are lower in places like Mexico, China, India, and Vietnam, and these countries also have weaker labor and environmental standards than the US. American consumers gain, as they can purchase many foreign-made goods at much lower prices than they could if these goods were produced in the US. Some say, pointing to America’s growing trade deficits, that NAFTA and trade with China has cost millions of jobs in the US. However, others say that automation better explains America’s steady or increasing manufacturing output despite fewer manufacturing jobs. In other words, the US actually manufactures more now, but does so despite employing people. They were then presented a proposal and arguments for and against it, as follows: Proposal: The US should rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trading arrangement between 12 countries, but not China. Argument in Favor: The TPP will help encourage its members to look to the US, rather than China, for leadership on trade, worker protection, and environmental control. It will also make US goods more competitive, creating more jobs and lower prices for consumer goods. Argument Against: The TPP does more to protect big business than workers or the environment. It will encourage companies to move manufacturing out of the US. After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposals in-person. Finally, they were asked for their final recommendation. On a 0-10 scale, 74% favored the proposal (6-10), including 62% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Related Standard Poll
|
|
PROHIBITIONS ON TRADE |
|
Survey: PPC, September 2024 Respondents were asked whether they favor, “The US continuing to impose tariffs of about 20%, on average, on Chinese imports,” in response to their alleged violations of international trade rules. A bipartisan majority of 71% were in favor, with no difference between Republicans (73%) and Democrats (72%). More Details Briefing As you may know, in the 2010’s, the US alleged that China had been violating rules of international trade that China, the US, and other countries have agreed to, by:
When China did not change its practices, consistent with the terms of international trade agreements, the US significantly raised tariffs on imports from China, from an average of about 4%, to about 20%. In comparison, US tariffs on other trade partners is about 2% on average. China has responded by increasing its tariffs on US products to about 20% Arguments Final Recommendation Demographics Results in Six Swing States Related Standard Polls
Support for high tariffs on China have become significantly more bipartisan over the years, gaining support from Democrats. In 2018, when the tariffs were first put in place, “raising tariffs on products imported from China,” was supported by a bare majority of 52%, including 75% of Republicans but just 27% of Democrats (with 57% opposed). (Quinnipiac University, June 2018) The primary reason that tariffs were raised on Chinese imports, and have been kept in place trough both the Trump and Biden administrations, is allegations that Chinese companies have been stealing US intellectual property. Standard polling has found that a majority feel the US government has not gone far enough in responding to such theft:
|
|
The US routinely sells oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to companies through a bidding process, and some of these companies are directly owned or controlled by the governments of foreign adversaries, which include Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and North Korea. Members of Congress opposed to providing oil from US reserves to companies from these nations have introduced legislation to prohibit such sales. Respondents were to briefed on this issue as follows: As you may know, the US has a large reserve of oil called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At times, the U.S. government adds to it while at other times it sells some of the oil. There is a debate about who the U.S. should sell the oil to. First, here is some background information about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: In 1975, Congress passed a law that enabled the U.S. federal government to buy and hold a certain amount of oil in case events disrupt the supply of oil and could cause increases to its price. When there is such an emergency, the White House can sell oil from the reserve. It is required by law to sell at the market price to the highest bidder. But, by providing more supply to the market it helps bring the price down or prevents it from going up. When the government sells oil from the reserve, it simply sells it into the general oil market so anyone can buy it. Currently there is a debate about whether the U.S. should restrict who can purchase oil from the reserves. They were then introduced to the proposal: There is a proposal to prohibit selling oil to corporations from countries that are adversaries to the U.S. (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Cuba.) Most of these corporations are directly owned or controlled by their governments. When the U.S. has sold oil out of the reserve a small amount–a few percent– have been sold to corporations from China and a smaller amount to Russia. The arguments in favor were found convincing by bipartisan majorities, while the arguments against were found convincing by less than half.
A more narrow bill which would prohibit US oil reserves sales to China only was introduced in the Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act by Rep. McMorris (D) (H.R. 22) and Sen. Cruz (R) (S. 218). This bill passed the House 331 to 97, but has not yet been taken up by the Senate. |
|
Survey: PPC, May 2023 Respondents were asked about two proposals for blocking the sale of US land to foreign adversaries. Blocking sales of property if the purchaser is linked to a foreign adversary
In the end, a large bipartisan majority of 73% favored the proposal (Republicans 84%, Democrats 64%, independents 69%).
There is another proposal that would require the Executive Branch to review any sale of US farmland to any foreign government, person or corporation to see if it poses a national security risk. If they decide that it does, then the President would be able to stop that sale. Currently, the Executive Branch does this for large sales of US businesses. A bipartisan majority of 80% favored this proposal (Republicans 84%, Democrats 78%, independents 77%). The proposal to require the federal government to review the sale of farmland and block if purchasers are linked to foreign adversaries was introduced in the 118th Congress:
Several bills were also introduced with similar proposals. Blocking the sale of farmland to entities linked to China specifically was introduced in: the Prohibition of Agricultural Land for the People’s Republic of China Act (H.R. 809) by Rep. Newhouse (R), and This Land Is Our Land Act (S. 684) by Sen. Hawley (R). Blocking the sale of farmland if it poses any national security risk, whether or not the purchaser is linked to a foreign adversary, was introduced in the Agricultural Security Risk Review Act (H.R.3378) by Rep. Lucas (D). None of the bills have made it out of committee yet. |
|
|
Prohibit the sale of land or property if purchaser is linked to a foreign adversary |
|
Prohibit the sale of farmland to a foreign entity if it poses a national security risk |
MITIGATING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE |
|
A major aspect of the debate about international trade deals with the potential for mitigating the negative effects of trade, particularly on American workers and the environment. Proposals for mitigating such effects include having enforceable labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, increasing unemployment benefits to help American who lose their jobs as a result of trade, and working to make Americans more competitive in the global market. |
|
|
Survey: PPC International Trade, 2024 Respondents were introduced to the idea that one way to mitigate some of the negative effects of trade is to include, in international trade agreements, the requirements that countries abide by certain labor and environmental standards: One possible negative effect from international trade is that lowering trade barriers can weaken labor standards or environmental standards. There are two ways that this can occur:
To discourage these things from happening, and to generally raise labor and environmental standards, there have been efforts through the UN to establish international labor and environmental standards. The UN has held a number of conferences on these issues and most countries of the world have agreed to certain international standards. Sometimes, however, countries have signed the UN agreement and established such laws, but have not enforced them or later lowered the standards. In other cases, they have not even established the laws. As mentioned, in cases where a country is not abiding by the standards it has agreed to, they may get an advantage because it becomes cheaper to produce certain products. The US has made agreements with its major trading partners which include requirements to meet labor and environmental standards. This includes Canada, Mexico, South Korea and most Central American countries. Another major trade partner, the countries of the European Union already have high labor and environmental standards, though a couple of countries do not fully meet them. These partners cover the majority of American trade. But for other trade partners, the US does not have an agreement to meet labor and environmental standards. They were then informed, “There is some debate about whether the US should actively work to make agreements with other countries to meet labor and environmental standards, and to make them more enforceable.” |
|
Survey: PPC, September 2024 Respondents were asked whether they favor the following: The US actively working to make agreements with other countries that require they:
An overwhelming and bipartisan majority were in favor (82%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 90%). Demographics More Details: Briefing
They then heard arguments for and against the US actively working to make agreements with other countries to require that they:
Arguments Final Recommendation Results in Six Swing States Results from 2019 Survey
|
|
Survey: PPC, September 2024 Respondents were asked whether they favor: The US actively working to make agreements with other countries that require they:
A large bipartisan majority of 78% were in favor, including 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats. Demographics More Details: Briefing There have been a number of international conferences attended by UN member countries where the countries agreed to pursue certain environmental standards or goals related to such areas as air and water pollution, endangered species, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and others. Each country has agreed to bring their own laws in line with those standards or goals. They then heard arguments for and against the US actively working to make agreements with other countries to require that they:
Arguments Final Recommendation |
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 To mitigate the effects of lost jobs that can arise from international trade, respondents considered the possibility of increasing unemployment benefits. They were told how much the US spends on unemployment benefits, currently and during the Great Recession, as well as the average length that people can collect them (26 weeks), the average amount they collect (39% of earnings), and the average maximum amount that can be collected ($472 a week). They then evaluated arguments for and against increasing unemployment benefits as a way to mitigate the negative effects of increased trade. The argument in favor was found convincing by two-thirds of respondents, including a very large majority of Democrats (83%) but only half of Republicans. The counter argument was found convincing by a similar number (64%), with the partisan divide reversed: Democrats were split (50%), while a very large majority of Republicans found it convincing (81%).
|
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents were told that “the amount that a person collects varies by state. On average, people receive about 39% of their previous earnings,” and asked, “What percentage of their prior earnings do you think people should get?” Seventy-eight percent chose an amount higher than the current average earnings, including 70% of Republicans as well as 85% of Democrats. A majority (58%) recommended that unemployment recipients get 50% of their previous earnings or more, including 67% of Democrats. A majority of Republicans (53%) raised it to 45%.
Status of Legislation A proposal to increase the amount of unemployment benefits a person receives to 75% of their prior earnings was put forward in the 118th Congress in the Unemployment Insurance Modernization and Recession Readiness Act, by Rep. Don Beyer (D) (H.R. 6071) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (S. 3140). The bill has not yet left committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents were told, “As mentioned in each state there is a maximum amount a person can get. The maximum amount is on average $472 a week,” and asked, “How much do you think this maximum should be per week?” Seven-in-ten proposed an increase pas the current average, including six in ten Republicans and three-quarters of Democrats. The increase was rather modest though — a majority (65%) recommended $500 a week or more, as did majorities in both parties. Status of Legislation A proposal to increase the maximum benefit to at least two-thirds of a state’s average weekly earnings was put forward in the 118th Congress in the Unemployment Insurance Modernization and Recession Readiness Act, by Rep. Don Beyer (D) (H.R. 6071) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (S. 3140). The bill has not yet left committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents were told that “the average amount of time that an unemployed person is allowed to collect unemployment benefits is 26 weeks (or six months), and asked, “for an ordinary period, when the economy is growing and unemployment is not unusually high, what do you think the maximum number of weeks should be?” Just 28% increased the number of weeks (Republicans 15%, Democrats 39%). The largest number wanted to keep the current 26 weeks (37%), while one-third wanted to decrease the number of weeks (Republicans 49%, Democrats 21%). Status of Legislation A proposal to require that all states offer a minimum of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits was put forward in the 118th Congress in the Unemployment Insurance Modernization and Recession Readiness Act, by Rep. Don Beyer (D) (H.R. 6071) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (S. 3140). The bill has not yet left committee. |
MAKING AMERICAN WORKERS MORE COMPETITIVE IN THE GLOBAL MARKET |
|
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019
Respondents were introduced to the strategy for mitigating the effects of international trade on American workers, by investing in efforts to make American workers more competitive in the global market. Respondents were told that a proposed way to mitigate the negative effects of trade is by investing resources in:
They were informed that the federal government spends about $6 billion annually on these programs and were presented with two debates about how much responsibility the government should have for providing such programs. First Debate: Training Unemployed Workers The first debate was about how much responsibility the government has in providing job training to unemployed workers so they can find a job. Both arguments were found convincing by majorities, but the argument in favor of greater government responsibility did substantially better, with 78% finding it convincing, including majorities of Republicans and Democrats. The argument for less government responsibility was found convincing by 56%, including a majority of Republicans but a minority of Democrats.
Second Debate: Training for Skills in Demand The second debate was about how much responsibility the government has in providing education and training for skills currently in demand, or likely to be in demand in the future. Both arguments were found convincing by nearly the exact same majorities as the previous arguments, with similar partisan differences. |
|
Survey:PPC, May 2019 Respondents were provided a briefing and arguments for and against the government providing job training (see above). Respondents evaluated a proposal to “ train more Americans for skilled jobs in the growing field of cybersecurity, to protect computer systems from various types of online attacks.” Eight in ten favored this, including 90% of Democrats. Despite their tendency to reduce spending on job training 74% of Republicans favored the proposal as well. Demographics
Status of Legislation The New Collar Jobs Act (H.R. 334), sponsored by Rep. Ted Lieu (D) would increase education and job training in cybersecurity. |
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against the government providing job training (see above). Respondents then evaluated a proposal for “ increasing spending on programs to train more Americans in the energy industry.” Eighty-two percent favored this, including 93% of Democrats and once again 72% of Republicans.
Status of Legislation The proposal was in the 21st Century Energy Workforce Act (H.R. 398), sponsored by Rep. Donald Norcross (D) would increase education and job training in the energy sector. It has not made it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, May 2019 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against the government providing job training (see above). Respondents evaluated a proposal to “encourage employers to provide more job training to new and current employees,” specifically by giving, “employers a tax credit of up to $5,000 to cover the costs of training a qualified individual in an apprenticeship program.” Eighty-one percent of Republicans also favored this program (which does not entail spending). Slightly fewer independents were in favor (74%).
Demographics
Status of Legislation The Apprenticeship and Jobs Training Act (H.R. 3368), sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D) would offer tax credits to employers who provide apprenticeships -- $5,000 per apprenticeship. It has not made it out of committee. |
Pre-Deliberation Poll
Demographics
