GZERO Media logo

Biden's trade strategy

A collage of overlapping images including presidential candidate Joe Biden,  a cargo ship, the US Congress, and a climate activist holding a sign that reads "planet over profit"

If Joe Biden is elected president next month, how will he change US trade policy? It's a question with serious pocketbook implications for Americans and all US trade partners.

Trade has become more popular in the US in recent years. In 2012, when Gallup asked Americans what "trade means for the United States," respondents were evenly divided between the options "opportunity for economic growth" and "threat to the economy." The more positive view of trade has risen each year since, and when Gallup posed the same question earlier this year, "opportunity" topped "threat" by a margin of 79-18. According to Gallup, this is a point on which Republicans and Democrats agree.


This survey did not focus only on trade in the abstract. Some 80 percent of respondents told Gallup that they consider the USMCA deal, President Trump's update on NAFTA that was finalized earlier this year, to be "good for the country."

Yet, much depends on the makeup of the next Congress and its willingness to renew the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) —which allows the president to submit a trade deal to Congress for a simple up-or-down vote without the involvement of lawmakers in the deal's details— before it expires on July 1, 2021. Many Republicans will oppose anything that gives a President Biden more power, and many Democrats will insist on a say in the labor, environmental, and climate provisions of any new deals.

So, how might a President Biden approach trade?

The central question centers on China. Though Republicans favor a tougher approach, opposition to Chinese trade practices and theft of intellectual property enjoys bipartisan support, and Biden probably wouldn't move to lower the Trump tariffs quickly or without some concessions from Beijing. That said, escalation of the trade war looks unlikely as Biden tries to put the increasingly combative US-China relationship on a more constructive path.

Biden's different approach to China would also help define US trade policy toward allies. Many European and Asian governments share Washington's frustrations with China's ability to use loopholes in World Trade Organization rules to continue its policy of "state capitalism," China's system of direct state financial and political support for both state-owned and private Chinese companies that compete with foreign firms.

As part of a broader strategy to build a more united international front against China's trade practices, Biden is likely to end President Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs on Europe and to remove the threat of auto tariffs. That would offer a quick boost to Transatlantic relations.

A Biden administration would also move forward on a trade deal with post-Brexit Great Britain, but the end of TPA might delay it indefinitely. Biden is also less likely to threaten trade action against Japan, South Korea, Australia and other Pacific allies, but there are probably too many legislative obstacles for a US return to the Trans-Pacific Partnership anytime soon.

The return of Democrats to power would also mean a return to emphasis on the environmental and climate provisions of any trade deal. That's bad news for those who support a US deal with Brazil, where Jair Bolsonaro continues to enable deforestation in the Amazon.

Bottom line. There are two dominant factors that will shape the Biden trade strategy: His bid to build a more unified international front against China's state-capitalist trade practices, and the limits imposed on his negotiators if, as expected, Congress fails to extend TPA next summer.

Urbanization may radically change not only the landscape but also investors' portfolios. Creating the livable urban centers of tomorrow calls for a revolution in the way we provide homes, transport, health, education and much more.

Our expert guests will explore the future of cities and its implications for your wealth.

Learn more.

Back in 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump presented his vision for an "America First" foreign policy, which symbolized a radical departure from the US' longtime approach to international politics and diplomacy.

In electing Donald Trump, a political outsider, to the top job, American voters essentially gave him a mandate to follow through on these promises. So, has he?

Trade

"A continuing rape of our country."

On the 2016 campaign trail, candidate Trump said that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a 12 country trade deal pushed by the Obama administration — would "rape" America's economy by imperiling the manufacturing sector, closing factories, and taking more jobs overseas.

More Show less

In an op-ed titled "Iran Arms Embargo Reckoning," the Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that ending the UN arms embargo on Iran was a major flaw of the 2015 nuclear deal and questions whether Biden could do anything to contain Iran at this point. Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group's Henry Rome take out the Red Pen to explain why this discussion misrepresents the importance of the embargo and the consequences for its expiration.

So, the US presidential election is now just days away, and today's selection is focusing on a specific aspect of foreign policy that will certainly change depending on who wins in the presidential contest—namely America's approach to Iran.

You've heard me talk before about the many similarities between Trump and Biden on some international policies, like on China or on Afghanistan. But Iran is definitely not one of those. Trump hated the JCPOA, the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, put together under the Obama administration, and he walked away from it unilaterally. Joe Biden, if he were to become president, would try to bring it back.

More Show less

It almost didn't happen — but here we are again. President Donald Trump and his Democratic challenger Joe Biden face off tonight in the final presidential debate of the 2020 US election campaign.

More Show less

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, US President George W. Bush demanded that Afghanistan's Taliban government surrender Osama bin Laden and end support for al-Qaeda. The Taliban refused.

On October 7, US bombs began falling on Taliban forces. NATO allies quickly pledged support for the US, and US boots hit the ground in Afghanistan two weeks later.

Thus began a war, now the longest in US history, that has killed more than 3,500 coalition soldiers and 110,000 Afghans. It has cost the American taxpayer nearly $3 trillion. US allies have also made human and material sacrifices.

More Show less
UNGA banner

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal

Episode 6: Big cities after COVID: boom or bust?

Living Beyond Borders Podcasts