The Presidential Candidates on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
from Candidates Answer CFR's Questions
from Candidates Answer CFR's Questions

The Presidential Candidates on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

July 30, 2019 11:53 am (EST)

Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

More on:

Elections and Voting

Election 2020

CFR invited the presidential candidates challenging President Trump in the 2020 election to articulate their positions on twelve critical foreign policy issues. Candidates’ answers are posted exactly as they are received. View all questions here.

Question:

More From Our Experts

Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Joe Biden

Joe Biden Former vice president of the United States

When it comes to trade, either we're going to write the rules of the road for the world or China is – and not in a way that advances our values. That's what happened when we backed out of TPP – we put China in the driver's seat. That's not good for our national security or for our workers. TPP wasn’t perfect but the idea behind it was a good one: to unite countries around high standards for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and transparency, and use our collective weight to curb China’s excesses. Going forward, my focus will be on rallying our friends in both Asia and Europe in setting the rules of the road for the 21st century and joining us to get tough on China and its trade and technology abuses. That’s much more effective than President Trump’s so-called America First approach that in practice is America Alone, alienating our allies and undermining the power of our collective leverage. My trade policy will also start at home, by investing in strengthening our greatest asset—our middle class. I would not sign any new trade deal until we have made major investments in our workers and infrastructure. Nor would I sign a deal that does not include representatives for labor and the environment at the negotiating table and strong protections for our workers.

Read all of Joe Biden’s responses.

Withdrawn

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg Former mayor of New York City Withdrawn

The Obama administration was right to pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and President Trump was wrong to walk away from the deal. The pact as negotiated certainly had flaws, but under U.S. leadership these problems could have been fixed. By withdrawing from an agreement with 11 countries – nations that account for more than 40% of U.S. exports – the current administration has undermined America’s competitiveness, diminished its broader influence in the region and squandered an opportunity to lead the world toward a new global standard for trade rules. 

More From Our Experts

As president, I will commit to bring the U.S. into a new and improved TPP that, among other things, would do more to protect American intellectual property, enforce tougher labor and environmental standards in the other member countries, and provide clear benefits for American workers. The ultimate goal of any trade deal is to improve the U.S. economy and the incomes of Americans. President Trump’s tariff war with China has instead cost American farmers and workers billions, without altering unfair Chinese trade practices. As a condition of joining, I’d insist on strong new measures to protect workers from the costs of economic disruption, whether caused by trade, automation or other kinds of innovation. These would include not just a bigger and more effective Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, but a range of new development initiatives to support affected workers and their communities, encompassing investment incentives, place-based wage subsidies, help with training and retraining, and more. 

A U.S.-led TPP would force China to raise its own standards to avoid being left out and put at a disadvantage. This shift would do more to protect American workers and farmers than bluster and tariffs. 

Read all of Michael Bloomberg’s responses.

Cory Booker

Cory Booker Senator, New JerseyWithdrawn

I voted against fast-track authority and opposed the TPP because it put large corporations before workers, and would have led to the further decline of U.S. manufacturing. I will only support a trade deal that, at its core, is focused on advancing the American worker and working families--creating jobs, lifting wages, and boosting environmental standards. 

Read all of Cory Booker’s responses.

Steve Bullock

Steve Bullock Governor of Montana Withdrawn

I will not sign any free trade agreement that doesn’t require high labor standards, leverage improved environmental conservation, and that isn’t accompanied by significant efforts to ensure that American workers are not left behind. By those standards, I would not have entered the TPP as it was originally written. If the agreement were improved, I would consider joining the CPTPP under the right circumstances. Before joining the CPTPP, I would seek enforceable environmental and labor standards. Additionally, joining an effective CPTPP has the potential to be an important element of a comprehensive U.S. strategy for pushing back against growing Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region and globally.

Read all of Steve Bullock’s responses.

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg Former mayor of South Bend, Indiana Withdrawn

I would not support the US joining the current CPTPP. It lacks critical trade provisions on labor, environment, and the digital economy, and does not align closely enough with the needs and interests of American workers. We must address failures in delivering on the social compact here at home. For too long, Washington sold trade deal after trade deal with the promise that a rising tide would lift all boats. It hasn’t — in part because it wasn’t accompanied by investment here at home — and Washington failed those left behind.

A lot of Americans just don’t trust the government to negotiate trade deals in their best interest. We need an honest national discussion about trade. Our work must begin at home. At the same time, we should not surrender the world’s fastest growing markets in Asia to other nations. It is where China wants to dominate and is buying influence through their Belt and Road initiative. China is negotiating broad new trade agreements with their neighbors that favor China’s economy and workers. These agreements also enshrine non-democratic principles at the expense of the US and free people. Sitting on the sidelines is a losing proposition for America.

We cannot just put up walls around our economy. We need to be setting the rules of the road for the future, so that strategic and economic competition with China happens on our terms.

Read all of Pete Buttigieg’s responses.

Julian Castro

Julian Castro Former secretary of housing and urban developmentWithdrawn

The United States must lead in writing the rules for global trade for American workers and American businesses to be the biggest winners. Trump’s erratic trade wars, with no end in sight, has cost American families up to $1000 this year in taxes and increased consumer costs across the board. I am not summarily opposed to trade deals, but we must learn from the lessons of agreements that have been signed.

Trade deals have too often centered the interests of corporations over workers and profits over people. I believe any new trade deal must empower working people, the poor, and other historically marginalized groups not just in the United States but also in partner countries to improve livelihoods. That includes standards for independent organized labor, technical assistance for workers to unionize, and robust monitoring to ensure equally enforceable agreements. I would only negotiate trade agreements that have enforceable labor standards that raise wages and promote organized labor in our partner countries. These agreements must have meaningful and extensive input from the labor unions in the United States from the beginning through initiation, negotiation, implementation, and sustainment of an agreement. 

Trade agreements will also be a powerful tool to use the allure of the United States market to further our climate goals. My first official action as President will be to recommit the United States to the Paris Climate agreement. I believe trade agreements should require a commitment to meeting goals  nder the Paris Climate agreement and follow-up agreements that the United States needs to negotiate to reach net-zero globally by 2050.

This approach uses our economic leverage to ensure binding labor and climate commitments while advancing America’s workers and improving the lives of millions of working families across the world.

Read all of Julian Castro’s responses.

John Delaney

John Delaney Former representative, MarylandWithdrawn

I would seek to reenter the TPP on day one of my administration. In response to the emergence of China as a dominant economic power on the international stage – which does not always adhere to accepted trade and economic norms and rules – 12 leading Pacific Rim countries reached agreement on a set of protocols for a rules-based trade deal covering 40% of the global economy to counter Chinese economic misconduct. I was one of a handful of Democrats who voted in favor of Trade Promotion Authority to give President Obama the ability to effectively negotiate TPP because I felt we needed a strong strategic response to China. I believed that the United States alone could not stand against China, that it would take a multilateral and strategic effort to counter China. The Trump Administration has abandoned this approach in favor of a trade war with China, a trade war that has had a serious negative impact on hard working Americans and several sectors of the United States economy.

Read all of John Delaney’s responses.

Kirsten Gillibrand

Kirsten Gillibrand Senator, New York Withdrawn

I opposed TPP because I do not believe it was good for American workers or American families. Any new agreement would need to: 

● Bring our allies to the table to hold China accountable for their cheating. China’s currency manipulation, dumping of steel, and stealing of intellectual property threaten the economy and security for free countries all around the world. 

● Prioritize American workers and not corporate interests by creating a new independent national worker dispute board, so that we don't agree to another trade deal that leaves workers holding the bag.

● Raise worldwide standards on the environment, using it as a way to tackle global climate change.

● Ensure the right to collectively bargain, both at home and abroad, because sham unions abroad and Right to Work at home both contribute to the culture of greed and profits that create massive income inequality.

Read all of Kirsten Gillibrand’s responses.

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris Senator, California Withdrawn

As I’ve long said, I will oppose any trade deal that doesn't look out for the best interests of American workers and raise environmental standards, and unfortunately the TPP didn’t pass either test. I also raised concerns at the time about the lack of transparency in the process.
 
In my administration, labor and civil society groups will always have a seat at the table to ensure that trade agreements do achieve these important objectives. And I think that’s exactly what we need – pro-labor, pro-environment trade deals – because it’s clear Donald Trump’s protectionist approach has been a disaster. His trade war is crushing American farmers, killing American jobs, and punishing American consumers.  I would work with our allies in Europe and Asia to confront China on its troubling trade practices, not perpetuate Trump’s failing tariff war that is being paid for by hard-working Americans. 

Read all of Kamala Harris's responses.

Seth Moulton

Seth Moulton Representative, Massachusetts Withdrawn

Under Trump, we’ve seen what happens when the United States doesn’t lead in these multilateral efforts: China steps in and tries to remake the world in their autocratic, illiberal image. For that reason and more, my administration would re-engage in the TPP negotiations, focusing on strengthening labor and environmental standards. The goal must be to conclude a strong, fair trade deal for the Pacific on our terms, not China’s.

Read all of Seth Moulton’s responses.

Beto O’Rourke

Beto O’Rourke Former representative, TexasWithdrawn

The United States should only enter trade agreements that benefit American workers and consumers. As President, I will not support joining the CPTPP unless we are able to negotiate substantial improvements to protect workers, the environment, and human rights.  I will also demand that any agreement include effective enforcement mechanisms.

Read all of Beto O'Rourke responses.

Deval Patrick

Deval Patrick Former governor, Massachusetts Withdrawn

Our decision not to enter the TPP undermined the critical strategic goal of creating an economic, security and diplomatic counterweight to China in the Asia-Pacific region and throughout the world.  As a progressive Democrat, I supported the TPP because I was—and remain—convinced that it would raise wages, create jobs, protect the environment, and empower workers at home and abroad.  The reduction in regulations and tariffs on small businesses was a particular benefit.  The countries that joined the CPTPP are already reaping the benefits of those protections.  Leading economists have predicted that, by not signing the TPP, the United States has not only lost the economic benefits of closer, more constructive trading partnerships but is now worse off than it was before by continuing to trade outside that framework.

My administration will seek to reclaim these benefits by joining and negotiating to improve the existing trade partnership.  The CPTPP lacks some of the critical features of the TPP, such as protections for intellectual property and avenues for investors to bring disputes against foreign governments.  We will seek to reestablish these protections as well as others that will protect American workers, such as improved labor standards.

The United States must use our substantial leverage in trade negotiations as the world’s largest economy to build alternative, more constructive trade partnerships in the Pacific rim as China expands its trading influence across the same region. We will seek to achieve this goal and substantial gains for American workers in a renewed agreement.

Read all of Deval Patrick’s responses.

Tim Ryan

Tim Ryan Representative, Ohio Withdrawn

I have spent my entire career fighting bad trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP. I am currently opposed to the CPTPP because it has been negotiated under the cover of darkness, it does nothing to protect American workers or lift the standards of workers abroad and further erodes sovereign protections that countries have to hold companies accountable for bad actions abroad. I simply couldn’t support a trade deal that does this much damage.

Read all of Tim Ryan’s responses.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Senator, Vermont Withdrawn

Under no circumstance would we rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership under a Sanders Administration. I helped lead the effort against this disastrous unfettered trade agreement.  The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories.

Re-joining the TPP would not bring back one American job that has been outsourced to China. Instead, it would force more American workers to compete with desperate workers in Vietnam who make less than a dollar an hour and migrant computer workers in Malaysia who are working as modern-day slaves. It is bad enough to force U.S. workers to compete with low-wage labor; they should not be forced to compete with no-wage labor.

We need to fundamentally rewrite our trade policies to benefit American workers, not just the CEOs of large, multi-national corporations. Rejoining the TPP would be a betrayal of American workers and a step in the wrong direction.

Read all of Bernie Sanders’s responses.

Joe Sestak

Joe Sestak Former representative, PennsylvaniaWithdrawn

I believe we lost an important opportunity to shape the future of global trade when we withdrew our involvement from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While that trade agreement was far from perfect, it gave us the chance to set the rules of engagement across a critically important region, home to some of the world’s most dynamic, influential, and rapidly changing countries – and within a framework that does not include China. We need to set the standards of fair trade in the region where China has none, and our withdrawal sent a worrying signal to our regional friends and allies that we are not interested in continuing our strong traditional relationship, nor in expanding our political engagement with them. In the absence of US global leadership, China will inevitably fill the vacuum. We should have addressed some issues in the CPTPP – such as the expanded monopoly protections for the pharmaceutical industry that were in it, against the interests of consumers. As President, I will seek to reaffirm our commitment to the Asia Pacific region by re-joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership while improving the agreement to ensure that it serves our people, not merely our corporations (including in arenas as intellectual property, data privacy protections, and environmental standards). I will make certain that all future trade agreements and trade policy decisions are made principally for the benefit of the American people. This is not just a trade issue: it is a serious geo-political issue. We need to commit ourselves to positive engagement with the countries of the Asia Pacific region, which is the most strategically important area in the 21st century for America.

Read all of Joe Sestak’s responses.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Senator, Massachusetts Withdrawn

Our relationships in Asia are essential for U.S. national security and prosperity, and the countries at the heart of the CPTPP are some of America’s closest allies and best partners. My administration will be committed to working with them. 

But I have made clear that I will not enter into new trade agreements unless and until our potential partners meet certain preconditions that match our values and our policy goals - including combating climate change, respecting basic labor standards, and cracking down on tax evasion. I strongly opposed TPP because I thought it was a bad deal for American workers. As president, I will make sure that any new trade agreement we enter sets strong standards and prioritizes working families instead of the interests of giant multinational corporations with no particular allegiance or loyalty to America.  

President Trump’s recent trade war escalations are doing real harm to American consumers and farmers. We need a serious, coherent trade strategy that tackles the challenge of China’s commercial behavior and protects American workers and farmers. Instead of alienating our allies and others who share our concerns, my administration will work with those countries to use America’s leverage and all of the tools at our disposal to invest in workers, curtail the power of multinational monopolies, and raise standards across the globe.

Read all of Elizabeth Warren’s responses.

Bill Weld

Bill Weld Former governor, MassachusettsWithdrawn

I stand for free trade. Withdrawing from TPP, like ripping up NAFTA, was a huge mistake by the President. As Benjamin Franklin said, Americans are traders and never went broke from engaging in international trade. Every U.S. governor knows international trade means more and better jobs for Americans. We therefore should rejoin TPP, now CPTPP. In addition, of course, there is an important strategic reason for doing so: a 12-nation beachhead in Asia without China at the table. (During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump was seemingly unaware that China was not to be a member of TPP.)

Read all of Bill Weld’s responses.

Marianne Williamson

Marianne Williamson AuthorWithdrawn

The TPP would need greater protections for workers and the environment for me to support it.

Read all of Marianne Williamson’s responses.

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang Entrepreneur Withdrawn

Trade deals have inarguably hurt a large number of Americans. By outsourcing American jobs - particularly manufacturing jobs to China - we’ve devastated communities and placed large amounts of financial stress on families.

However, studies show that only 20% of manufacturing job loss is due to trade with China. The other 80% can be attributed to automation. While we need to take steps to ensure that our trade deals work for all Americans, automation is the bigger threat.

I would reenter the TPP in conjunction with policies to ensure the benefits are widely shared, like a VAT, border-adjustment tax, and the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income of $1,000/month for all American adults.

We need to increase our influence and alliances across the Pacific, so I believe we need to either enter the TPP, or negotiate a similar deal to combat the rising influence of China in the region. We should take this opportunity to renegotiate labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property and data protection, specifically in the tech sector.

Read all of Andrew Yang’s responses.

 

This project was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.

     

    More on:

    Elections and Voting

    Election 2020

    Creative Commons
    Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
    Close
    This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
    View License Detail
    Close

    Top Stories on CFR

    Iran

    Despite the impressive advances in airpower since the 1950s—like the precision-guided munitions employed in Saturday’s attack—there is only so much airstrikes can accomplish. 

    Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    Sign up to receive CFR President Mike Froman’s analysis on the most important foreign policy story of the week, delivered to your inbox every Friday afternoon. Subscribe to The World This Week. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in what could be the most consequential conflict in the region since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CFR’s experts continue to cover all aspects of the evolving conflict on CFR.org. While the situation evolves, including the potential for direct U.S. involvement, it is worth touching on another recent development in the region which could have far-reaching consequences: the diffusion of cutting-edge U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) technology to leading Gulf powers. The defining feature of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is his willingness to question and, in many cases, reject the prevailing consensus on matters ranging from European security to trade. His approach to AI policy is no exception. Less than six months into his second term, Trump is set to fundamentally rewrite the United States’ international AI strategy in ways that could influence the balance of global power for decades to come. In February, at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance delivered a rousing speech at the Grand Palais, and made it clear that the Trump administration planned to abandon the Biden administration’s safety-centric approach to AI governance in favor of a laissez-faire regulatory regime. “The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance said. “It will be won by building—from reliable power plants to the manufacturing facilities that can produce the chips of the future.” And as Trump’s AI czar David Sacks put it, “Washington wants to control things, the bureaucracy wants to control things. That’s not a winning formula for technology development. We’ve got to let the private sector cook.” The accelerationist thrust of Vance and Sacks’s remarks is manifesting on a global scale. Last month, during Trump’s tour of the Middle East, the United States announced a series of deals to permit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia to import huge quantities (potentially over one million units) of advanced AI chips to be housed in massive new data centers that will serve U.S. and Gulf AI firms that are training and operating cutting-edge models. These imports were made possible by the Trump administration’s decision to scrap a Biden administration executive order that capped chip exports to geopolitical swing states in the Gulf and beyond, and which represents the most significant proliferation of AI capabilities outside the United States and China to date. The recipe for building and operating cutting-edge AI models has a few key raw ingredients: training data, algorithms (the governing logic of AI models like ChatGPT), advanced chips like Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) or Tensor Processing Units (TPUs)—and massive, power-hungry data centers filled with advanced chips.  Today, the United States maintains a monopoly of only one of these inputs: advanced semiconductors, and more specifically, the design of advanced semiconductors—a field in which U.S. tech giants like Nvidia and AMD, remain far ahead of their global competitors. To weaponize this chokepoint, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration placed a series of ever-stricter export controls on the sale of advanced U.S.-designed AI chips to countries of concern, including China.  The semiconductor export control regime culminated in the final days of the Biden administration with the rollout of the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion, more commonly known as the AI diffusion rule—a comprehensive global framework for limiting the proliferation of advanced semiconductors. The rule sorted the world into three camps. Tier 1 countries, including core U.S. allies such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, were exempt from restrictions, whereas tier 3 countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, were subject to the extremely stringent controls. The core controversy of the diffusion rule stemmed from the tier 2 bucket, which included some 150 countries including India, Mexico, Israel, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Many tier 2 states, particularly Gulf powers with deep economic and military ties to the United States, were furious.  The rule wasn’t just a matter of how many chips could be imported and by whom. It refashioned how the United States could steer the distribution of computing resources, including the regulation and real-time monitoring of their deployment abroad and the terms by which the technologies can be shared with third parties. Proponents of the restrictions pointed to the need to limit geopolitical swing states’ access to leading AI capabilities and to prevent Chinese, Russian, and other adversarial actors from accessing powerful AI chips by contracting cloud service providers in these swing states.  However, critics of the rule, including leading AI model developers and cloud service providers, claimed that the constraints would stifle U.S. innovation and incentivize tier 2 countries to adopt Chinese AI infrastructure. Moreover, critics argued that with domestic capital expenditures on AI development and infrastructure running into the hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025 alone, fresh capital and scale-up opportunities in the Gulf and beyond represented the most viable option for expanding the U.S. AI ecosystem. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real time. In May, the Trump administration killed the diffusion rule, days before it would have been set into motion, in part to facilitate the export of these cutting-edge chips abroad to the Gulf powers. This represents a fundamental pivot for AI policy, but potentially also in the logic of U.S. grand strategy vis-à-vis China. The most recent era of great power competition, the Cold War, was fundamentally bipolar and the United States leaned heavily on the principle of non-proliferation, particularly in the nuclear domain, to limit the possibility of new entrants. We are now playing by a new set of rules where the diffusion of U.S. technology—and an effort to box out Chinese technology—is of paramount importance. Perhaps maintaining and expanding the United States’ global market share in key AI chokepoint technologies will deny China the scale it needs to outcompete the United States—but it also introduces the risk of U.S. chips falling into the wrong hands via transhipment, smuggling, and other means, or being co-opted by authoritarian regimes for malign purposes.  Such risks are not illusory: there is already ample evidence of Chinese firms using shell entities to access leading-edge U.S. chips through cloud service providers in Southeast Asia. And Chinese firms, including Huawei, were important vendors for leading Gulf AI firms, including the UAE’s G-42, until the U.S. government forced the firm to divest its Chinese hardware as a condition for receiving a strategic investment from Microsoft in 2024. In the United States, the ability to build new data centers is severely constrained by complex permitting processes and limited capacity to bring new power to the grid. What the Gulf countries lack in terms of semiconductor prowess and AI talent, they make up for with abundant capital, energy, and accommodating regulations. The Gulf countries are well-positioned for massive AI infrastructure buildouts. The question is simply, using whose technology—American or Chinese—and on what terms? In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it will be American technology for now. The question remains whether the diffusion of the most powerful dual-use technologies of our day will bind foreign users to the United States and what impact it will have on the global balance of power.  We welcome your feedback on this column. Let me know what foreign policy issues you’d like me to address next by replying to [email protected].

    RealEcon

    The Global Fragility Act (GFA) serves as a blueprint for smart U.S. funding to prevent and end conflict, and bipartisan congressional leaders advocate reauthorization of the 2019 law.