Policy Document Series · Issue 14 of 35 · Economy & Work
Trade Policy
& Tariffs
Fix the Policy, Not the Trade

Trade generated $2.6 trillion in aggregate gains — while destroying 2–2.4 million jobs in communities that never recovered. Blanket tariffs save jobs at $900,000 each and lost 59,000 manufacturing jobs since 2025. The answer is strategic tariffs paired with investment, enforceable standards, and real worker adjustment — not a tax on American consumers.

2.4M Jobs lost to the China Shock — communities still depressed 20 years later
$900K Cost per steel job "saved" by blanket tariffs — 13× the average salary
$1,800 Annual cost per household from 2025 "Liberation Day" tariffs
~10% Of displaced workers Trade Adjustment Assistance ever reached
Contents
Section 01

Executive Summary

Trade liberalization generated $2.6 trillion per year in aggregate gains — but corporate profits' GDP share rose from 8% to 15.85% while workers' compensation share fell from 66.6% to 61.9%. The China Shock destroyed 2–2.4 million jobs in communities that still had not recovered nearly two decades later. Trade Adjustment Assistance reached only ~10% of displaced workers and replaced ~27% of wages.

Blanket Tariffs — What Fails
A consumption tax on the poor
  • $900K cost per steel job "saved"
  • 59,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2025
  • $1,800/year per household
  • 2.5× burden on lowest income decile
  • Imports reroute — deficit unchanged
Strategic Tariffs + Investment — What Works
Targeted, paired, sunset-claused
  • Semiconductors, batteries, defense materials
  • Paired with domestic manufacturing investment
  • 5-year sunset with mandatory review
  • Revenue to worker transition and industrial policy
  • CHIPS Act: $1 public → $4–6 private investment

Nine pillars: strategic tariffs paired with investment, enforceable labor and environmental standards with Rapid Response Mechanisms in every agreement, a US Carbon Border Adjustment, the end of ISDS corporate tribunals, a $500 billion American Industrial Renaissance Act, real trade adjustment at 80% wage replacement, Buy American with teeth, currency manipulation enforcement, and supply chain transparency.

Section 02

The Problem

American trade policy spent 40 years answering "good for whom?" with "good for shareholders." The aggregate gains were real. The distribution was catastrophic.

The China Shock: permanent damage to American communities. When Congress granted China Permanent Normal Trade Relations in 2000, China's share of world manufacturing exports surged from 5% to 15% in a decade. Through at least 2019 — nearly two decades after the shock — affected communities still had persistently lower employment, lower wages, higher poverty, higher drug and alcohol mortality, and declining public services. Government transfers offset only about 10 cents on the dollar of earnings losses. SSDI payments in affected regions were 30× larger than Trade Adjustment Assistance — the government's primary response was to put displaced workers on disability, not retrain them.

Jobs Lost Scope Source
982,000 Manufacturing (2000–2007) Autor, Dorn & Hanson (2013)
2.0–2.4M Total including spillover effects Acemoglu et al. (2016)
3.7M Manufacturing (1999–2017) Economic Policy Institute

Blanket tariffs are not the corrective — they are a separate failure. Steel tariffs (2018) saved approximately 8,700–12,700 jobs at a cost of $900,000 per job per year — 13× the average steelworker salary. Downstream manufacturers paid $5.6 billion more in input costs, and downstream job losses (~75,000) far exceeded jobs saved. Section 301 China tariffs created no measurable manufacturing job growth — imports simply shifted to Vietnam and Mexico. The 2025 "Liberation Day" tariffs: apparel prices up 17%, food prices up 2.8%, average household paying $1,800/year more. The bottom income decile bears 2.5× the burden as a share of income compared to the top decile.

The trade deficit reflects structural problems blanket tariffs cannot fix. The US goods trade deficit hit a record $1.21 trillion in 2024. Growing trade deficits explain 59% of manufacturing job losses since 1998. The deficit reflects the dollar's role as global reserve currency, domestic underinvestment in manufacturing, and corporate offshoring incentivized by the tax code. Tariffs address none of these.

Sources: Autor, Dorn & Hanson · Acemoglu et al. · EPI — China Trade Deficit Jobs · Brookings — Persistence of China Shock · Peterson Institute — Steel Tariff Costs · Yale Budget Lab — Liberation Day Tariffs

Section 03

How We Got Here

The story of American trade policy is a story of promises made to workers and kept for shareholders. Each major trade agreement expanded corporate flexibility while the safety net for displaced workers remained a cruel joke. The timeline reveals a consistent pattern: bipartisan elite consensus, worker devastation, inadequate adjustment, and political backlash.

1947
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
Twenty-three nations signed GATT, establishing the multilateral framework for trade liberalization. Average US tariffs fell from ~40% to ~5% over the next five decades. The original GATT framework included no labor or environmental standards — the omission that would define the next 75 years of trade politics (WTO, History of the Multilateral Trading System).
1993–1994
NAFTA: The Original Betrayal
Sold by both parties as a job creator — President Clinton promised 200,000 new American jobs. The US-Mexico goods trade balance went from a $1.7 billion surplus in 1993 to a deficit exceeding $100 billion by 2024. EPI estimates NAFTA displaced 700,000-850,000 US jobs. US autoworker wages fell 26% from 2002-2013, driven partly by the "threat effect" — employers' credible ability to threaten relocation to Mexico. The labor side agreement produced zero meaningful sanctions in 25 years across 40 complaints. NAFTA devastated Mexico too: 4.9 million Mexican family farmers displaced by subsidized US corn imports, driving the migration NAFTA's proponents said it would reduce (Census Bureau; EPI; CEPR, NAFTA at 20, 2014).
2000
China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
Congress granted China PNTR by a vote of 237-197 in the House and 83-15 in the Senate, paving the way for WTO accession in 2001. The bipartisan consensus held that trade integration would liberalize China politically. It did not. China's share of world manufacturing exports surged from 5% to 15% in a decade. The resulting "China Shock" destroyed 2.0-2.4 million American jobs in communities that through at least 2019 — nearly two decades later — still had persistently lower employment, lower wages, higher poverty, higher drug and alcohol mortality, and declining public services (Autor, Dorn & Hanson, 2013; Acemoglu et al., 2016; Brookings, Persistence of the China Shock, 2021).
2005
CAFTA-DR
The Central American Free Trade Agreement passed the House by a single vote (217-215) at 12:03 AM. The agreement included labor provisions that were nominally stronger than NAFTA's but proved equally unenforceable — zero sanctions were applied for labor violations during the agreement's first 15 years. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador saw minimal wage growth while US textile jobs continued to migrate south (USTR, CAFTA-DR Implementation Reports; GAO, Free Trade Agreements, 2014).
2016
TPP Withdrawal
Both major-party presidential candidates opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the trade backlash had arrived. The TPP would have created a 12-nation trading bloc covering 40% of global GDP, with labor and environmental standards stronger than any previous agreement. President Trump withdrew on his first day. The remaining 11 nations proceeded without the US as the CPTPP, giving Japan, Australia, and others a framework the US now has no voice in shaping (USTR, TPP text; CPTPP Secretariat).
2018–2020
China Trade War: Blanket Tariffs
Section 301 tariffs applied 7.5-25% rates on approximately $370 billion in Chinese goods. China retaliated on $110 billion in US exports. Steel tariffs "saved" 8,700-12,700 jobs at $900,000 each — 13x the average steelworker salary — while downstream manufacturers paid $5.6 billion more in input costs and lost ~75,000 jobs. Section 301 tariffs produced no measurable manufacturing job growth; imports simply shifted to Vietnam and Mexico. Agriculture exports collapsed, requiring $12B in emergency farmer bailouts (Peterson Institute; Federal Reserve Board; Yale Budget Lab).
2020
USMCA Replaces NAFTA
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement included the breakthrough Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) — facility-level labor enforcement with tariff snapback for violations. In its first years of operation, the RRM resolved 32+ cases and helped 42,000+ workers secure better wages and free union elections, with an average resolution time of 45 days. This proved that enforceable labor standards are achievable — NAFTA's 25 years of nothing was a policy choice, not an inevitability (USTR, USMCA Rapid Response Mechanism Reports, 2024).
2022
CHIPS Act & Inflation Reduction Act
Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act ($280B, including $52B for semiconductor manufacturing) and the Inflation Reduction Act ($369B in clean energy investment). Together they represented the largest industrial policy commitment since the Interstate Highway System. The CHIPS Act catalyzed $600B+ in private investment; the IRA drove $422B in clean energy investment and 400,000+ jobs. The model — targeted investment paired with domestic content requirements — proved that government-led industrial strategy works (CHIPS.gov; E2 Clean Jobs America, 2024).
2025
"Liberation Day" Tariffs
Sweeping new tariffs raised the effective US tariff rate to levels not seen since the 1930s Smoot-Hawley era. Apparel prices rose 17%, food prices rose 2.8%, and the average household paid $1,800/year more. The bottom income decile bore 2.5x the burden as a share of income compared to the top decile. Manufacturing lost 59,000 jobs in the six months following implementation. The trade deficit did not shrink (Yale Budget Lab, Fiscal and Economic Effects of the April 2 Tariff Announcement, 2025).

The through-line: ISDS gave corporations the right to sue governments for passing public health and environmental laws — Philip Morris sued Australia over tobacco packaging ($35M to defend), Vattenfall extracted €1.6B from Germany for phasing out nuclear. International relocation to lower-wage countries explains 20-40% of the rise in US inequality from 1996-2017. And Trade Adjustment Assistance — the government's supposed response — reached only ~10% of displaced workers with an average training voucher of $2,000 and a negative net social benefit. Workers whose communities were permanently destroyed received, in essence, nothing (IMF, Offshoring and Inequality, 2021; Mathematica, TAA Evaluation, 2012; UNCTAD, ISDS Database).

Sources: WTO — History of the Trading System · Census Bureau — US-Mexico Trade Balance · EPI — NAFTA Job Displacement · CEPR — NAFTA 20 Years · Autor, Dorn & Hanson (2013) · Brookings — China Shock Persistence · USTR — USMCA RRM · CHIPS.gov · Yale Budget Lab — Liberation Day Tariffs · IMF — Offshoring and Inequality

Section 04

What Other Countries Do

Every successful trading nation combines openness with conditions: enforceable standards, industrial investment, and real worker support. The US is the outlier — open trade without the domestic infrastructure to manage its consequences.

The EU: trade with conditions. Since 2009, every EU trade agreement includes Trade and Sustainable Development chapters requiring partners to uphold ILO core labor standards and environmental protections. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, fully operational from 2026, requires importers of carbon-intensive goods to purchase carbon certificates. On ISDS, the EU is replacing investor-state arbitration with a permanent Multilateral Investment Court — permanent judges, appeals, and preserved right to regulate.

The Nordic model proves that trade openness and high wages are not in conflict — the key is investing in workers when trade disrupts them:

Country ALMP Spending (% GDP) Unemployment Benefit Rate
Denmark 2.0%+ 90% of prior salary for up to 2 years
Sweden 1.5% 80% for the first 200 days
Norway 0.7% 62.4% for up to 2 years
United States 0.1% ~27% of prior wages for avg. 26 weeks

Industrial policy is not a distortion — it is how every advanced economy was built:

Germany
Fraunhofer institutes, KfW development bank, dual apprenticeship system
17.8% manufacturing share of GDP vs. US 10–11%
South Korea
HCI drive, targeted industrial protection, state-directed credit
22–31% higher welfare from industrial policy (Lane, 2021)
Taiwan
ITRI research institute → TSMC; 50 years of consistent semiconductor strategy
90%+ of advanced chip production — the world's most critical supply chain
United States
DARPA, Interstate Highways, Apollo, SEMATECH, CHIPS Act + IRA
$600B+ in private investment catalyzed by CHIPS Act alone

"The free market built America" is fiction. DARPA funded the internet, GPS, and voice recognition. SEMATECH rescued the semiconductor industry. The Interstate Highway System was the largest infrastructure investment in history. Every advanced economy was built with industrial policy. The only question is whether it is done transparently, with accountability and sunset clauses.

EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

The EU's CBAM, fully operational from January 2026, is the most significant climate-trade instrument in history and the model for the CGP's proposed US carbon border adjustment:

CPTPP: The Agreement the US Walked Away From

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) includes 11 nations representing 13.4% of global GDP. After the US withdrew from the TPP in 2017, the remaining members preserved 95% of the original agreement:

UK Post-Brexit Trade Strategy

The UK's post-Brexit trade experiment offers cautionary lessons about trade agreements without adequate worker protections:

South Korea: The FTA Strategy that Works

South Korea has executed the most aggressive FTA strategy of any major economy — and paired it with industrial policy that ensured domestic industries could compete:

Sources: OECD Employment Outlook · Lane — Manufacturing Revolutions (2021) · European Commission CBAM · CHIPS.gov · UK CBAM Consultation · CPTPP Official Text · Peterson Institute — TPP Withdrawal · Korean Ministry of Trade

Section 05

Our Policy — Nine Pillars

Pillar 1 Strategic Tariffs — Targeted, Temporary, Paired with Investment
CHIPS Act + IRA model: targeted protection + domestic investment · blanket tariffs failed: no manufacturing job growth from Section 301
  • Maintain tariffs on critical sectors only — each paired with matching domestic manufacturing investment and a 5-year sunset. Specific rate schedule:
Sector Rate Paired Investment Snap-Back / Sunset
Semiconductors & advanced chips 25% CHIPS Act full funding ($52B) + $20B follow-on R&D Review at Year 5: if domestic fab capacity reaches 20% of global advanced nodes, reduce to 15%. If not, maintain and increase investment.
Advanced batteries & battery materials 25% IRA 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit extended 10 years Phase to 15% by Year 5 if domestic cell production exceeds 500 GWh/year (current: ~150 GWh). Snap-back to 25% if production targets missed.
Clean energy tech (solar panels, EVs) 25% (from current 50-100%) IRA domestic content incentives + Renaissance Act clean energy manufacturing Phase to 10% by Year 5 as domestic capacity scales. Current 100% EV / 50% solar rates are punitive and slow the clean energy transition. Snap-back if domestic capacity targets not met.
Defense-grade steel & aluminum 25% steel / 10% aluminum Defense industrial base investment (Issue 9) Limited to defense specifications only. Commercial-grade steel/aluminum tariffs eliminated — downstream manufacturers lost ~75,000 jobs under blanket steel tariffs (Federal Reserve, 2019).
Pharmaceutical APIs 15% → 25% over 3 years Renaissance Act domestic API manufacturing investment China supplies ~40% of US generic drug APIs. Tariff ramps to allow adjustment while domestic capacity builds. FDA fast-track approval for domestic API facilities.
AI hardware (military-applicable GPUs) 50% Export control alignment with Chip 4 allies Coordinate with Japan, Netherlands, South Korea. GPU clusters above threshold capabilities restricted via multilateral controls (BIS Advanced Computing Rule, October 2023).
Critical minerals & rare earths 25% Strategic reserve expansion + Quad Critical Minerals Initiative China controls ~60% mining, ~90% processing. Tariff funds allied diversification. Review when non-China processing reaches 40% of US consumption.
Consumer goods (clothing, electronics, household) 0% — ELIMINATED N/A — these tariffs serve no strategic purpose Blanket consumer tariffs cost the average household $1,800/year with bottom-decile families bearing 2.5x the burden. Elimination is immediate.
  • Universal snap-back provision: Every tariff reduction includes an automatic snap-back clause. If domestic production targets are not met within the sunset period, the tariff reverts to its original level and investment is increased. Tariff reductions are earned by actual capacity growth — not promised by lobbyists.
  • 5-year sunset clause on every tariff with mandatory review: An independent commission (modeled on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission) evaluates each tariff against three criteria: (1) did domestic capacity grow? (2) did the paired investment catalyze private sector activity? (3) is the tariff still necessary for national security? If all three answers are "no," the tariff is automatically eliminated. Congress gets an up-or-down vote, no amendments.
  • Tariff revenue dedicated to worker transition and industrial investment — not general revenue. Estimated $80-100B/year flows to the Trade Transition Program and American Industrial Renaissance Act. The money follows the policy purpose.
  • Anti-circumvention enforcement funded at $2B/year to prevent transshipment through third countries — the loophole that let Section 301 tariffs achieve nothing but rerouting. CBP trade enforcement staffing doubled. Rules-of-origin enforcement prioritized at the top 20 transshipment ports (CBP Budget Justification, FY2025).
Pillar 2 Enforceable Labor & Environmental Standards
NAFTA labor side agreement: zero sanctions in 25 years · USMCA Rapid Response Mechanism: 32+ cases, 42,000+ workers helped, 45-day resolution
  • Rapid Response Mechanism in every trade agreement — facility-level enforcement with tariff snapback for violations. The USMCA RRM proves this works: 32+ cases resolved in 45 days versus 25 years of nothing under NAFTA.
  • ILO core labor standards as a non-negotiable baseline: freedom of association, collective bargaining, no forced labor, no child labor, non-discrimination. Not aspirational — actionable.
  • Environmental standards with equivalent enforcement: Paris compliance required; no regulatory rollback permitted after a deal is signed.
  • Congressional certification that labor and environmental chapters are enforceable before ratification. No more side agreements with no teeth.
  • Extend the RRM model to environmental violations — not just labor. Same mechanism, same speed, same tariff snapback.
Pillar 3 US Carbon Border Adjustment
Modeled on EU CBAM, operational 2026 · prevents carbon leakage · creates transatlantic carbon-priced zone covering ~40% of global GDP
  • Importers of carbon-intensive goods must purchase carbon certificates matching the domestic carbon price (cross-ref Issue 11: starting at $50/tonne). No competitive advantage from manufacturing in countries with no carbon price.
  • Prevents carbon leakage — companies cannot dodge climate rules by moving production abroad and importing back.
  • Revenue flows to the clean energy transition and industrial investment — estimated $30–60B annually, growing with the carbon price.
  • Creates a transatlantic carbon-priced trade zone covering approximately 40% of global GDP when combined with the EU CBAM — the most significant climate-trade instrument in history.
  • Incentivizes trading partners to adopt their own carbon pricing — the alternative to paying the border adjustment at the US border.
Pillar 4 End ISDS
Philip Morris sued Australia over tobacco packaging ($35M to defend) · Vattenfall extracted €1.6B from Germany for nuclear exit · $92B collected from governments globally
  • Withdraw from all ISDS provisions in existing agreements and bilateral investment treaties. The parallel legal system ends.
  • No future agreement may include ISDS arbitration — corporations use domestic courts like every other party, under the rule of law.
  • Support the EU's Multilateral Investment Court — permanent judges, appeals mechanism, preserved right to regulate. The legitimate functions of investor protection without the corporate veto on public policy.
Pillar 5 · Centerpiece American Industrial Renaissance Act
$500B over 10 years · CHIPS Act model: $1 public → $4–6 private catalyzed · Fraunhofer Network + national apprenticeships + manufacturing bank
  • $500 billion over 10 years in strategic sectors: advanced semiconductors and AI hardware, pharmaceutical API manufacturing, critical mineral processing, clean energy manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, robotics, and shipbuilding.
  • American Fraunhofer Network: 50 applied research institutes connecting university research to manufacturing scale-up — the German model that sustains 17.8% manufacturing GDP.
  • National Apprenticeship System expanded from ~800,000 to 3 million over 10 years — building the skilled workforce that advanced manufacturing requires.
  • National Manufacturing Bank (German KfW model) — patient capital for long-horizon manufacturing investments that private markets chronically underfund.
  • All investments require prevailing wage and union neutrality — public money builds union jobs. No public subsidy for union-busting.
Pillar 6 Real Trade Adjustment
Current TAA reached ~10% of displaced workers with $2,000 cap and negative net social benefit · Nordic model: 80–90% wage replacement + retraining = 25% job change rate annually
  • 80% wage replacement for up to 2 years — replacing the current ~27% for 26 weeks. Workers have actual time to retrain, not just to panic.
  • Full retraining funding with no caps — 6–24 month programs based on labor market needs, not arbitrary spending limits.
  • Relocation assistance for workers who need to move to where the jobs are.
  • Healthcare bridge to universal system (Issue 1) and retirement bridge for workers 55+ who cannot realistically retrain for a new career.
  • Funded at 0.5% of GDP (~$125B/yr) — 10× current TAA level, still below Denmark's 2%+. Cross-reference Federal Jobs Guarantee (Issue 13): displaced workers get a $20/hr government job immediately while retraining is arranged.
  • Regional workforce boards with worker representation — the people affected decide the retraining priorities, not Washington planners.
Pillar 7 Buy American with Teeth
75% domestic content threshold · close waiver loopholes · extend to state and local procurement receiving federal funds
  • 75% domestic content threshold for federal procurement — raising the standard and closing the definitional loopholes that allow minimal domestic value-add to qualify.
  • Close waiver loopholes: public justification plus Congressional notification required for any waiver above $1M. No more quiet exceptions for politically connected vendors.
  • Extend to state and local procurement receiving federal funding — federal dollars build American capacity regardless of which government is spending them.
  • Prevailing wage requirements on all federally funded procurement — the jobs created by public spending pay union wages.
Pillar 8 Currency Manipulation Enforcement
Automatic countervailing duties on designated manipulators · strengthen Treasury criteria · push IMF reform
  • Automatic countervailing duties on imports from designated currency manipulators — no more voluntary compliance. Manipulation triggers an automatic trade response.
  • Strengthen Treasury manipulation designation criteria — close the loopholes that have allowed clear manipulators to escape designation for years.
  • Push IMF reform for binding currency manipulation rules — multilateral standards with enforcement, not just bilateral pressure.
  • No trade agreement with a manipulating country without binding commitments to stop, with verification mechanisms.
Pillar 9 Supply Chain Transparency & Forced Labor Enforcement
Expand UFLPA model globally · full supply chain disclosure · corporate liability throughout supply chain
  • Expand the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act model to all countries and all forms of forced labor — the standard applies globally, not just to China.
  • Full supply chain disclosure for all imports: origin, labor conditions, and carbon footprint. Transparency creates market pressure for compliance.
  • Corporate liability for forced labor anywhere in the supply chain — "we didn't know" is no longer a defense. Companies must know and must disclose.
  • Fund CBP customs enforcement to inspect and enforce — rules without enforcement are not rules.
  • Domestic pharmaceutical API production as national security priority — ending dependence on Chinese supply for the active ingredients in critical medications.

Sources: CHIPS.gov · USTR — USMCA Rapid Response Mechanism · EU CBAM · UNCTAD — ISDS Data · European Commission — Multilateral Investment Court · FDA — Drug Shortages

Section 06

How We Pay For It

Trade policy generates significant revenue while reducing the hidden costs of the current system. The economics of investment-paired trade policy are strongly positive: the CHIPS Act catalyzed $600B+ in private investment on $280B in public spending. Below is the full cost-and-revenue picture — what we spend, where the money comes from, and what the net fiscal impact looks like.

Annual Investment Costs

Program Annual Cost Details
American Industrial Renaissance Act $50B/year (10 years) $500B total over 10 years: semiconductors/AI hardware, pharmaceutical APIs, critical minerals, clean energy manufacturing, robotics, shipbuilding. Includes American Fraunhofer Network (50 institutes at ~$200M each = $10B), National Apprenticeship expansion ($5B/year to scale from 800K to 3M), and National Manufacturing Bank capitalization ($15B initial + $2-3B/year). All investments require prevailing wage and union neutrality — no public subsidy for union-busting (CBO scoring methodology applied to CHIPS Act precedent).
Trade Transition Program ~$125B/year 0.5% of GDP — 10x the current TAA level, still below Denmark's 2%+. Covers: 80% wage replacement for up to 2 years (estimated 500,000-800,000 participants/year at peak), full retraining funding with no caps (6-24 month programs), relocation assistance, healthcare bridge to universal system (Issue 1), and retirement bridge for workers 55+ who cannot realistically retrain. This is the largest single cost — and the most critical. The current system's $2,000 training voucher is not trade adjustment; it is an insult (OECD Employment Outlook, 2024; Mathematica TAA Evaluation).
Anti-circumvention enforcement ~$2B/year CBP customs enforcement expansion to inspect and enforce rules-of-origin, prevent transshipment of Chinese goods through Vietnam/Mexico, and enforce forced labor import bans. Current CBP trade enforcement staffing is inadequate — the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act enforcement is constrained by ~200 dedicated investigators for $3.4 trillion in annual imports (CBP Budget Justification, FY2025).
Manufacturing investment tax credits ~$15–20B/year Extension and expansion of IRA-style production and investment tax credits for critical sector manufacturing. The IRA's Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit (45X) and Investment Tax Credit (48C) catalyzed $422B in private clean energy investment in their first two years — a 4:1+ private-to-public ratio. Expanding these to pharmaceuticals, shipbuilding, and critical minerals follows the same model (Treasury, IRA Tax Credit Data, 2024; E2 Clean Jobs America Report).

Revenue Sources

Revenue Source Est. Annual Revenue Details
Strategic tariffs (maintained) $80–100B Tariffs on semiconductors (25%), advanced batteries (25%), clean energy tech (25% phasing to 15%), defense steel/aluminum (25%/10%), pharmaceuticals (15-25%), and AI hardware (50%) are maintained. This is the existing tariff revenue from Section 301 and Section 232 actions, minus the blanket consumer goods tariffs that are eliminated. Revenue is dedicated to worker transition and industrial investment — not general revenue (USITC, Tariff Revenue Database, 2024).
US Carbon Border Adjustment $30–60B Starting carbon price of $50/tonne (cross-ref Issue 11), applied to imports of steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizers, and chemicals. Revenue grows as carbon price rises. The EU CBAM projects €9.1B/year for the EU alone; the US, with larger import volumes, would generate proportionally more. Creating a transatlantic carbon-priced zone covering ~40% of global GDP with the EU CBAM establishes the dominant climate-trade framework (European Commission CBAM Impact Assessment; Resources for the Future, US CBAM Revenue Estimates, 2023).
Currency manipulation countervailing duties $10–20B Automatic countervailing duties on imports from designated currency manipulators. Treasury's current three-pronged test (bilateral surplus, current account surplus, persistent intervention) rarely triggers designation. Strengthened criteria would capture clear manipulators — estimated to affect $400-600B in imports at 3-5% average duty rates (Peterson Institute, Currency Manipulation and Trade Policy, 2020).
Reduced SSDI/safety net costs from effective retraining $30–50B The current system's response to trade displacement is to put workers on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In China Shock-affected regions, SSDI payments were 30x larger than Trade Adjustment Assistance. Effective 80% wage replacement + real retraining diverts workers from permanent disability rolls to productive employment. At $20,000-35,000/year per SSDI recipient and an estimated 800,000+ trade-displaced workers currently on disability, even partial reductions generate substantial savings (SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement; Autor, Dorn & Hanson, 2013).
Industrial investment private capital catalysis (tax revenue) $20–35B (at maturity) CHIPS Act precedent: $52B in public investment catalyzed $600B+ in private investment — a 12:1 ratio. Even at a conservative 4:1 ratio, $50B/year in Renaissance Act spending catalyzes $200B/year in private investment. Federal and state tax revenue at effective corporate/employment rates of 10-15% generates $20-35B/year — growing over time as investments mature. This is the long-term fiscal engine (CHIPS.gov investment tracker; CBO, Effects of Federal Investment on Private Sector Activity).
Total estimated annual revenue $170–265B Covers the $50B/yr Industrial Renaissance Act and $125B/yr Trade Transition Program, with surplus for anti-circumvention enforcement and manufacturing tax credits.

Net fiscal picture at steady state (Year 5+): Annual costs: ~$192B (Renaissance Act $50B + Trade Transition $125B + enforcement $2B + manufacturing credits $15B). Annual revenue: $170-265B (strategic tariffs $80-100B + CBAM $30-60B + currency duties $10-20B + reduced SSDI costs $30-50B + catalyzed tax revenue $20-35B). The program is budget-neutral to net-positive by Year 3-5, before accounting for the macroeconomic benefits of 3 million additional apprentices, 50 Fraunhofer institutes, and restored domestic capacity in critical sectors. The consumer savings from eliminating blanket tariffs — $1,800/year per household, $60-80B economy-wide — are an additional economic stimulus not reflected in federal revenue.

Section 07

Implementation Timeline

Immediate — Days 1 to 100
Eliminate Blanket Tariffs, Keep Strategic Ones
Eliminate blanket tariffs; maintain strategic sector tariffs. Announce ISDS withdrawal. Introduce American Industrial Renaissance Act legislation. Announce Trade Transition Program.
Phase 1 — Year 1
New Systems Launch
Launch Trade Transition Program with 80% wage replacement. Introduce US CBAM legislation. Begin Rapid Response Mechanism negotiations with all trade partners. Launch first 10 Fraunhofer institutes. Strengthen Treasury manipulation criteria.
Phase 2 — Years 2 to 3
Full Operational Capacity
US CBAM fully operational. 75% Buy American threshold enacted. Expand apprenticeship system to 1.5M. National manufacturing bank operational. Renegotiate existing agreements to add RRM provisions. Supply chain disclosure requirements in effect.
Phase 3 — Years 4 to 5
Review and Expand
First sunset reviews of strategic tariffs — did domestic capacity grow? 30 Fraunhofer institutes operating. Currency manipulation enforcement fully implemented. ISDS withdrawal complete in all agreements.
Full Implementation — Years 6 to 10
Strategic Independence
50 Fraunhofer institutes; 3M apprentices. Full domestic capacity in semiconductors, pharma APIs, critical minerals. Transatlantic carbon-priced trade zone established with EU. Trade deficit structurally reduced through domestic capacity, not tariff rerouting.
Section 08

Addressing Counterarguments

"Tariffs will raise prices and hurt consumers."
Blanket tariffs do — that's why we eliminate them. Strategic tariffs on critical sectors affect a narrow range of goods and are paired with investment that builds domestic capacity, reducing the need for the tariff over time. Chinese import competition saved households roughly $1,500/year, but that's dwarfed by $10,000–$50,000+ in annual earnings losses for displaced workers. The question is not "cheap goods or expensive goods" — it is "who bears the cost, and is there a plan for those who lose?"
"Industrial policy picks winners and losers."
Every successful economy in history picked winners: Germany's Fraunhofer system, Korea's HCI drive, Taiwan's semiconductor strategy, and America's own DARPA, Interstate Highways, and Apollo program. The CHIPS Act catalyzed $600B+ in private investment. The question is not whether government picks sectors — it always has. The question is whether it does so transparently, with sunset clauses, performance requirements, and public accountability.
"Enforceable labor standards are protectionism in disguise."
The USMCA Rapid Response Mechanism has helped 42,000+ Mexican workers win better wages and free union elections. Enforceable labor standards lift workers on both sides of the border. The alternative — toothless side agreements — produced zero results in 25 years under NAFTA. That is the real protectionism: protecting the right of corporations to exploit the cheapest labor without consequence.
"80% wage replacement is too generous — people won't look for work."
Denmark provides 90% wage replacement and has lower structural unemployment than the US. 25% of Danish workers change jobs annually — they accept disruption because the safety net is real. Generous benefits paired with active retraining and job placement create higher labor mobility, not dependency. The US system of 27% replacement and no retraining creates disability rolls — that's the actual dependency trap the current approach produces.
"Ending ISDS will discourage foreign investment."
India, Indonesia, South Africa, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Australia have all withdrawn from or limited ISDS — none experienced investment collapse. Corporations invested in these countries before ISDS existed and continued after. What they need is the rule of law and functional domestic courts — not a parallel legal system where they can sue governments for $1.6B for choosing to phase out nuclear power, as Vattenfall did to Germany.
"The trade deficit doesn't matter."
Growing trade deficits explain 59% of manufacturing job losses since 1998. The deficit reflects real structural problems — a tax code that rewards offshoring, chronic underinvestment in domestic manufacturing, and a reserve currency that makes exports uncompetitive. The solution is industrial policy that builds domestic capacity and a tax code that stops rewarding companies for moving production abroad — not blanket tariffs that reroute imports without addressing any of the underlying causes.
Section 09

Cross-References

What this platform does — every commitment in plain language:

Action Detail
TariffsStrategic/targeted only; eliminate blanket tariffs; 5-year sunset with review; revenue to transition
Labor StandardsRRM in every agreement; ILO baseline; Congressional certification of enforceability
Carbon BorderUS CBAM matching domestic carbon price; prevent leakage; transatlantic zone
ISDSWithdraw from all; support Multilateral Investment Court; corporations use regular courts
Industrial Policy$500B/10yr; 50 Fraunhofer institutes; 3M apprentices; manufacturing bank; union jobs required
Trade Adjustment80% wage replacement for 2 years; full retraining, no caps; 0.5% GDP funding; jobs guarantee backstop
Buy American75% content; waiver loopholes closed; prevailing wages; extended to state/local
CurrencyAutomatic countervailing duties on manipulators; strengthen designation criteria
Forced LaborUFLPA model expanded globally; full supply chain disclosure; corporate liability
Issue 1
HealthcareUniversal healthcare eliminates "job lock" — workers can accept trade-displaced retraining without losing insurance coverage as leverage against them.
Issue 2
TaxationClose offshoring tax incentives. The TCJA encouraged profit-shifting, not investment. Tax policy and trade policy must reinforce each other.
Issue 5
ImmigrationNAFTA displaced 4.9M Mexican farmers, driving migration. Fair trade that doesn't destroy partner economies reduces the push factors that drive people to leave.
Issue 8
ChinaStrategic competition requires industrial policy, not blanket tariffs. CHIPS Act model: targeted investment + targeted protection. The two issues are inseparable.
Issue 11
Climate & EnergyCarbon border adjustment prevents leakage and creates the transatlantic zone. Clean energy manufacturing must be domestic, with union jobs and prevailing wages.
Issue 13
LaborTrade without strong labor standards is a race to the bottom. PRO Act + sectoral bargaining + enforceable trade standards = the complete package for American workers.
"Trade is not the enemy. Trade policy designed to serve capital at the expense of labor is the enemy. Fix the policy."
— The Common Good Party
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.