FORMER COMMISSIONER, US-CHINA ECONOMIC & SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
The Honorable Patrick A. Mulloy served five two-year terms on the twelve member, bipartisan, U.S.– China Economic and Security Review Commission (see www.uscc.gov). He presently practices as a trade lawyer and consultant to groups interested in reforming U.S. trade and economic policies including the Coalition for a Prosperous America on whose Advisory Board he serves. He also served on the adjunct faculty at the Catholic University and the George Mason University Law Schools where he taught either International Trade Law or Public International Law for a number of years. He has testified before Congress on international trade and finance matters several times and served as an Assistant Secretary in the Clinton Administration in the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration. Prior to that he served as General Counsel and Chief International Counsel on the staff of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. Earlier in his career he served as a trial lawyer in the U.S. Justice Department and a Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. State Department.
Mr. Mulloy received his LL.M from Harvard University Law School, his J.D. (with honors) from the George Washington University Law School, an M.A In International Politics from the University of Notre Dame where he was a University Fellow, and a B.A. (magna cum laude) in Government from King’s College.
The November trade deficit numbers returned to a more normal figure, with the services surplus still in the $20s to low $30 billion range, and the goods deficit jumping from the October lull.
Clothes are labeled. Most food is labeled. Even your car has its manufacturing country of origin stamped onto the door panel. Pharmaceuticals on the other hand, one of the biggest import items and certainly one most critical to our daily health safety and security, usually do not come with any labels at all.
Few economic policies generate as much conversation as tariffs. Supporters see them as a way to rebuild domestic industry and rebalance supply chains. Critics argue they are little more than a tax on American consumers. For years, economists have tried to settle the question of who actually pays – and they have not all come to the same conclusion.
Once year-ending 2025 trade data is released in February, we will be looking at another $1 trillion deficit. Assuming the monthly goods deficit for November and December looks like the low October goods deficit of $58.5 billion, the U.S. will record a minimum $1.17 trillion goods gap for 2025, the second largest trade deficit since 2024’s $1.2 trillion barnstormer.
