Free trade agreements delivered negligible economic gains: All U.S. trade deals through 2017 increased exports by only 1.6%, while imports surged 3.4%.
China and NAFTA caused massive U.S. job losses: Between 1999 and 2011, trade from China displaced 2.0 to 2.4 million jobs, while NAFTA led to a net loss of 1.02 million jobs from 1993 to 2004.
Exports play a minor role in the U.S. economy: Exports make up just 11% of U.S. GDP, while 89% of economic activity comes from domestic demand—yet trade policy continues to prioritize foreign markets.
Trade benefits are captured by multinationals, not small businesses: The top 1% of U.S. trading firms—about 2,000 companies—account for over 80% of trade, and 90% of them are also major importers.
Trade liberalization contributed to historic inequality: From 1979 to 2021, the top 0.01% saw income grow 27× faster than the bottom 20%, while the bottom 90% lost $47 trillion in income to upward redistribution since 1975.
For decades, U.S. politicians have sold free trade agreements as a beacon of prosperity for the American economy. The logic was tidy: “Most of the world’s consumers live outside the U.S.—so if we open foreign markets, prosperity will follow.” On paper, it sounded plausible. But in practice, it became one of the most costly economic miscalculations in our modern history.
That free trade mantra concealed a crucial economic truth: exports account for just 11% of U.S. GDP. The remaining 89% comes from domestic consumption and investment—our own internal economy. Yet Washington kept chasing overseas buyers while ignoring the collapse unfolding in our own industrial towns, small businesses, farms, and manufacturing hubs. America’s internal market was sacrificed in pursuit of an export fantasy that never paid off.
Free Trade’s Legacy: Job Losses, Trivial Growth, and Rising Deficits
According to the 2021 U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report, the full cumulative impact of all U.S. trade agreements from 1984 to 2017 delivered the following:
Exports increased by only $37.4 billion (1.6%), while imports surged by $95.2 billion (3.4%)
Real GDP grew by just $88.8 billion (0.5%)
Real income rose by only $98.3 billion (0.6%)
Export-related employment rose by 485,000 workers (0.3%)
These are the long-term returns on decades of trade liberalization—barely perceptible gains in a $29 trillion economy. Moreover, these modest topline trade agreement benefits obscure a deeper truth:
The limited GDP gains were largely captured by multinational corporations, not small businesses.
Income growth flowed disproportionately to high earners, not the working majority.
And the small rise in export-related employment was dwarfed by job losses in import-exposed industries.
Policymakers promised a rising tide that would lift all boats. What we got was a ripple that barely touched the shore—while the consequences hollowed out much of the nation’s economic core.
A 2014 National Bureau of Economic Research study confirmed the trade-off U.S. policymakers made. The report concluded, “Our estimates show sizable job losses in exposed [import-heavy] industries, and few if any offsetting job gains in non-exposed [export] industries.”
In total, 2.0 to 2.4 million U.S. jobs were lost between 1999 and 2011 due to import competition from China. This is the true cost of trade liberalization—not a mistake, but a deliberate policy choice. It was Washington betting on abstract economic theory—netting 485,000 export jobs—while millions of other domestic jobs were lost and entire communities lost their livelihoods.
And the damage wasn’t temporary. A decade of follow-up research has confirmed that the labor market devastation was deeper and more permanent than policymakers admitted. As a 2025 National Bureau of Economic Research follow-up study concluded:
“We now know that trade shocks caused more intense pain than anticipated in regions specialized in manufacturing. Local labor markets specialized in industries which faced a large increase in Chinese import competition during the 1990s and 2000s experienced a differential decline in manufacturing employment which was not compensated by a commensurate rise in non-manufacturing employment during the period when the trade shock unfolded.”
Worse still, the burden of that collapse fell hardest on the working class. A 2024 Oxford Open Economics report highlighted how “Chinese import competition increased inequality within local labour markets, as less-educated, lower-wage workers were more adversely affected by import shocks than their better-educated and higher-paid peers.”
The Export Myth Continues
The export obsession has been repeated so often that many politicians continue to push the myth. But the core economic reality has not changed: 89% of U.S. GDP is driven by domestic activity, while exports account for just 11%. The policy of sacrificing our internal economy for marginal export gains is not only flawed but economically devastating. It’s not good economics—it’s snake oil.
Yet the export myth persists. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) recently claimed, “Free trade agreements are a way for us—not tariffs—to gain the leverage we want.” Yet even in traditionally export-heavy states like Washington, the strategy is clearly failing. Trade deficits have widened, and foreign producers increasingly dominate U.S. markets.
As shown in Figure 1, the U.S. trade deficit continues to widen under our open trade regime, and even states like Washington—whose exports have traditionally been bolstered by Boeing sales—have now been caught in the same free trade trap, with foreign producers outpacing any gains for U.S. business.
FIGURE 1:
The China Shock: How Free Trade Backfires
Nowhere did the export myth wreak more havoc than in our economic relationship with China. President Bill Clinton, selling China’s WTO entry, declared, “China is the largest new market in the world. Our administration has negotiated an agreement which will open China’s markets to American products made on American soil — everything from corn to chemicals to computers…We will be exporting, however, more than our products. By this agreement, we will also export more of one of our most cherished values, economic freedom. Bringing China into the WTO and normalizing trade will strengthen those who fight for the environment, for labor standards, for human rights, for the rule of law.”
President Clinton’s twin promises—that trade with China would both unlock a vast new market for American goods and gradually export American-style economic freedom—stand today as two of the most catastrophically wrong assumptions in modern trade policy.
On the first claim, the numbers are unambiguous. After Clinton liberalized trade with China through Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) and WTO accession, the results were swift and devastating.
Rather than opening its doors to a flood of U.S.-made goods, China became a platform for exporting cheap, often subsidized products into the U.S. market. As shown in Figure 2, this did not result in balanced trade, but a ballooning goods trade deficit exceeding $319 billion in 2024.
U.S. export gains remained modest, while entire economic sectors and 2.0 to 2.4 million U.S. jobs were decimated by import competition.
FIGURE 2:
On the second claim, the idea that economic liberalization would lead to political and economic freedom in China now reads like pure fantasy. Instead of freedom, we empowered a repressive surveillance state that weaponized global supply chains while consolidating authoritarian control. In short, we didn’t export American values—we imported economic dependence and strategic vulnerability.
NAFTA’s Legacy: Trade Deficits, Industrial Decline, and Wage Suppression
Clinton was also responsible for pushing NAFTA’s implementation in 1994, promising prosperity through trade with Canada and Mexico. What followed was a familiar pattern: ballooning deficits, outsourcing, and industrial decline. The U.S.-Mexico goods trade deficit is now at $176 billion as Mexico became a production hub for autos, electronics, steel, food, and more. Meanwhile, working Americans watched their wages stagnate and factories shutter.
FIGURE 3:
Yet even with decades of evidence of decline, U.S. politicians keep pushing for more open trade with Mexico and Canada. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) recently stated, “The almost $1 trillion exchanged in trade between the U.S. and Canada in 2023 powers 8 million U.S. jobs.” But this exchange is far from balanced. Canada continues to export far more to the U.S. than it imports in return—resulting in a persistent U.S. trade deficit ($71.4 billion in 2024) and a quiet erosion of U.S. industrial independence.
FIGURE 4:
Just as with China, the job losses and economic fallout from trade agreements like NAFTA have been severe. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the export-import trade-off proved to be another lopsided failure. Between 1993 and 2004, growing exports to Mexico and Canada supported approximately 941,000 U.S. jobs. But over the same period, a surge in imports displaced domestic production that had supported 1.96 million jobs, resulting in a net loss of 1.02 million jobs in just over a decade.
Moreover, economist Dean Baker argues that NAFTA’s deeper harm wasn’t just job loss—it was widespread wage suppression. The deal encouraged U.S. firms to offshore production to Mexico, boosting profits and lowering prices, but offering little to American workers. As Baker explains, even if cheaper goods benefit consumers, they don’t make up for lost income—just as doctors wouldn’t welcome a pay cut simply because their health care got cheaper.
A 2025 National Bureau of Economic Research follow-up study confirms that this is exactly what happened under China trade liberalization. The report found that “[import-competing workers] experienced lower earnings growth than comparable workers in other industries in the United States.” In short, the outcome wasn’t incidental—it was structural. The real issue wasn’t trade itself, but a system designed to protect elites while pushing blue-collar workers into a global race to the bottom.
However, NAFTA and China were not isolated events—they were the blueprint.
Repeated Playbook: Vietnam, South Korea, Israel
The erosion of U.S. production has been a decades-long bi-partisan push. Fully on board with China trade liberalization and NAFTA, President George W. Bush picked up where Clinton left off, stating “Opening up foreign markets for America’s goods and services has been a high priority for my administration,” expanding U.S. FTAs from 3 to 14 during his tenure. The results followed the same script: lofty promises, lopsided outcomes.
*This refers to the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) with Vietnam, which granted the country Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status and paved the way for its accession to the WTO. The United States does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Vietnam.
FIGURE 6: South Korea (2012): $70 billion trade deficit
FIGURE 7: Israel (1985): $7.7 billion trade deficit
These trade deals were not just a series of miscalculations—they followed a fundamentally flawed ideology. This was a systemic, bipartisan ideology rooted in the belief that liberalizing trade would always yield prosperity. In reality, it became a reliable formula for offshoring U.S. jobs, hollowing out domestic industry, and deepening our economic dependence on foreign suppliers. It was not just flawed—it was fundamentally rigged against the American worker.
Small Businesses Crushed, Corporations Lifted
Free trade didn’t just batter factory floors—it gutted the small and mid-sized businesses that once formed the backbone of Main Street America.
The 2021 U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report acknowledged two powerful dynamics unleashed by trade liberalization. First, increased competition from foreign imports drove down prices and profits across domestically focused industries. Second, the most productive large-scale firms increased and expanded their operations abroad, increasing demand for labor in foreign countries. This combination squeezed smaller U.S. firms—forcing many to downsize or close entirely—while large multinationals captured the lion’s share of the gains.
This outcome shouldn’t come as a surprise. International trade—both imports and exports—disproportionately benefits large corporations, not small producers or family farmers. In fact, the World Economic Forum found that the top 1% of U.S. trading firms (about 2,000 companies) account for over 80% of total U.S. trade. Of the largest exporters, 90% are also importers, and together they represent roughly 66% of all U.S. goods imports.
Meanwhile, small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) were left behind:
Small and medium enterprises lost ground to multinationals that could exploit cheap foreign labor and global tax havens.
Large corporations offshored production, exploited new global trade rules, and consistently held the dominant voice in trade negotiations.
Local producers, without subsidies, scale, or political leverage, were crushed under the weight of subsidized imports and global competition.
Policymakers sold these trade agreements as export-driven engines of shared prosperity. In theory, everyone would win. In practice, it was the corporate elite pressing for profits—while working Americans paid the price. But the damage didn’t stop at closed storefronts and factory layoffs—it had lasting impacts across whole communities.
The Inequality Surge
The elite- and corporate-backed trade liberalization has helped fuel the surging inequality in the United States, with everyday workers taking a backseat to corporate profits. While working Americans were promised prosperity via trade, the wealth gains flowed elsewhere:
From 1979 to 2021, the top 0.01% saw income grow 27× faster than the bottom 20%
The top 1% now earns 139× more than the bottom fifth
A RAND study estimates $47 trillion in lost income for the bottom 90% since 1975, all due to policies that favor elite and corporate interests like free trade
As shown in Figure 8, this inequality is directly correlated with the trade liberalization pushed by the elite and multinational corporations.
FIGURE 8:
GDP has ticked upward—but only on paper. The profits went to shareholders, not families. And for millions of Americans, the loss wasn’t just a lower paycheck. It was a loss of total economic stability for countless communities across the country.
A 2024 Oxford Open Economics report found that “Recent evidence shows that these shocks caused higher crime rates, a deterioration of health outcomes, a dissolution of traditional family structures.”
These weren’t isolated side effects, they were the long-term consequences of a policy model that prioritized corporate margins over livelihoods. The cost of trade wasn’t just measured in lost jobs, but in the unraveling of economic and social foundations that once held communities and the country together.
A Better Path: Trade Policy that Serves U.S. Producers and Workers
It’s time to stop repeating mistakes. We need a trade model that puts national strength ahead of multinational profits:
Strategic tariffs to defend against predatory imports and unfair foreign subsidies.
Enforce current rules—use Section 301, Section 232, and other safeguard tools to protect and promote U.S. production.
Invest in strategic production—especially key manufacturing industries, critical future technologies, and a strong U.S. employment base.
Support SMEs—with targeted investment funding, import relief, and better access to federal procurement.
Buy American—not just as a slogan, but as a mandate for all public infrastructure, defense, and essential industries.
Conclusion
For thirty years, America was sold the illusion that opening foreign markets would deliver shared prosperity at home. But that promise collapsed under the weight of reality: millions of jobs lost, factories shuttered, wages suppressed, and small businesses wiped out.
Instead of nationwide growth, we got concentrated wealth, record trade deficits, and American workers pushed to the margins of their own economy.
No strong nation surrenders its industrial core and critical industries to geopolitical rivals for a marginal discount at the checkout aisle. The export myth was never about lifting all boats—it was about expanding elite and corporate profits.
We need trade policy built around the national interest: strategic industries, domestic production, and well-paying American jobs. It’s time to put producers before importers and workers before multinationals. The future of American prosperity won’t be found in foreign markets. It must be made at home.
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
Trade Agreements: The Export Myth That Masked a National Giveaway
KEY POINTS
For decades, U.S. politicians have sold free trade agreements as a beacon of prosperity for the American economy. The logic was tidy: “Most of the world’s consumers live outside the U.S.—so if we open foreign markets, prosperity will follow.” On paper, it sounded plausible. But in practice, it became one of the most costly economic miscalculations in our modern history.
That free trade mantra concealed a crucial economic truth: exports account for just 11% of U.S. GDP. The remaining 89% comes from domestic consumption and investment—our own internal economy. Yet Washington kept chasing overseas buyers while ignoring the collapse unfolding in our own industrial towns, small businesses, farms, and manufacturing hubs. America’s internal market was sacrificed in pursuit of an export fantasy that never paid off.
Free Trade’s Legacy: Job Losses, Trivial Growth, and Rising Deficits
According to the 2021 U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report, the full cumulative impact of all U.S. trade agreements from 1984 to 2017 delivered the following:
These are the long-term returns on decades of trade liberalization—barely perceptible gains in a $29 trillion economy. Moreover, these modest topline trade agreement benefits obscure a deeper truth:
Policymakers promised a rising tide that would lift all boats. What we got was a ripple that barely touched the shore—while the consequences hollowed out much of the nation’s economic core.
A 2014 National Bureau of Economic Research study confirmed the trade-off U.S. policymakers made. The report concluded, “Our estimates show sizable job losses in exposed [import-heavy] industries, and few if any offsetting job gains in non-exposed [export] industries.”
In total, 2.0 to 2.4 million U.S. jobs were lost between 1999 and 2011 due to import competition from China. This is the true cost of trade liberalization—not a mistake, but a deliberate policy choice. It was Washington betting on abstract economic theory—netting 485,000 export jobs—while millions of other domestic jobs were lost and entire communities lost their livelihoods.
And the damage wasn’t temporary. A decade of follow-up research has confirmed that the labor market devastation was deeper and more permanent than policymakers admitted. As a 2025 National Bureau of Economic Research follow-up study concluded:
“We now know that trade shocks caused more intense pain than anticipated in regions specialized in manufacturing. Local labor markets specialized in industries which faced a large increase in Chinese import competition during the 1990s and 2000s experienced a differential decline in manufacturing employment which was not compensated by a commensurate rise in non-manufacturing employment during the period when the trade shock unfolded.”
Worse still, the burden of that collapse fell hardest on the working class. A 2024 Oxford Open Economics report highlighted how “Chinese import competition increased inequality within local labour markets, as less-educated, lower-wage workers were more adversely affected by import shocks than their better-educated and higher-paid peers.”
The Export Myth Continues
The export obsession has been repeated so often that many politicians continue to push the myth. But the core economic reality has not changed: 89% of U.S. GDP is driven by domestic activity, while exports account for just 11%. The policy of sacrificing our internal economy for marginal export gains is not only flawed but economically devastating. It’s not good economics—it’s snake oil.
Yet the export myth persists. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) recently claimed, “Free trade agreements are a way for us—not tariffs—to gain the leverage we want.” Yet even in traditionally export-heavy states like Washington, the strategy is clearly failing. Trade deficits have widened, and foreign producers increasingly dominate U.S. markets.
As shown in Figure 1, the U.S. trade deficit continues to widen under our open trade regime, and even states like Washington—whose exports have traditionally been bolstered by Boeing sales—have now been caught in the same free trade trap, with foreign producers outpacing any gains for U.S. business.
FIGURE 1:
The China Shock: How Free Trade Backfires
Nowhere did the export myth wreak more havoc than in our economic relationship with China. President Bill Clinton, selling China’s WTO entry, declared, “China is the largest new market in the world. Our administration has negotiated an agreement which will open China’s markets to American products made on American soil — everything from corn to chemicals to computers…We will be exporting, however, more than our products. By this agreement, we will also export more of one of our most cherished values, economic freedom. Bringing China into the WTO and normalizing trade will strengthen those who fight for the environment, for labor standards, for human rights, for the rule of law.”
President Clinton’s twin promises—that trade with China would both unlock a vast new market for American goods and gradually export American-style economic freedom—stand today as two of the most catastrophically wrong assumptions in modern trade policy.
On the first claim, the numbers are unambiguous. After Clinton liberalized trade with China through Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) and WTO accession, the results were swift and devastating.
Rather than opening its doors to a flood of U.S.-made goods, China became a platform for exporting cheap, often subsidized products into the U.S. market. As shown in Figure 2, this did not result in balanced trade, but a ballooning goods trade deficit exceeding $319 billion in 2024.
U.S. export gains remained modest, while entire economic sectors and 2.0 to 2.4 million U.S. jobs were decimated by import competition.
FIGURE 2:
On the second claim, the idea that economic liberalization would lead to political and economic freedom in China now reads like pure fantasy. Instead of freedom, we empowered a repressive surveillance state that weaponized global supply chains while consolidating authoritarian control. In short, we didn’t export American values—we imported economic dependence and strategic vulnerability.
NAFTA’s Legacy: Trade Deficits, Industrial Decline, and Wage Suppression
Clinton was also responsible for pushing NAFTA’s implementation in 1994, promising prosperity through trade with Canada and Mexico. What followed was a familiar pattern: ballooning deficits, outsourcing, and industrial decline. The U.S.-Mexico goods trade deficit is now at $176 billion as Mexico became a production hub for autos, electronics, steel, food, and more. Meanwhile, working Americans watched their wages stagnate and factories shutter.
FIGURE 3:
Yet even with decades of evidence of decline, U.S. politicians keep pushing for more open trade with Mexico and Canada. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) recently stated, “The almost $1 trillion exchanged in trade between the U.S. and Canada in 2023 powers 8 million U.S. jobs.” But this exchange is far from balanced. Canada continues to export far more to the U.S. than it imports in return—resulting in a persistent U.S. trade deficit ($71.4 billion in 2024) and a quiet erosion of U.S. industrial independence.
FIGURE 4:
Just as with China, the job losses and economic fallout from trade agreements like NAFTA have been severe. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the export-import trade-off proved to be another lopsided failure. Between 1993 and 2004, growing exports to Mexico and Canada supported approximately 941,000 U.S. jobs. But over the same period, a surge in imports displaced domestic production that had supported 1.96 million jobs, resulting in a net loss of 1.02 million jobs in just over a decade.
Moreover, economist Dean Baker argues that NAFTA’s deeper harm wasn’t just job loss—it was widespread wage suppression. The deal encouraged U.S. firms to offshore production to Mexico, boosting profits and lowering prices, but offering little to American workers. As Baker explains, even if cheaper goods benefit consumers, they don’t make up for lost income—just as doctors wouldn’t welcome a pay cut simply because their health care got cheaper.
A 2025 National Bureau of Economic Research follow-up study confirms that this is exactly what happened under China trade liberalization. The report found that “[import-competing workers] experienced lower earnings growth than comparable workers in other industries in the United States.” In short, the outcome wasn’t incidental—it was structural. The real issue wasn’t trade itself, but a system designed to protect elites while pushing blue-collar workers into a global race to the bottom.
However, NAFTA and China were not isolated events—they were the blueprint.
Repeated Playbook: Vietnam, South Korea, Israel
The erosion of U.S. production has been a decades-long bi-partisan push. Fully on board with China trade liberalization and NAFTA, President George W. Bush picked up where Clinton left off, stating “Opening up foreign markets for America’s goods and services has been a high priority for my administration,” expanding U.S. FTAs from 3 to 14 during his tenure. The results followed the same script: lofty promises, lopsided outcomes.
FIGURE 5: Vietnam (2001)*: $157 billion trade deficit
FIGURE 6: South Korea (2012): $70 billion trade deficit
FIGURE 7: Israel (1985): $7.7 billion trade deficit
These trade deals were not just a series of miscalculations—they followed a fundamentally flawed ideology. This was a systemic, bipartisan ideology rooted in the belief that liberalizing trade would always yield prosperity. In reality, it became a reliable formula for offshoring U.S. jobs, hollowing out domestic industry, and deepening our economic dependence on foreign suppliers. It was not just flawed—it was fundamentally rigged against the American worker.
Small Businesses Crushed, Corporations Lifted
Free trade didn’t just batter factory floors—it gutted the small and mid-sized businesses that once formed the backbone of Main Street America.
The 2021 U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report acknowledged two powerful dynamics unleashed by trade liberalization. First, increased competition from foreign imports drove down prices and profits across domestically focused industries. Second, the most productive large-scale firms increased and expanded their operations abroad, increasing demand for labor in foreign countries. This combination squeezed smaller U.S. firms—forcing many to downsize or close entirely—while large multinationals captured the lion’s share of the gains.
This outcome shouldn’t come as a surprise. International trade—both imports and exports—disproportionately benefits large corporations, not small producers or family farmers. In fact, the World Economic Forum found that the top 1% of U.S. trading firms (about 2,000 companies) account for over 80% of total U.S. trade. Of the largest exporters, 90% are also importers, and together they represent roughly 66% of all U.S. goods imports.
Meanwhile, small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) were left behind:
Policymakers sold these trade agreements as export-driven engines of shared prosperity. In theory, everyone would win. In practice, it was the corporate elite pressing for profits—while working Americans paid the price. But the damage didn’t stop at closed storefronts and factory layoffs—it had lasting impacts across whole communities.
The Inequality Surge
The elite- and corporate-backed trade liberalization has helped fuel the surging inequality in the United States, with everyday workers taking a backseat to corporate profits. While working Americans were promised prosperity via trade, the wealth gains flowed elsewhere:
As shown in Figure 8, this inequality is directly correlated with the trade liberalization pushed by the elite and multinational corporations.
FIGURE 8:
GDP has ticked upward—but only on paper. The profits went to shareholders, not families. And for millions of Americans, the loss wasn’t just a lower paycheck. It was a loss of total economic stability for countless communities across the country.
A 2024 Oxford Open Economics report found that “Recent evidence shows that these shocks caused higher crime rates, a deterioration of health outcomes, a dissolution of traditional family structures.”
These weren’t isolated side effects, they were the long-term consequences of a policy model that prioritized corporate margins over livelihoods. The cost of trade wasn’t just measured in lost jobs, but in the unraveling of economic and social foundations that once held communities and the country together.
A Better Path: Trade Policy that Serves U.S. Producers and Workers
It’s time to stop repeating mistakes. We need a trade model that puts national strength ahead of multinational profits:
Conclusion
For thirty years, America was sold the illusion that opening foreign markets would deliver shared prosperity at home. But that promise collapsed under the weight of reality: millions of jobs lost, factories shuttered, wages suppressed, and small businesses wiped out.
Instead of nationwide growth, we got concentrated wealth, record trade deficits, and American workers pushed to the margins of their own economy.
No strong nation surrenders its industrial core and critical industries to geopolitical rivals for a marginal discount at the checkout aisle. The export myth was never about lifting all boats—it was about expanding elite and corporate profits.
We need trade policy built around the national interest: strategic industries, domestic production, and well-paying American jobs. It’s time to put producers before importers and workers before multinationals. The future of American prosperity won’t be found in foreign markets. It must be made at home.
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
TRENDING
CPA Calls for Replacing USMCA with Two Bilateral Agreements to Restore U.S. Trade Sovereignty
CPA Releases New Economics Report: “Section 232 Steel Tariffs Are Necessary For National Security”
Beef Prices: Blame the Packers, Not America’s Ranchers
Senate Witnesses Discuss Reshoring and Making China’s Massive Biotech Ecosystem Less Attractive for Big Pharma
With China Agreement Complete, CPA Urges Trump Administration to Prioritize 232 Investigations and Domestic Producers
The latest CPA news and updates, delivered every Friday.
WATCH: WORTH FIGHTING FOR
Get the latest in CPA news, industry analysis, opinion, and updates from Team CPA.
CHECK OUT THE NEWSROOM ➔