May, 19 2016, 02:00pm EDT

TPP Study Projects Worsening Trade Balances for 16 of 25 U.S. Economic Sectors, Overall U.S. Trade Deficit Increase
Despite ITC Reliance on Model that Has Systematically Overstated Benefits of Trade Pacts Relative to Outcomes
WASHINGTON
Today the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released a study on the potential impacts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The report:
- Estimates a worsening balance of trade for 16 out of 25 U.S. agriculture (p. 124), manufacturing (p. 228), and services (p. 340) sectors that the ITC selected to feature. This includes vehicles, wheat, corn, autoparts, titanium products, chemicals, seafood, textiles and apparel, rice and even financial service. Autoparts would be hard hit with employment projected to decrease by 0.3 percent.
- Estimates the TPP will increase the U.S. global trade deficit by $21.7 billion by 2032.
- Projects even the U.S. services trade balance will worsen by 2032 as service imports of $7 billion swamp the estimated increase in exports of $4.8 billion (p. 35).
- Temporarily disregarding the fact that the ITC has underestimated the increase in the U.S. trade deficit caused by almost every pact it has assessed, the trade deficit increase the ITC does project from TPP implementation would equate to 129,484 American job losses, counting both exports and imports, according to the latest administration trade-jobs ratio. This makes even more curious the ITC estimate that the TPP would raise employment levels by 0.07 percent (128,000 jobs) in 2032.
- Estimates a decline in output for U.S. manufacturing/natural resources/ energy of $10.8 billion as exports would increase by $15.2 billion and imports would increase by $39.2 billion by 2032.
- Estimates tiny U.S. economic growth gains (42.7 billion or 0.15 percent) and income gains ($57.3 billion or 0.23 percent) by 2032. In other words, the ITC projects that the United States would be as wealthy on January 1, 2032 with TPP as it would be on February 15, 2032 without the TPP.
- Notes concern that the TPP would empower more foreign corporations to sue the U.S. government in private tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation over U.S. laws they claim violate their TPP rights and that the Investor State Dispute Settlement System is expanded to allow new grounds for financial service firms to challenge domestic policies (p. 36).
Statement of Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, on the Report:
"This report spotlights how damaging the TPP would be for most Americans' jobs and wages given it concludes 16 out of 25 U.S. agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors spotlighted by the ITC would see a worsening trade balance while the "upside" projection is miniscule gains in economic growth despite these findings being based on the same widely criticized methodology and unrealistic assumptions that have resulted in past ITC reports systematically overstating the benefits from trade deals that ended up causing serious damage.
Given that the ITC's past studies on pending trade pacts have usually projected improvements in the U.S. trade balance and gains for specific economic sectors but the opposite occurred, that this study projects an increase in the U.S. trade deficit and losses for 16 of 25 U.S. economic sectors suggests that if ever implemented, the TPP could really be disastrous."
How the ITC's Faulty Methodology Has Systematically Led to Overly Optimistic Projections
The actual outcomes of past trade pacts have been significantly more negative than ITC projections generated using the same methodology employed for the TPP study. This makes today's unusually negative ITC findings on the TPP especially ominous.
NAFTA: U.S.-Mexico Trade | ||
1993 - Baseline | ITC Projection | 2015 - Actual |
$2.6 billion goods surplus | $10.6 billion goods and | $57 billion goods and |
China-WTO: U.S.-China Trade in Goods and Services | ||
2000 - Baseline | ITC Projection | 2015 - Actual |
$113 billion deficit | $120 billion deficit | $340 billion deficit |
U.S.-Korea FTA: Trade in Goods | ||
2011 - Baseline | ITC Projection | 2015 - Actual |
$15.6 billion deficit | $10.6 billion deficit | $28.5 billion deficit |
The ITC's TPP report uses the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that had led to past ITC trade pact projections being entirely unrelated to actual outcomes by simply assuming away the very results that have often occurred under past pacts: long-term job loss, trade deficit increases and currency devaluations.
By design, the ITC CGE model assumed the U.S. trade balance would not change and that overall U.S. employment levels would remain constant - that workers who lose jobs will simply obtain new jobs in other sectors where wages are presumed to increase. Implicit in the assumption that the trade balance does not change is the assumption of flexible exchange rates. But in reality, currency manipulation is a significant problem among some of the TPP countries. The U.S. Department of Treasury just recently included TPP nation Japan on its new Monitoring List in its semi-annual report on "Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States."
When Tufts University economists employed a model that allowed for job loss and increases in income inequality, they concluded that the TPP would reduce U.S. GDP by 0.54 percent over a decade and cost 448,000 American jobs. The Tufts findings spotlight just how drastically the assumptions baked into a CGE model used for the TPP study can affect the outcomes; the Tufts economists actually employed the Peterson Institute trade flow simulation data. They plugged the Peterson findings on import and export levels at full TPP implementation derived from one set of unrealistic assumptions into a model that applies more realistic assumptions about how trade flow changes affect growth and employment - and found that the TPP would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs and drag down growth rates.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Former Mossad Chief Compares West Bank Israeli Settler Violence to That of Nazis During Holocaust
“What I saw today made me feel ashamed to be Jewish," said Tamir Pardo after touring Occupied West Bank.
Apr 28, 2026
Tamir Pardo, the former chief of Israel's powerful Mossad intelligence agency, drew international attention on Monday by saying that what he witnessed during a tour of the Occupied West Bank reminded him of the treatment of the Jewish people during the Holocaust by Nazi Germany in the 1930s ad 40s.
Pardo, who served as Mossad director from 2011 to 2016, expressed sorrow and shame over what he saw, invoking his Jewish family's history.
“My mother was a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw reminded me of the events that happened against Jews in the last century,” Pardo told Channel 13 news. “What I saw today made me feel ashamed to be Jewish.”
Tamir Pardo, former Mossad head, on a tour documenting Jewish settler terror in the West Bank: “My mother is a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw here reminded me of the events of the previous century against the Jews.“ pic.twitter.com/o1eJ9vkhDi
— Etan Nechin (@Etanetan23) April 28, 2026
Observers noted that Pardo's statements—which echo, at least in certain key ways, those of experts and humanitarian advocates who have documented the abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)—would come under harsh rebuke by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or other pro-Israel hardliners in the United States if spoken by others.
"The former head of the Mossad is comparing the actions of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank to Nazis in the Holocaust," said journalist Mehdi Hasan. "If someone said that in the West they'd be accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition."
The IHRA definition refers to how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance articulates antisemitism, a more sweeping definition—one adopted by the ADL and many Zionist political forces in the United States—that equates criticism of the state of Israel or its policies with animus toward or discrimination of the Jewish people. Critics of the IHRA definition, including Jewish scholars and holocaust experts, have said its deployment undermines efforts to confront the real scourge of antisemitism while also insulating Israel from honest and necessary criticism.
“My mother is a Holocaust survivor. What I saw here today recalled the events that happened in the last century”
Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, during a tour tracing illegal settler violence in the occupied West Bank, compared the scenes he witnessed to the Holocaust.
Pardo… pic.twitter.com/rrsQx2CvpW
— TRT World (@trtworld) April 28, 2026
Pardo has spoken out previously about what he regards is an apartheid system in the OPT, including in 2023 prior to the October 7 attacks, but his warnings to curb the mistreatment of the Palestinian population were dismissed by the ruling coalition. In the time since, the situation in the West Bank for Palestinians has deteriorated significantly.
Touring the region with other former members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Pardo warned that the conditions on the ground, where Palestinians live under armed occupation and the near constant threat of settler violence, is setting the stage for a violent reaction similar to what occurred on October 7, 2023 when Gaza militant factions staged a violent assault on Israel.
“To my great regret, what we are seeing today,” said Pardo, “is the next October 7. It will be in a different format, much more painful, because the region is much more complicated."
While he said that Israeli authorities know full well the extent of the settler violence, they choose to ignore it. "The state has chosen to sow the seeds for the next October 7," he said.
Pardo said that what he witnessed in the OPT on Monday "is the existential threat to the State of Israel,” but warned that confronting settler violence, given the amount of backing the far-right settlers have in the current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could tear the country apart.
As the Times of Israel reports on his comments:
“If we want, we can correct this, but the price will be very high,” Pardo said. “It can drag the entire country to a place” like the situation in Lebanon, an apparent reference to the civil and political strife in that country, where the Hezbollah terror group uses its military means to assert authority on the country.
“It is very much worth our while not to get there,” he said.
Pardo recalled the late Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who controversially warned that control over millions of Palestinians in the territories would ultimately corrupt Israeli society.
The former spy chief said he used to think that Leibowitz was misguided in his comments, but after witnessing the actions of settler extremists in recent months, he now believes “there was a lot of truth” to what the Israeli philosopher said.
Human rights group have said the intensified assault on Palestinians by settlers and IDF soldiers in the Occupied West Bank since October of 2023 have unleashed a widespread humanitarian crisis and called on the international community to intervene to halt Israel's continued settlement expansion and the abuses on the ground.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Senators Unveil Plan to Pay for $400 Million White House Ballroom With Taxpayer Funds
"The Republican pitch to voters in an election year dominated by the crushing costs of living in this country should be the urgent need for a new marble and gold ballroom," said one observer.
Apr 28, 2026
With just over seven months to go until the midterm elections, the US-Israeli war on Iran pushing gas prices past $4 per gallon, and the rising cost of living bringing consumer confidence to an all-time low, political observers marveled on Monday at Republican senators' decision to center President Donald Trump's demand for a new $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House as a top legislative goal.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) held a press conference late Monday to announce their intention to expedite a bill to the Senate floor to use public funds to pay for the construction of a secure ballroom, joining Trump in insisting that a shooting at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) dinner on Saturday proved the project is a national security priority.
Trump has demanded the construction of the ballroom for months, ordering demolition work to begin last year as he insisted the project would be paid for entirely by private donations from companies with government contracts like Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Google—a plan that has raised alarm over significant conflicts of interest.
The construction was halted recently after a federal court ruled the project must be approved by Congress, but an appeals court this month allowed the building to continue while it reviews the ruling.
On Monday evening, the US Department of Justice also filed a motion—which observers noted appeared to be written in the same style the president frequently uses in his social media posts—demanding that US District Judge Richard Leon dissolve his previous injunction blocking the project.
The motion started by claiming the name of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nonprofit that sued over the ballroom construction, is "FAKE."
"They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS," reads the filing.
Graham said Monday that the ballroom should be paid for with $400 million in taxpayer funds collected in the form of national park fees and customs fees, with the private funding Trump secured going to extra costs like fine china.
The senator insisted the American public, whose approval of the president stood at 40% in one monthly survey in March, would support the bill.
"If you don't think $400 million of taxpayer money is a good investment to create a secure facility at the White House, then I disagree. I bet you 90% of Americans would love to have a better facility," said Graham.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal responded: "Nope. Ninety percent of Americans would love to have affordable healthcare, housing, and childcare. Or lower gas prices. Or lower grocery prices. Not a frigging illegally constructed ballroom."
Graham explained that beneath the ballroom there would be "a lot of military stuff" and "infrastructure that is national security-centric," and suggested the construction of the facility would allow Trump and future presidents to stay on the White House grounds instead of leaving for public events.
The WHCA has held its annual dinner at the Washington Hilton for decades, and it's unclear whether it would ever change the venue to the White House in order to hold the event in a "secure" ballroom.
The press conference came two days after a man armed with multiple guns and knives tried to break into the WHCA dinner and exchanged gunfire with Secret Service personnel before being tackled and disarmed. Just hours after being evacuated from the chaotic scene, Trump held a press conference with his top administration officials and declared the incident had proven that "we need the ballroom."
Graham said Monday that the president talks about the ballroom "all the time" in his conversations with Republican senators. He said the White House supports the plan to pay for the project with $400 million in public funds.
"The Republican pitch to voters in an election year dominated by the crushing costs of living in this country should be the urgent need for a new marble and gold ballroom for members of the American ruling class to have safer banquets," said one observer sardonically.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) told Pablo Manriquez of MeidasTouch that regardless of the GOP's claims about national security, the ballroom is "about what Donald Trump wants and what makes him more money and puts his name on another edifice. That's all the ballroom is, it's nothing the American people asked for."
Rep. Schneider tells PabloReports that the American people need lower costs, not a new ballroom.
Schneider: It’s always about what Trump wants, what makes him more money, or what puts his name on another edifice. That’s all the ballroom is. It’s not what the American people… pic.twitter.com/gvAu4w9knm
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 27, 2026
"It's nothing the American people need at a time where grocery prices continue to rise and are rising faster, gasoline costs are through the sky, and it's harder for everyday Americans to make it through every day," said Schneider. "The president's always focused on himself."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bayer Continues Push to 'Close the Door' on Glyphosate Victims at US Supreme Court
"Bayer is intent on preserving its right to harm at all costs—a pursuit the Trump administration is all too willing to endorse," said a Food and Water Watch campaigner.
Apr 27, 2026
As pesticide critics held a "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court on Monday, the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, a case whose conclusion is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the Roundup maker—now owned by Bayer—in the country's legal system.
The case stems from John Durnell's 2019 lawsuit against Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that exposure to the herbicide Roundup—whose active ingredient is glyphosate—caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A jury found that the company failed to warn users of the risks associated with the weedkiller, and awarded Durnell $1.25 million in damages.
Bayer argued before the Supreme Court on Monday that Durnell—and others like him—should not be able to bring such a suit because the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state rules for labeling pesticides when the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't require a cancer warning. Bayer and the EPA continue to insist that glyphosate is safe, despite the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying it as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago.
As The Associated Press and Reuters reported, the justices appeared "divided" on Monday, with the AP noting that several "seemed sympathetic to the company's argument that it can't be sued under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup likely doesn't cause cancer. Others, though, grilled attorneys about whether that wrongly stops states from responding to changing research."
Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice—which filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of farmworker organizations—said in a statement that "questions from the justices recognized that the Environmental Protection Agency approves pesticide labels based on the evidence before the agency at a single moment in time, but that evidence can become outdated as real-world exposure grows and scientific studies document resulting harms."
"Federal law requires the manufacturers to update their labels to provide sufficient warnings and directions to protect the public," Goldman stressed, "and state failure-to-warn claims reinforce that obligation—while ensuring children, families, and workers have a path to seek remedies for the harm they suffer."
Other groups that have submitted amicus briefs include Environmental Protection Network—which is made up of former EPA staffers—and the Center for Food Safety, one of the advocacy organizations that joined the rally outside the court. The event was also attended by members of Congress from both major political parties.
"This isn't left v. right—it's right v. wrong," said US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). "Big corporations and their lobbyists have captured both parties, putting profits over our families' health. I've fought Monsanto and Bayer for years, and just filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to protect our right to sue them for illnesses caused by their products."
Despite President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," the Republican recently issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate, and the US Department of Justice has sided with Bayer in this case—part of a broader trend of his administration serving the pesticide industry's interests.
"Monsanto Company v. Durnell will have enormous consequences for environmental health litigation," Food and Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen said Monday. "Bayer is intent on preserving its right to harm at all costs—a pursuit the Trump administration is all too willing to endorse. This case threatens to close the courthouse doors to the many Americans harmed by pesticides."
Heinzen argued that "should the Supreme Court hold that the Environmental Protection Agency's failed pesticide regulatory scheme preempts state failure to warn lawsuits, leaving tens of thousands of sick Americans without legal recourse, Trump and his industry-dominated EPA will be to blame."
"This high stakes case should be a wake-up call for Congress to act," the campaigner added. "Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by toxic pesticides."
As The American Prospect noted Monday in its "three-part series on Bayer's crusade for immunity from Roundup-related cancer claims," the company "is now aggressively lobbying Congress to permanently close the door" on the weedkiller's victims, and managed to get an immunity provision included in the 2026 Farm Bill that advanced out of the US House Agriculture Committee last month.
After joining the rally at the Supreme Court on Monday, Friends of the Earth (FOE) US led a protest outside Bayer's headquarters in downtown Washington, DC, delivering hundreds of thousands of petition signatures are calling on the company to phase out the production of toxic pesticides, including glyphosate and neonicotinoids.
"People are sick and tired of being exposed to toxic pesticides while pesticide corporations shirk responsibility," said FOE senior campaigner Sarah Starman, who spoke at the rally. "Bayer and other pesticide companies should not be allowed to profit from chemicals that threaten our health, harm our environment, and undermine the future of our food system. The hundreds of people who rallied outside the Supreme Court and the 200,000 people who signed comments to Bayer are demanding change."
In the leadup to the arguments before the nation's top court, the Environmental Working Group last week sued the Trump administration at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, accusing the EPA of unlawfully delaying its response to an EWG petition seeking stronger restrictions on glyphosate.
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," declared EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook. "It's time for the agency to stop stalling and do its job."Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


