

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Alisa Simmons (202) 454-5111
Lori Wallach (202) 454-5107 lwallach@citizen.org
The 20-year record of job loss and trade deficits from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is haunting President Barack Obama's efforts to obtain special trade authority to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), said Public Citizen as it released a new report that comprehensively documents NAFTA's outcomes.
The 20-year record of job loss and trade deficits from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is haunting President Barack Obama's efforts to obtain special trade authority to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), said Public Citizen as it released a new report that comprehensively documents NAFTA's outcomes. Next week's presidential trip to Mexico for a long-scheduled "Three Amigos" U.S.-Mexico-Canada summit will raise public attention to NAFTA, on which the TPP is modeled, which is not good news for Obama's push for the TPP and Fast Track.
Numerous polls show that opposition to NAFTA is among few issues that unite Americans across partisan and regional divides. Public ire about NAFTA's legacy of job loss and policymakers' concerns about two decades of huge NAFTA trade deficits have plagued the administration's efforts to obtain Fast Track trade authority for the TPP. The TPP would expand the NAFTA model to more nations, including ultra-low-wage Vietnam. In the U.S. House of Representatives, most Democrats and a bloc of GOP have indicated opposition to Fast Track, as has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Public Citizen's new report, "NAFTA's 20-Year Legacy and the Fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership," compiles government data on NAFTA outcomes to detail the empirical record underlying the public and policymaker sentiment. It also shows that warnings issued by NAFTA boosters that a failure to pass NAFTA would result in foreign policy crises - rising Mexican migration and a neighboring nation devolving into a troubled narco-state - actually came to fruition in part because of NAFTA provisions that destroyed millions of rural Mexican livelihoods.
"Outside of corporate boardrooms and D.C. think tanks, Americans view NAFTA as a symbol of job loss and a cancer on the middle class," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "If you are a president battling to overcome bipartisan congressional skepticism about giving you special trade authority to fast track a massive 12-nation NAFTA expansion, it is really not helpful to be visiting Mexico for a summit of NAFTA-nation leaders."
The Public Citizen report shows that not only did projections and promises made by NAFTA proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite. Such outcomes include a staggering $177 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada, one million net U.S. jobs lost in NAFTA's first decade alone, slower U.S. manufacturing and services export growth to Mexico and Canada, a doubling of immigration from Mexico, larger agricultural trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.
"The data have disproved the promises of more jobs and better wages, so bizarrely now NAFTA defenders argue the pact was a success because it expanded the volume of U.S. trade with the two countries without mentioning that this resulted in a 556 percent increase in our trade deficit with those countries, with a flood of new NAFTA imports wiping out hundreds of thousands of American jobs," said Wallach.
The study tracks specific promises made by U.S. corporations like Chrysler, GE and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveals government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.
"The White House and the corporate lobby sold NAFTA with promises of export growth and job creation, but the actual data show the projections were at best wrong," said Wallach. "The gulf between the gains promised for NAFTA and the damage that ensued means that the public and policymakers are not buying the same sales pitch now being made for the TPP and Fast Track."
The report also documents how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality; how since NAFTA, U.S. trade deficit growth with Mexico and Canada has been 50 percent higher than with countries not party to a U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and how U.S. manufacturing and services exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the pre-NAFTA rate.
Among the study's findings:
Rather than creating in any year the 200,000 net jobs per year promised by former President Bill Clinton on the basis of Peterson Institute for International Economics projections, job loss from NAFTA began rapidly:
American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA's foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico, and as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004. A small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus of $2.5 billion with Mexico turned into a huge new deficit and a pre-NAFTA $29.6 billion deficit with Canada exploded. The 2013 NAFTA deficit was $177 billion, representing a more than six-fold increase in the NAFTA deficit.
More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers, most in the manufacturing sector, have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) since NAFTA because they lost their jobs due to offshoring to, or imports from, Canada and Mexico. The TAA program is narrow, covering only a subset of jobs lost at manufacturing facilities, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss. A TAA database searchable by congressional district, sector and more is available here.
NAFTA has contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growing income inequality. There is broad consensus among economists that recent trade flows have been a significant contributor to growing income inequality; the only debate is about the degree of trade's responsibility. NAFTA's broadest economic impact has been to fundamentally transform the types of jobs and wages available for the 63 percent of American workers without a college degree. Most of those who lost manufacturing jobs to NAFTA offshoring and import competition found reemployment in lower-wage service sector jobs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced a wage reduction, most of them taking a pay cut of greater than 20 percent. As increasing numbers of workers displaced from manufacturing jobs have joined those competing for non-offshorable, low-skill jobs in sectors such as hospitality and food service, real wages have also fallen in these sectors under NAFTA. The resulting downward pressure on middle-class wages has fueled recent growth in income inequality.
Scores of environmental and health laws have been challenged in foreign tribunals through NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute resolution system. More than $360 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via "investor-state" tribunal challenges against toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies, and more. More than $12.4 billion is pending in such NAFTA claims, including challenges of medicine patent policies, a fracking moratorium and a renewable energy program.
The average annual U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada in NAFTA's first two decades reached $975 million, almost three times the pre-NAFTA level. U.S. beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 133 percent. Over the past decade, total U.S. food exports to Mexico and Canada have actually fallen slightly while U.S. food imports from Mexico and Canada have more than doubled. This stands in stark contrast to projections that NAFTA would allow U.S. farmers to export their way to newfound wealth and farm income stability. Despite a 239 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA, the average nominal U.S. price of food in the United States has jumped 67 percent since NAFTA.
The reductions in consumer goods prices that have materialized have not been sufficient to offset the losses to wages under NAFTA; U.S. workers without college degrees (63 percent of the workforce) likely have lost a net amount equal to 12.2 percent of their wages even after accounting for gains from cheaper goods. This net loss means a loss of more than $3,300 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of $27,500.
The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase under NAFTA's first decade, destroying the livelihoods of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and about 1.4 million additional Mexican workers whose livelihoods depended on agriculture.The desperate migration of those displaced from Mexico's rural economy pushed down wages in Mexico's border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States following NAFTA's implementation.
Facing displacement, rising prices and stagnant wages, more than half the Mexican population, and more than 60 percent of the rural population, still falls below the poverty line, despite the promises that NAFTA would bring broad prosperity to Mexicans. Real wages in Mexico have fallen significantly below pre-NAFTA levels as price increases for basic consumer goods have exceeded wage increases. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods than on the day that NAFTA took effect. Despite promises that NAFTA would benefit Mexican consumers by granting access to cheaper imported products, the cost of basic consumer goods in Mexico has risen to seven times the pre-NAFTA level, while the minimum wage stands at only four times the pre-NAFTA level. Though the price paid to Mexican farmers for corn plummeted after NAFTA, the deregulated retail price of tortillas - Mexico's staple food - shot up 279 percent in the pact's first 10 years.
"Given NAFTA's damaging outcomes, few of the corporations or think tanks that sold it as a boon for all of us in the 1990s like to talk about it, but the reality is that their promises failed, the opposite occurred and millions of people were severely harmed and now this legacy is derailing President Obama's misguided push to expand NAFTA through the TPP," said Wallach.
The report is available at https://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-20-year-legacy.pdf.
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) 588-1000Content creator María Teresa Felipe Sosa hailed Cubans as "a people who refuse to submit to the true regime of horror, which the United States represents, as it goes around starting wars throughout the world."
As the team at Tehran-based Explosive Media keeps churning out viral artificial intelligence-generated Lego-style animated videos condemning the US-Israeli war on Iran, a Cuban version of the clips reacting to President Donald Trump's threats to attack the island appeared Monday on social media.
First posted by Havana art historian and digital content creator María Teresa Felipe Sosa, the video was shared by users including US investigative journalist Ryan Grim and Explosive Media, which added, "Welcome to the #LRF Cuba," or Lego Resistance Front.
"The threat that Cuba represents to the United States is the dignity and principles of a people who refuse to submit to the true regime of horror, which the United States represents, as it goes around starting wars throughout the world," Felipe said Tuesday on social media.
According to the video's lyrics:
They seek to stifle the lifeblood of this land with the talons of empire and the drums of war, from the north they unleash their poisonous breath seeking to seize what belongs to others. But this soil has roots of steel and a people who cannot be bought with money.
They raise walls of hatred and lies while the island, relying on its own strength, breathes amid 60 years of constant hostile siege—yet we continue to march forward with a firm step. There is no threat that can break our faith; the Cuban knows well how to stand tall.
Here dignity has neither price nor master; we are the guardians of our own dream. My people, stand tall, with fists held high against the invader and their dark assault.
There's no surrender beneath this burning sun, for it's known that the homeland must be defended. Resist my brother with your head held high for every victory in the battle-hardened struggle, your love is the compass of our people, for you know that the homeland must be defended.
The video comes amid more than 65 years of US-based terrorism, assassination attempts, and a tightened economic embargo targeting Cuba, as well as Trump's threats to attack or "take" the island. Despite extreme hardship caused or exacerbated by these internationally condemned policies, the Cuban people have been resolute in their resistance to US aggression.
With no victory in sight in the US-Israeli war on Iran and the American people increasingly wary of yet another war of choice waged by the self-described "president of peace" who's now attacked 10 countries over the course of his two terms in office, even some Republican lawmakers are warning Trump against attacking Cuba.
Asked if he would support such an attack, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told The Hill on Tuesday, "No, I would not."
"There’s a lot of economic pressure you can put on Cuba that makes a big difference by itself,” the hawkish senator added.
Numerous Democratic lawmakers have consistently opposed any attack on Cuba; however Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently helped sink a Senate war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from attacking the country.
More than 6 in 10 Americans surveyed by multiple pollsters in recent months said they oppose a US war on Cuba.
Responding to the renewed US menace under Trump, Felipe recently wrote that "the current threats aren't anything new, they only confirm a dangerous insistence—that of replacing international law with the law of the strongest."
"In the face of that, Cuba responds with an uncomfortable and persistent idea—its people does not give up," she continued. "Cuba is not seeking confrontation. It demands respect. And history, although some prefer to ignore it, has been clear—independence is not negotiated under threat."
"Once again," Felipe added, "and against all imperial odds, Cuba will win."
"These numbers tell the real story," said one campaigner. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans."
While inflation hit a three-year high on Tuesday and President Donald Trump publicly confessed that he doesn't consider how his illegal war on Iran impacts Americans' finances, a Federal Reserve bank revealed that US household debt has risen to a record high of $18.8 trillion.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Center for Microeconomic Data found that household debt increased by $18 billion in the first quarter of this year.
It specifically found that by the end of March, mortgage balances increased by $21 billion to $13.19 trillion, home equity line of credit balances jumped by $12 billion to $446 billion, and automobile loan balances rose by $18 billion to $1.69 trillion.
The center further found that "while student loan balances remained essentially flat, decreasing by $6 billion and standing at $1.66 trillion," the delinquency rate "increased to 10.3% of balances 90+ days delinquent, up from the 9.6%" in the last quarter of 2025.
The analysis notes that credit card balances dropped by $25 billion to $1.25 trillion, a seasonal decline that generally occurs after the winter holidays. However, in its coverage of the New York Fed's findings, CNBC highlighted another report out Tuesday that shows how Americans are struggling with current economic conditions.
As CNBC detailed:
More than half—53%—of consumers carry credit card balances to cover essential expenses, according to a report released Tuesday by debt management company Achieve.
"For many households, higher balances are less a sign of economic optimism and more a sign that wages and savings are struggling to keep pace with essential expenses like groceries, utilities, and housing," Austin Kilgore, analyst for the Achieve Center for Consumer Insights, said in a statement.
Among respondents in Achieve's survey of 2,000 consumers, 57% of borrowers said it would take six months or longer to pay off all their credit card debt.
According to ABC News, "On a call with reporters Tuesday morning, researchers at the New York Fed described Americans' overall credit as 'stable,' but noted there are weaknesses among younger consumers and lower-income households."
Mike Pierce, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, was far more scathing, declaring in a statement that "working families are at a breaking point and desperately need relief. Instead, President Trump is bragging about his plans for a new White House ballroom while his head economist touts families' surging debts as a sign of a booming economy."
"These numbers tell the real story: Trump's economy has driven up costs," Pierce continued. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans under stagnant wages and rampant price gouging by grocery conglomerates, data centers, corporate landlords, and private equity firms."
"Making matters worse, Trump's war with Iran is pushing inflation to record levels and forcing Americans to feel the economic pain at the pump," he added, as gasoline prices topped $4.50 a gallon on Tuesday. "It is clear that President Trump is not only failing to 'Make America Affordable Again' but is actively pushing millions of families further into the red."
Last week, Pierce's group and The Century Foundation published an analysis about soaring US auto loan debt. Report co-author and Protect Borrowers senior fellow Tara Mikkilineni said at the time that "for millions of working families, a car is not a luxury, it is an essential economic lifeline. Working families deserve relief, and they deserve to have a government that is watching out for them, not allowing lenders and auto dealers to rake in record profits at their expense."
Meanwhile, Trump—who is facing intense disapproval from the US public, particularly regarding the economy—has repeatedly made clear he doesn't care how his policies, from sweeping tariffs to the Iran War, impact Americans' pocketbooks.
Trump's assault prompted Iran to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route, which has driven up the prices of fossil fuels worldwide. Speaking with journalists outside the White House last month, Trump suggested that $4 a gallon for gas is "not very high."
Asked about the war's impact on the US public's finances again on Tuesday, Trump said that "the only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran—they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing—we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all."
Those remarks came just hours after the latest consumer price index from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that prices increased by 3.8% on an annual basis in April—above economists' expected 3.7% jump—and the cost of living rose above average monthly wage gains. Various experts responded by taking aim at the president.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers said that "Trump campaigned on bringing down the cost of living 'starting on day one,' and then: started a trade war; deported much of the farm workforce, bombed Iran, allowed healthcare subsidies to expire, cut food assistance, ran an interest-rate boosting deficit, and attacked Fed independence."
Sen. Jeff Merkley called the project “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday released a report estimating that President Donald Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense system would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
The CBO report projects that acquisition costs for the proposed national missile defense (NMD) system would account for the vast majority of the $1.2 trillion total, including "costs for the system’s major components—namely, the interceptor layers and a space-based missile warning and tracking system."
In fact, the report says that the NMD system's space-based interceptor layer will be so expensive that it "accounts for about 70% of acquisition costs and 60% of total costs."
The CBO also questioned whether this massive investment would successfully protect the US from a foreign missile attack.
"Although the notional NMD system... would be far more capable than defenses the United States fields today," the report states, "it would not be an impenetrable shield or be able to fully counter a large attack of the sort that Russia or China might be able to launch."
"The strategic consequences of deploying an NMD system with the capacity considered here are unclear," the report continues, "because they hinge on an adversary’s perception of the defense's capability and how that adversary chose to respond."
The CBO's estimate on the missile system's cost was nearly seven times the projection Trump made last year, when he said it would cost just $175 billion.
And because the US Department of Defense still hasn't delivered key details about the proposed system, the CBO wrote, it is currently "impossible to estimate the long-term cost" of the initiative.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a longtime critic of the "Golden Dome" proposal, said the CBO report shows the Trump-backed project is "nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans."
"Just like the president’s symbolic renaming of the Department of Defense or deploying National Guard troops to our cities," added Merkley, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, "this move to fund the ‘Golden Dome’ will be far more effective at squandering money than protecting American lives."
The Oregon Democrat vowed to "continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to prevent another dime from flowing to this racket."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), also a longtime critic of the president's proposed missile system, wrote in a social media post that "Trump’s Golden Dome is a $1.2 trillion golden sieve that won’t stop a nuclear attack, but will balloon the deficit and boost the bottom lines of billionaires."
Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama and current co-host of Pod Save America, was even blunter in his criticism of the "Golden Dome" plan.
"$1.2 TRILLION for this dumb fucking Golden Dome missile defense system," he wrote in a social media post. "The initial estimate was $175 billion! Madness. No one wants this."
Daniel Larison, contributing editor at Antiwar.com and former senior editor at The American Conservative magazine, wrote that the CBO report exposed Trump's dome as a "trillion-dollar boondoggle."
Trump has said that he was inspired to develop such a missile system after being impressed by Israel’s “Iron Dome," despite the fact that Israel has a vastly smaller landmass to defend compared to the US and has historically faced far more danger from missile and rocket attacks.