

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.

Lori Wallach (202) 454-5107, lwallach@citizen.org
Ira Arlook (202) 258-5437, ira@fenton.com
The just-released official U.S. government trade data covering the first two years of the U.S.-Korea "free trade" agreement (FTA) further chills the prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Fast Track trade authority. Today's release of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) data likely will intensify congressional antipathy toward Fast Track and concerns about the TPP. The USITC data, corrected to remove re-exports not produced in the United States, show falling U.S. exports to Korea and a ballooning U.S.
The just-released official U.S. government trade data covering the first two years of the U.S.-Korea "free trade" agreement (FTA) further chills the prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Fast Track trade authority. Today's release of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) data likely will intensify congressional antipathy toward Fast Track and concerns about the TPP. The USITC data, corrected to remove re-exports not produced in the United States, show falling U.S. exports to Korea and a ballooning U.S. trade deficit under the Korea FTA, which served as the U.S. template for the TPP.
U.S. goods exports to Korea have dropped 5 percent under the Korea FTA's first two years, compared to the two years before FTA implementation, in contrast to the Obama administration's promise that the Korea FTA would mean "more exports, more jobs" and recent claims that the agreement has shown "strong results." Imports into the United States from Korea have climbed 8 percent under the FTA (an increase of $4.7 billion per year).
From the year before the FTA took effect to its second year of implementation, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea swelled 50 percent (a $7.6 billion increase). In 23 out of 24 months since the Korea FTA took effect, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea has exceeded the average monthly level seen in the two years before the deal. The trade deficit increase under the FTA indicates the loss of more than 50,000 U.S. jobs, according the trade-jobs ratio that the Obama administration used to project gains from the deal.
"The fact that the Korea deal has resulted in a worsetrade deficit and more lost jobs has had a very chilling effect on public and congressional support for the TPP and Fast Track, and the Obama administration's dishonest claims that the pact has expanded exports has only hardened that opposition," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "While most Democrats and a sizeable bloc of Republicans in Congress have already voiced opposition to Fast Tracking the TPP, both the negative outcomes of the Korea FTA and the administration's dishonest claim that the pact is a success are adding more converts daily."
Rather than acknowledge that the Korea pact has resulted in declining U.S. exports and a larger trade deficit, the administration's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has relied on data omissions and distortions in press materials that attempt to paint failure as success. For a full response to the USTR's litany of data errors, visit https://www.citizen.org/documents/Korea-FTA-USTR-data-debunk.pdf.
The USTR's biggest distortion is counting foreign-made products that are simply shipped through the United States en route to Korea as "U.S. exports" to Korea. Rather than use the official U.S. government trade data provided by the USITC that counts only U.S.-made exports, USTR cites data that treat the 14 percent rise in foreign-made exports to Korea under the FTA as a boost to U.S. exports, artificially diminishing the dramatic U.S. export downfall.
The USTR relies on a series of other data errors in attempt to hide the dismal Korea FTA record, including:
* Failing to account for inflation: By treating a rise in prices as a rise in exports, the USTR mistakenly claims that the observed decrease in U.S. exports to Korea in manufactured goods under the FTA is an increase.
* Ignoring aggregate losses to cherry-pick tiny winning sectors: The USTR does not mention the overall 34 percent downfall in U.S. agricultural exports to Korea under the FTA's first two years. Instead, the USTR boasts export increases in products like fruit and wine. The combined annual export gains in fruit and wine amount to $69 million, less than 6 percent of the more than $1.2 billion aggregate annual export loss in agricultural products.
* Using a selective timeframe: The USTR's assessment of the Korea FTA record ignores 12 months of available data under the FTA and fails to include in the pre-FTA baseline of comparison the three months of data immediately prior to the deal's implementation. This selective timeframe, combined with the decision to incorporate foreign-made exports, allows the USTR to claim that the U.S. export downfall under the FTA is entirely because of diminished exports in corn and fossil fuels. But even after discounting both corn and fossil fuels, the full set of data shows that U.S. exports to Korea have still fallen under the FTA, and the U.S. trade deficit with Korea has still ballooned.
"The USTR's resort to major data deceptions to try to play down the debacle of the Korea FTA indicates just how desperate the administration is to shake the mounting evidence that the FTA model it now seeks to expand with the TPP costs U.S. jobs," said Wallach. "But using data tricks to try to cover up the failure of the largest Obama trade deal, like treating foreign-made products as U.S. exports, is likely to backfire, and members of Congress do not take kindly to deception."
The decline in U.S. exports to Korea under the FTA's first two years was broad-based; of the 15 U.S. sectors that export the most to Korea, nine of them have experienced export declines under the FTA. Export shifts under the FTA have been larger for losing sectors than for winning sectors. Of the 15 top export sectors, eight have seen declines in exports to Korea of greater than 5 percent while only three have seen growth of exports to Korea of greater than 5 percent.
Many of the sectors that the administration promised would be the biggest beneficiaries of the FTA have been among the largest losers, including U.S. meat producers. U.S. poultry exports to Korea have plummeted 31 percent under the FTA, while U.S. beef and pork exports have fallen 10 and 19 percent respectively.
The U.S. automotive industry, another promised winner under the deal, has endured a surge in automotive imports from Korea that has swamped a marginal increase in U.S. automotive exports to Korea since the FTA took effect. While U.S. average annual automotive exports to Korea under the pact have been $294 million higher than before the deal, average annual automotive imports from Korea have soared by $4.9 billion under the deal, spurring a 32 percent increase in the U.S. automotive trade deficit with Korea.
Overall, U.S. export growth to countries with pacts like the Korea FTA has been particularly lackluster. Growth of U.S. exports to countries that are not FTA partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to FTA partners by 30 percent over the past decade.
For further analysis of the outcomes of the Korea FTA's first two years, visit https://www.citizen.org/documents/Korea-FTA-USTR-data-debunk.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) 588-1000Trump's "betrayal of Americans is brazen" said a DNC spokesperson.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening held an event at the White House to thank some of America's richest corporations for financing his planned $250 million ballroom—an event that garnered the latest accusations of corruption against a president who has also raked in billions of dollars in profits in the cryptocurrency market since he took office.
As reported by The Washington Post, Trump "treated donors from Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the defense sector to a candlelit dinner in the East Room on Wednesday as a thank-you, praising them for quickly heeding his call for support and noting some offered as much as $25 million."
Trump also told the guests in attendance that they would likely be inviting to the ballroom's grand opening.
According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, several of the most powerful corporations in the US sent representatives to attend the dinner, including Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir. Others expected to attend were Stephen Schwarzman, founder of investment firm Blackstone, as well as prominent cryptocurrency investors Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.
The White House dinner drew immediate criticism from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which labeled it a "cash-for-access" event that took place as Americans across the country are struggling to afford basic necessities such as groceries and healthcare, and as the Republican Party has refused to negotiate with Democrats on extending healthcare subsidies in exchange for ending the government shutdown.
"This administration’s slogan should be ‘Let them eat cake,'" said Rosemary Boeglin, communications director for the DNC. "Trump is busy wining and dining with his rich friends and wealthy donors while failing to make a deal to end the government shutdown. Instead of trading cash for access, Trump and his Republican loyalists in Congress should be getting back to work to reopen the government and avoid a healthcare crisis."
Boeglin added that Trump's "betrayal of Americans is brazen," and noted that he could find money to bail out his political ally in Argentina but not enough to fund enhanced tax credits that help Americans pay for health insurance.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a video on Wednesday night that also bashed Trump for hosting an entire dinner at the White House to thank big corporate donors for funding his vanity project.
"Donald Trump has found the time to wine and dine billionaires," she said. "Oh, and apparently to carve his corporate donors' names permanently into the walls in the White House. You cannot make this up! As usual, billionaire corporations are lining up to dump money into Trump's ballroom, possibly in exchange for some favors."
I didn't know draining the swamp meant Donald Trump building a $200 million ballroom for billionaires to bend the knee for special favors. pic.twitter.com/dqKb0glyl6
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) October 16, 2025
Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and vice-chairman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told The New York Times that the White House event honoring wealthy donors "shows what the ballroom is really all about: pay to play."
"This is payment for access," he added. "Not just to the grounds of the White House but access to the president of the United States."
Many of the attendees at the dinner were from industries that are pushing for loose regulations of artificial intelligence and other technology and companies—such as Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir—that have contracts with the federal government.
Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in government ethics, told the Post that the ballroom raised serious ethical concerns because "it may or not be money in his pocket, but it’s absolutely to benefit Trump personally because it’s important to him."
Reporting by the Wall Street Journal indicates the active "weaponization" of the agency to target the far-right president's political opponents and groups peacefully organizing against his administration's destruction agenda.
With reporting that President Donald Trump has ordered "sweeping changes" at the Internal Revenue Service, including aiming the agency's criminal-investigative unit at left-leaning nonprofit groups and individual donors, critics are warning of the chilling impacts of the weaponization of state power against the Republican administration's perceived political enemies.
The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, citing various people familiar with the shift in policy, reports that a "senior IRS official involved in the effort" has already created "a list of potential targets" for the IRS criminal-investigative division, or IRS-CI, which is also being installed with more loyal "allies" of the president to administer the new direction.
According to the WSJ:
The proposed changes could open the door to politically motivated probes and are being driven by Gary Shapley, an adviser to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Shapley has told people that he is going to replace Guy Ficco, the chief of the investigative unit, who has been at the agency for decades, and that Shapley has been putting together a list of donors and groups he believes IRS investigators should look at. Among those on the list are the billionaire Democratic donor George Soros and his affiliated groups, according to a senior IRS official and another person briefed on the list. It couldn’t be determined upon what grounds Shapley would seek to begin such an investigation.
The reporting indicates that the decision to mobilize the IRS-CI for such an effort followed frustration experienced by Trump officials who encountered "obstacles in a separate effort to strip tax-exempt status from certain nonprofits," including universities with whom the president has clashed over student protests and other campus policies.
In recent weeks, various high-level officials in the administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi, have been adamant that there's a network of progressive groups and donors that represent a "violent" faction on the left, which must be dismantled and criminally prosecuted. Still, they have offered little to no evidence about who or what this network is or what criminal conduct they are talking about.
Citing people familiar with the new plan at the IRS, the WSJ reports that "some senior IRS criminal tax attorneys are already voicing concern about the methods of investigators while Trump encourages his administration to target donors and nonprofit groups."
They are not the only ones expressing concern.
"This is using the government to destroy dissent," said Denver Lee Riggleman III, an Air Force veteran and former Democratic congressman from Virginia. "This is textbook authoritarianism."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) responded to the new reporting by warning about the "weaponization" of the IRS by Trump against groups and individuals based on political speech, a clear violation of First Amendment protections and an unlawful use of the agency's enforcement powers.
“Donald Trump believes he’s a king, and he’s determined to wield every agency under his control as a weapon to crush political opposition and silence free speech," said Wyden in a Wednesday night statement.
"The Trump administration will try to legitimize this abuse with legal opinions and procedural lingo, but the implicit threat is that if you give to a progressive cause, they’ll deem you a terrorist and ruin your life," he continued. “Senate Republicans have spent years faking outrage over what they called the weaponization of government. They’ve spent more than a decade moaning about the IRS scrutinizing conservative tax-exempt groups—scrutiny the IRS in fact applied to organizations across the political spectrum."
Now, added Wyden, that "weaponization" the GOP warns about, but which never came to pass with an IRS under Democratic control, "is happening right now in front of their eyes, and unless Republicans stand up and speak out, they’ll be complicit in Trump’s assault on our Constitutional right to free speech.”
Ashley Schapitl, a former Democratic Capitol Hill staffer who served at the US Treasury Department and the US Senate Finance Committee, warned that "the total weaponization of tax enforcement leads down a dark road."
"Needless to say, under normal circumstances," said Schapitl, "political appointees are nowhere near and know nothing about IRS criminal investigations."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, said that directing the IRS to target specific people for political purposes is not just a misuse of the agency, but a criminal act under federal statute.
"It's a full-blown federal felony crime for anyone in the White House (and all Secretaries but the AG) to order the IRS to target people," said Reichlin-Melnick. "It's not just a crime to DO it, it's a federal crime for an employee not to REPORT such an order to the Treasury Inspector General."
As Trump openly admitted last month, and the WSJ noted in its reporting, the president has ordered Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to identify and target those groups the White House has claimed are fomenting "political violence," but which critics warn is just a vague use of language so Trump can target organizations that protest or organize against his policies.
“Scott will do that," Trump said during a recent cabinet meeting in the White House, referring to the targeting of groups or donors. "That’s easy for Scott."
"What we will not accept is for the ACA premiums to skyrocket on the American people," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "And what we will not accept is allowing the teetering of this system to collapse."
Two weeks into the government shutdown that was triggered when Democrats in Congress refused to help the Republican Party rip healthcare subsidies and coverage away from millions of Americans, two of the top progressive lawmakers in the US were resolute Wednesday night at a town hall held by CNN.
Democrats, said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) "need to see ink on paper"—legislation that is passed in the House and Senate and signed by President Donald Trump to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies—before they agree to a spending package to reopen the government.
"I don't accept IOUs, I don't accept pinky promises, that's not the business that I'm in," said Ocasio-Cortez when CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins asked her and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) whether Democrats would accept "commitments from the White House and Republicans," who have claimed they will hold votes on healthcare after the government reopens.
These losers — the leaders of the Democrat Party — are not serious people. They don't have any clue what they're talking about other than demanding free health care for illegals to vote to re-open the government.
Shame on them. pic.twitter.com/IdygxnEB8r
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 16, 2025
Ocasio-Cortez added that she would not support a Republican proposal for a one-year extension of the subsidies, which help millions of Americans pay for monthly health insurance premiums for coverage purchased through the ACA marketplace. Once the subsidies expire—as they are currently set to at the end of 2025—KFF has estimated that the average ACA premium will more than double.
Whether at the end of this year or after next year's midterm elections, said the congresswoman, "what we will not accept is for the ACA premiums to skyrocket on the American people."
"What we will not accept is the doubling of these premiums. And what we will not accept is allowing the teetering of this system to collapse right before everyone’s eyes,” she said.
Republicans have persisted in repeating the baseless claim that instead of opposing skyrocketing health insurance costs, Democrats are refusing to vote for a continuing resolution to reopen the government—which needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate—because they want to give "free healthcare" to undocumented immigrants.
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for coverage under the ACA, Medicaid, or Medicare. The Republicans' massive, broadly unpopular One Big Beautiful Bill Act stripped legal asylum recipients, green-card holders, and other legal permanent residents of their eligibility for those healthcare programs, a provision which Democrats have called to reverse.
When asked whether the US should provide healthcare for undocumented immigrants at the town hall, Ocasio-Cortez took aim at the "common lie" that's been spread by GOP leaders including Vice President JD Vance—and vehemently defended the established statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires all hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide emergency treatment to anyone who needs it, regardless of immigration status.
"I don't know about you, but me, as a human being, I don't want to live in a world where if a human being is struck by a car or is getting rushed into a hospital, that people in the ER surgical room are asking for your insurance information or asking for documents before they save your life," said the congresswoman.
Rep. @AOC: “This is a common lie Republicans - especially JD Vance (+ @RepTimBurchett) - keep repeating… undocumented people can’t be covered by federal insurance… and federal law says everyone gets treated in the ER. As it should be.” pic.twitter.com/TYqmiYswP4
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) October 16, 2025
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez expressed empathy with federal workers who are missing paychecks as a result of the shutdown, and told audience members who are unable to obtain government-backed loans to buy a home or struggling with a loss of income that they aim for the shutdown to end "as quickly as possible."
But Ocasio-Cortez rejected one suggestion from an audience member who pointed out that about 80% of people who benefit from ACA subsidies live in states that voted for Trump and in "rural, mostly Republican areas."
"If the Republicans are so insistent on sticking it to their own voters on this issue, why don't the Democrats just let them?" asked the town hall participant.
The question illustrated how Trump is "dividing this country," said Sanders, who pointed out that he and Ocasio-Cortez have spoken to large crowds in rural, conservative areas as part of his Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
Q: “Most hospitals + people who will lose insurance are in rural areas. If Trump & Republicans are so intent on sticking it to their own voters, why not let them?”@AOC: “That’s the difference between us & Trump. I don’t care if you voted for me, I want you to have health care.” pic.twitter.com/OvUjAcZWLD
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) October 16, 2025
"It also speaks to a big difference between someone like Trump and someone like me, and someone like Bernie," said Ocasio-Cortez. "Trump believes that if you don't vote for him, he doesn't have to be your leader... I don't care if someone voted for me or not. I don't care if someone is a Republican or an independent or a Democrat... That will never change the fact that I'm going to fight for them to have healthcare."
"And that is the difference," she said, "between a strongman and an authoritarian, and a leader of a democracy."