SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 05 2015, 09:45am EDT
Contact:
Lori Wallach
Email: lwallach@citizen.org
Melinda St. Louis
Phone: 202-441-7579
If There Really Is a Final TPP Deal: Can It Pass Congress? When Does Congress Get to See a Final Text?
Statement of Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
WASHINGTON
If there really is a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, its fate in Congress is highly uncertain given the narrow margin by which trade authority passed this summer, the concessions made to get a deal, and growing congressional and public concerns about the TPP's threats to jobs, wages, safe food and affordable medicines and more. The intense national battle over trade authority was just a preview of the massive opposition the TPP will face given that Democratic and GOP members of Congress and the public soon will be able to see the specific TPP terms that threaten their interests.
With congressional opposition to TPP growing and the Obama administration basically up against elections cycles in various countries, this ministerial was extended repeatedly because this was the do or die time but it's unclear if there really is a deal or this is kabuki theatre intended to create a sense of inevitability so as to insulate the TPP from growing opposition.
Ten U.S. presidential candidates have pushed anti-TPP messages in their campaigning, stoking U.S. voters' ire about the pact. Democratic candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said that "The TPP must be defeated." GOP frontrunner Donald Trump also has repeatedly slammed the TPP, stating "It's a horrible deal for the United States and it should not pass." The Canadian national election outcome could also rock the TPP talks, as Conservative Prime Minister Harper's political opponents have taken critical views of his approach to TPP.
If there really is a deal, its fate in Congress is at best uncertain given that since the trade authority vote, the small bloc of Democrats who made the narrow margin of passage have made demands about TPP currency, drug patent and environmental terms that are likely not in the final deal, while the GOP members who switched to supporting Fast Track in the last weeks demand enforceable currency terms, stricter rules of origin for autos, auto parts and apparel, and better dairy access for U.S. producers.
The TPP's prospects will be even worse if the Administration announces a deal today but then does not actually have a final text to provide Congress. There is intense controversy in many TPP countries about the pacts' threats to jobs, affordable medicine, safe food and more.
Useful Resources
The Fast Track timeline for a U.S. congressional vote on the TPP: As this memo explains, under the Fast Track bill, various congressional notice and report filing requirements add up to about four and one half months between notice of a final deal and congressional votes being taken. Even if all of the timelines are fudged by the 90-day notice to Congress before signing, a TPP vote cannot occur in 2015.
Congressional Letters Raising Doubts on the TPP's Congressional Prospects: On Sept. 25, 160 House GOP and Democrats sent a letter to Obama demanding enforceable currency disciplines in the TPP. While building that level of support required months when a similar letter was sent in 2013, this letter was in circulation for only a week, starting when the TPP Atlanta ministerial was announced. Meanwhile, at the end of the summer, 19 pro-Fast Track Democrats sent a letter laying out necessary environmental terms for an acceptable deal, and 18 pro-Fast Track Democrats sent a letter about lack of enforcement in current and future trade agreements and demanding action against Peru for violations of environmental terms in its bilateral U.S. trade deal. Twelve Democrats who supported Fast Track and 12 GOP members were among the 160 representatives signing a letter decrying Malaysia's inclusion in the TPP and the upgrade of Malaysia's human trafficking status. During this week's negotiations, the top Republican and Democrat leaders on trade in the House and Senate sent a letter expressing frustration at the lack of coordination and consultation between USTR and Congress on the remaining issues of the negotiation, and 25 pro-Fast Track Republicans and Democrats from dairy districts sent a letter expressing their concern that a final deal would not meet their goal for improved dairy market access in Canada and Japan.
Polling: As this memo shows, recent polling reveals broad U.S. public opposition to more-of-the-same trade deals among Independents, Republicans and Democrats. While Americans support trade, they do not support an expansion of status quo trade policies, complicating the push for the TPP. Furthermore, recent Pew polls in many of the TPP nations show that, outside Vietnam, the deal does not have strong support.
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
Economist Says Fed Warning Shows Trump Driving US Economy 'Toward Disaster'
"Launching chaotic trade wars with our allies and gutting Social Security, Medicaid, and other vital programs in order to fund tax breaks for his billionaire donors isn't making life more affordable for working-class families."
Mar 19, 2025
A former Obama administration economic adviser said Wednesday that the Federal Reserve's forecast of increased unemployment, accelerating inflation, and slower growth driven by President Donald Trump's economic policies could portend a return of the "stagflation" that plagued the nation in the 1970s.
The Federal Open Markets Committee, which sets U.S. monetary policy, downgraded its economic outlook for 2025 from an initial projection of 2.1% growth to 1.7%. FOMC also revised its inflation forecast upward from 2.5% to 2.8%.
While FOMC said that "recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace," the committee noted that "uncertainty around the economic outlook has increased."
Fears of an economic slowdown or even a recession have increased dramatically since Trump took office and imposed tariffs on some of the nation's biggest trade partners while moving to gut critical social programs in order to fund a $4.5 trillion tax cut that will overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Americans.
"Inflation has started to move up now. We think partly in response to tariffs and there may be a delay in further progress over the course of this year," Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said during a Wednesday news conference, at which he said interest rates will remain unchanged. "The survey data [of] both household and businesses show significant large rising uncertainty and significant concerns about downside risks."
The economic justice group Groundwork Collaborative said the FOMC projections show that "Trump is steering our economy toward disaster," while warning of the possible return of stagflation, a combination of low or negative economic growth and inflation.
Alex Jacquez, the chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative and a former adviser at the White House National Economic Council during the Obama administration, said in a statement that "the Federal Reserve's projections confirm what millions of Americans are already thinking: President Trump is steering our economy toward disaster."
"Voters elected President Trump to lower the cost of living, and instead, they continue to be saddled with persistently high inflation and interest rates," Jacquez continued. "Launching chaotic trade wars with our allies and gutting Social Security, Medicaid, and other vital programs in order to fund tax breaks for his billionaire donors isn't making life more affordable for working-class families. It is, however, a perfect recipe for stagflation."
Trump's economic policies—which some observers believe could be designed to deliberately tank the economy so that the ultrawealthy can buy up assets at deep discounts—have sent consumer confidence plummeting. Meanwhile, recent polls have revealed that a majority of voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy and inflation.
The latest FOMC forecast came as the world braces for yet another escalation of Trump's trade war, with the president threatening to implement worldwide reciprocal tariffs starting April 2.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said Monday that Trump's trade war is likely to slow economic growth in the United States and around the world.
"The global economy has shown some real resilience, with growth remaining steady and inflation moving downwards," OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said. "However, some signs of weakness have emerged, driven by heightened policy uncertainty."
"Increasing trade restrictions will contribute to higher costs both for production and consumption," Cormann added. "It remains essential to ensure a well-functioning, rules-based international trading system and to keep markets open."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Threat Is Extremely Real': Advocates Sound Alarm Over Trump 'Energy Emergency'
"We truly urge policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to see these executive orders for what they truly are: an unnecessary and counterproductive retreat to outdated energy strategies."
Mar 19, 2025
On the first day of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump announced he was fulfilling his campaign promise to "drill, baby, drill" by declaring a "national energy emergency." The declaration seeks to spur the "identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation" of every energy source except for wind, solar, battery storage, and improved efficiency.
But what exactly does this mean, and how much damage could it do to local communities, energy prices, the global climate, and the nation's leadership in the green energy transition? Quite a lot, a panel of energy policy experts warned on Wednesday.
"These executive orders and this administration are sending us down exactly the wrong path," said senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center Megan Gibson. "By attempting to fabricate a national energy emergency, these orders set the stage toward increased fossil fuel extraction, transmission, use, and export. This is all over cleaner, more affordable technologies that we have and are commercially scalable."
The National Security Justification
Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, warned that "the threat is extremely real, and here right now, that Trump is going to seek to push unneeded fossil fuel projects."
Trump gave himself a major tool to accomplish this in the declaration by evoking national security. Specifically, Section 7 orders Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to conduct an assessment of the department's access to the energy needed to "protect the homeland" and present it within 60 days, or by March 21. The report should examine any vulnerabilities, with a special emphasis on the Northeast and West Coast, where local and state Democratic governments have rejected new fossil fuel projects on climate grounds.
While Trump tried to use national security justifications to speed fossil fuel development during his first term, he was stymied in part by opposition within government agencies. That is less likely to be the case now.
"There is no question that when you add national security designations to civilian energy infrastructure projects, you're putting in the crosshairs any civil servant or citizen who seeks to deviate from Trump's line."
"He has now purged agencies of opposition and has much firmer control over the national security apparatus that he's going to need to use national security justifications for this energy emergency declaration," Slocum said.
Therefore, Hegseth's report could be used to, for example, claim that the energy needs of military bases in the Northeast require the revival of the Constitution pipeline that would bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York, which state leaders had previously rejected.
"This is about a larger issue of attacking parts of the country that didn't vote for him and parts of the country that also have enacted a number of laws and regulations promoting action on climate change and promoting renewables," Slocum said. "And so this is part of a general attack on state leadership of those states that he sees as not being accommodating enough to fossil fuels."
At the same time, the emergency declaration could be used as part of a negotiating tactic with Democratic state leaders. To take New York as an example again, Trump might persuade Gov. Kathy Hochul to accept the Constitution pipeline in exchange for allowing offshore wind or ending opposition to congestion pricing.
"Trump will either force his agenda upon unwilling states, or he will use it as a club to bully them into doing it as part of a horse-trading maneuver," Slocum said.
Using the national security justification could also make it easier for the administration to crack down on not only civil society protests against these projects, but stubborn opposition from local leaders as well. Even elected officials who pushed back, Slocum warned, could be labeled terrorists.
"There is no question that when you add national security designations to civilian energy infrastructure projects, you're putting in the crosshairs any civil servant or citizen who seeks to deviate from Trump's line," he said.
Cutting Corners
Another provision of the emergency declaration being monitored by advocates is Section 4, which calls on heads of agencies to alert the Army Corps of Engineers to projects they want to see prioritized. The Corps plays an important role in issuing 404 permits for any infrastructure that is built through or beneath a body of water. It also has the authority to rush its permitting process—including by waving or truncating a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review—in the case of an emergency.
Shortly after Trump's declaration, the Army Corps listed several "emergency"-designated projects on its website. However, David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, pointed out, "none of those projects, not a single one, meets the Corps' own definition of what an emergency is."
The Corps can rush a project through only if not doing so poses an immediate threat to life, property, or economic well-being, and it has historically only done so in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods or hurricanes.
"In the long run, the question is how many times is the Corps going to make groups sue them?"
"No one has ever tried to speed up permitting on the basis of a national energy emergency, let alone a clearly fictitious one," Bookbinder said.
The Army Corps immediately removed the emergency designations of projects on its website once they were discovered, and groups including Bookbinder's have filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Corps to find out what projects other agencies have told it to fast-track. Those requests are due around the beginning of April.
"As soon as they try permitting one of these projects, cutting the corners and speeding up a permit by designating it as, quote, an emergency, that permit will be challenged," Bookbinder said. "And in the long run, the question is how many times is the Corps going to make groups sue them?"
In the long-term, advocates say, the administration may attempt to use the Corps' ability to rush "emergency" projects in order to bypass NEPA altogether, ignore court orders that try to stop it, and undermine agencies that push back. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is supposed to be independent, for example, Trump on Tuesday fired the two Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission.
"We are very concerned that should Trump perceive any roadblocks at FERC to his energy emergency declaration that he would have no qualms forcibly removing independent FERC commissioners from their seats and replace them with compliant commissioners," Slocum said. "So this is not bluster."
Ultimately, Slocum added, "we are in an era right now where the only norm is Trump is going to violate it."
Who Benefits?
While the Trump administration is trying to rush through fossil fuel projects, the panelists were clear that his energy agenda will not benefit the majority of U.S. communities and ratepayers.
"If we continue down this path, this self-destructive path, we will miss out on an opportunity to build a vibrant, sustainable energy economy that benefits all Americans, that will actually secure our national energy independence, and would position our country for long-term economic success," Gibson said.
So who will benefit? The clue comes in part in a closed-door meeting the Trump administration held with oil and gas executives in the White House, also on Wednesday.
"Advocates must keep challenging approvals through litigation and public pressure—making the case that the project can and should be denied if there is no genuine need or if adverse impacts are overwhelming."
"After spending $450 million in the last election to elect Trump and install friendly lawmakers on Capitol Hill, fossil fuel executives are getting what they paid for," Slocum said in a statement about the meeting. "We know precisely what the oil industry will do with decreased costs stemming from Trump's deregulation: They will pocket the savings and shower executives and wealthy investors with bonuses and dividends."
"Under Trump, fossil fuel corporations will accelerate the transfer of wealth from consumers to billionaires while exposing millions of Americans to more pollution and delaying the transition to clean energy for as long as possible," he continued.
Slocum further told Common Dreams that "the fossil fuel industry's close ties to Trump and key Trump officials will play a role in decisions Trump has made and will continue to make on the energy emergency declaration and implementation."
Gibson said the emergency declaration was "perpetuating a pattern where major fossil fuel corporations reap substantial profits while the American public and communities have to deal with rising energy prices, higher utility bills, a weakened domestic energy system, not to mention extreme and lasting harms to our communities and our health."
In response, she called on "unlikely partners and coalitions to push for a modern, democratically grounded energy policy that benefits the public."
'It's essential that we continue to hold regulators accountable: Many of FERC's decisions have disregarded states' and communities' objections. Advocates must keep challenging approvals through litigation and public pressure—making the case that the project can and should be denied if there is no genuine need or if adverse impacts are overwhelming," she said.
"We truly urge policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to see these executive orders for what they truly are: an unnecessary and counterproductive retreat to outdated energy strategies," Gibson said. "The real emergency here isn't a lack of fossil fuel extraction, transmission, or export. It's lack of vision and courage, and competent governance to embrace the modern clean energy economy we know we need and deserve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Travesty of Justice': Jury Finds Greenpeace Must Pay Over $660 Million in Dakota Access Pipeline Case
"We will not be silenced," the green group said in response to the verdict.
Mar 19, 2025
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Climate campaigners swiftly sounded the alarm on Wednesday after a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfer and its subsidiary more than $660 million in the fossil fuel giant's case targeting Greenpeace for protests against the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline.
While Energy Transfer called the verdict a "win... for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota," environmentalist Jon Hinck condemned it as a "travesty of justice."
Hinck and others argue the case against Greenpeace International and two of its entities in the United States is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) intended to intimidate opponents of climate-wrecking fossil fuel projects.
OUTRAGE: A Big Oil-stacked jury just sided with corporate power, slapping Greenpeace with millions in damages for standing with Indigenous water protectors against DAPL. This is a dangerous attack on the right to protest, but the fight is not over. apnews.com/article/gree...
[image or embed]
— Center for Constitutional Rights ( @ccrjustice.org) March 19, 2025 at 6:04 PM
"This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations," saidSushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace's U.S. entities, in a statement. "It's part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. These rights are critical for any work toward ensuring justice—and that's why we will continue fighting back together, in solidarity. While Big Oil bullies can try to stop a single group, they can't stop a movement."
As The New York Timesreported Wednesday:
Greenpeace had maintained that it played only a minor part in demonstrations led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It had portrayed the lawsuit as an attempt to stifle oil industry critics, but a jury apparently disagreed.
The nine-person jury in the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, about 45 minutes north of where the protests took place, returned the verdict after roughly two days of deliberating.
Addressing the legal loss on social media, Greenpeace International vowed that "we will not be silenced."
🚨BREAKING🚨 The trial verdict is in. A jury in the Morton County courthouse found Greenpeace International and two Greenpeace entities in the United States liable for over US$ 660 million combined in Energy Transfer’s meritless SLAPP lawsuit. #WeWillNotBeSilenced
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace International 🌍 ( @greenpeace.org) March 19, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen echoed that sentiment and pointed to U.S. President Donald Trump's second term as a danger to people and the planet. As the advocacy leader put it: "We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behavior that fueled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a livable planet. The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest."
Asked by The Associated Press if Greenpeace plans to appeal just after the verdict, senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha said, "We know that this fight is not over."
While the case has sparked fears that a loss in court could end Greenpeace, Padmanabha told AP that the globally known group's work "is never going stop." The adviser added, "That's the really important message today, and we're just walking out and we're going to get together and figure out what our next steps are."
I hate it here. www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/c...
[image or embed]
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@doctorvive.bsky.social) March 19, 2025 at 4:19 PM
An independent trial monitoring committee said in a statement that the verdict "reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense."
Marty Garbus, a longtime First Amendment lawyer who is part of the committee, said: "In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace that just ended in the courts of North Dakota. This is one of the most important cases in American history."
"The law that can come down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It's far bigger than the environmental movement. Yet the court in North Dakota abdicated its sacred duty to conduct a fair and public trial and instead let Energy Transfer run roughshod over the rule of law," he added. "Greenpeace has a very strong case on appeal. I believe there is a good chance it ultimately will win both in court and in the court of public opinion."
Greenpeace International general counsel Kristin Casper later said in a statement that "Energy Transfer hasn't heard the last of us in this fight. We're just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer's attacks on free speech and peaceful protest. We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands."
As the
Times detailed, the global group "this year had countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking a new European Union directive against SLAPP suits as well as Dutch law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular