January, 13 2016, 10:15am EDT

TPP Is Obama's #1 2016 Priority: Why Only 28 Seconds in the SOTU?
Statement of Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
WASHINGTON
"Obama only dedicated 28 seconds of his final State of the Union address to the TPP, his self-proclaimed top 2016 priority, but that beat the number of Congress people who stood to cheer for the controversial agreement.
As the cabinet fans out this week to amplify President Obama's 2016 goals, we will see if they are ginning up support for the pact.
TPP's prospects for passage are uncertain at best with GOP that supported Obama's trade authority bid opposing the TPP, Democratic opposition solidifying over ire with the final TPP text on access to medicines, the environment and more, and every presidential candidate of either party with more than 10 percent support in any state also opposed.
Obama's unexpectedly brief mention of the TPP may simply reflects that the pact is very unpopular across the political spectrum and talking about it more only makes opposition grow."
SOTU Fact Check on TPP Claims
Below are fact checks of TPP claims made by Obama in tonight's SOTU address.
The TPP=18,000 Tax Cuts Red Herring:
The administration has tried to shift focus to a "tax cut" narrative to sell the TPP with a mantra about 18,000 tax cuts for U.S. exported goods. But last year, the United States exported goods in less than half of the 18,000 tariff categories. By using the raw number of tariff lines cut with respect to the five nations with which we do not already have FTAs (Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei), the administration distracts from the real question: Do 18,000 tariff cuts equate to more U.S. exports or jobs? For the nearly 7,500 categories of goods out of the claimed 18,000 for which we did sell anything, almost 50 percent had sales under $500,000. Many items we simply do not sell, including those that the administration claims the TPP's weak environmental chapter will help conserve. Among the 18,000 tax cuts are Malaysia's shark fin tariffs, Vietnam's whale meat tariffs and Japan's ivory tariffs. The administration's "TPP Guide to 18,000 Tax Cuts" also bizarrely highlights goods TPP nations simply do not buy in volume from anyone. Consider the 34 percent "tax" cut by Vietnam on Alaskan caviar. In 2014, Vietnam's per capita GDP was about $2,000, and about $150,000 worth of caviar was imported by Vietnam from anywhere. Or Vietnam's 5 percent tariff on skis from Colorado. Vietnam imported only about $50,000 in skis in total. Other highlights: Vietnam and Japan will eliminate their tariffs on silkworm cocoons, Brunei will cut its tariff on ski boots and Vietnam will eliminate its tariff on camels. Almost 2,000 of the tariff reductions in the products we do sell won't be realized for over a decade or more, including beef and pork to Japan.
TPP Is Not About the U.S. Writing the Rules Versus China Doing So - TPP's Rules Are Those Demanded by its 500 Official Corporate Trade Advisers:
Trying to paint the TPP as a way for America to write the rules in Asia so that China does not is a misdirect. The TPP is not about establishing "American" rules in Asia. It's about imposing rules that are favored by the 500 official U.S. corporate trade advisers who had a privileged role in developing the TPP. The TPP rules promote more U.S. job offshoring and would further gut the U.S. manufacturing base, even as a recent Department of Defense report warned that U.S. deindustrialization poses a threat to national security. The TPP would ban the application of Buy America procurement preferences with respect to all firms operating in TPP countries. Instead of reinvesting our tax dollars at home to build a strong national infrastructure and create economic growth and jobs at home, the TPP would require us to give firms from the TPP nations, including Chinese state-owned-enterprise firms operating in Vietnam, equal access to U.S. government contracts. The TPP also would raise our energy prices and undermine our energy independence given we could no longer halt liquid natural gas (LNG) exports to TPP nations, including major LNG purchaser Japan. The TPP's expanded patent and copyright monopolies would raise American health care costs and thwart innovation. And, even if you believe that TPP actually is about writing rules aimed at affecting China, who in their right mind believes that China would actually abide by those rules or that the U.S. would enforce them effectively? Fifteen years after China joined the WTO, we're still waiting for China to comply with the commitments they made. And we are still waiting for any U.S. administration to broadly and effectively enforce U.S. rights.
American Jobs at Risk, Not Created:
The TPP includes rules that make it cheaper and less risky to offshore U.S. jobs to low-wage nations. The pro-free trade Cato Institute calls these investor protections a subsidy on offshoring. The administration stopped claiming the TPP would create jobs after a four-Pinocchio rating by the The Washington Post fact checker. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement, more than 57,000 U.S. manufacturing facilities have closed and five million U.S. manufacturing jobs - one in four - were lost, with more than 875,000 U.S. workers certified under just one narrow U.S. Department of Labor program.
The TPP Threatens Environment and Climate:
The environmental groups that have celebrated Obama's achievements with the global climate treaty and his decision to the stop the Keystone XL pipeline call the TPP an act of "climate denial." The pact would roll back the environmental standards that President George W. Bush was pressured into including in his trade deals. Indeed, in a recent Newsweek op-ed, the Cato Institute celebrated the TPP's watered-down environmental terms. Environmental groups listed on the White House website as supporting the deal, including NRDC and Defenders of Wildlife, in fact came out in opposition after seeing the final text.
Increased Income Inequality:
A recent study found that the TPP would spell a pay cut for all but the richest 10 percent of U.S. workers by exacerbating income inequality, as past trade deals have done. That would contradict Obama's 2015 SOTU income inequality reduction goal. Macroeconomic theory predicts that if Americans face more competition from Vietnamese workers who make less than 65 cents an hour, wages will be pushed downward. Historically, 60 percent of U.S. manufacturing workers who lose jobs to trade and find reemployment face pay cuts, with one in three losing more than 20 percent, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. Indeed, there is academic consensus that trade has contributed to the unprecedented rise in inequality.
New Markets for U.S. Goods?:
After being sold with the same "more markets, more exports, more jobs" mantra, Obama's most recent free trade agreement (FTA) that served as the TPP's template has been a disaster. Three years into the U.S.-Korea Free FTA, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea had ballooned more than 90 percent as our exports fell 7 percent and imports surged. Sadly, that deal was not a fluke. The United States ran a $177.5 billion goods trade deficit, collectively, with its 20 FTA partners in 2014, the last year for which data is available. Exports to FTA partners have grown 20 percent slower than U.S. exports to the rest of the world over the past decade. In his 2010 SOTU, Obama said he would double U.S. exports in five years. But given our paltry annual export growth rate, the export-doubling goal would not be reached until 2057 - 43 years behind schedule.
The TPP Versus President Obama's Legacy - Health Care Costs:
The TPP would directly contradict Obama efforts to reduce U.S. health care costs by expanding monopoly patent protections for big drug firms, as Doctors Without Borders notes. This allows drug firms to stop competition and raise medicine prices. As seniors groups note, the TPP would also empower large pharmaceutical firms to meddle in U.S. government reimbursement decisions for taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
The TPP Versus President Obama's Legacy - Gay Rights:
While the Obama administration is celebrated for its defense of gay equality after it dust-binned the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and joined those announcing that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, it decided to allow Brunei to remain in the TPP even after the country announced that it would begin stoning to death gays and single mothers under new sharia-based laws. This has led to LGBTQ groups joining the TPP opposition.
The TPP Versus President Obama's Legacy - Financial Reform:
The TPP could help banks unravel the new rules Obama achieved to regulate Wall Street by prohibiting bans on risky financial products and "too big to fail" safeguards while empowering foreign banks to "sue" the U.S. government over new financial regulations. For the first time, the TPP would expand the controversial investor-state dispute system (ISDS) to allow challenges of U.S. financial policies using the claim underlying most successful ISDS attacks.
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
Sanders Champions Those Fighting Back Against Water-Sucking, Energy-Draining, Cost-Boosting Data Centers
Dec 10, 2025
Americans who are resisting the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in their communities are up against local law enforcement and the Trump administration, which is seeking to compel cities and towns to host the massive facilities without residents' input.
On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged AI data center opponents to keep up the pressure on local, state, and federal leaders, warning that the rapid expansion of the multi-billion-dollar behemoths in places like northern Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan is set to benefit "oligarchs," while working people pay "with higher water and electric bills."
"Americans must fight back against billionaires who put profits over people," said the senator.
In a video posted on the social media platform X, Sanders pointed to two major AI projects—a $165 billion data center being built in Abilene, Texas by OpenAI and Oracle and one being constructed in Louisiana by Meta.
The centers are projected to use as much electricity as 750,000 homes and 1.2 million homes, respectively, and Meta's project will be "the size of Manhattan."
Hundreds gathered in Abilene in October for a "No Kings" protest where one local Democratic political candidate spoke out against "billion-dollar corporations like Oracle" and others "moving into our rural communities."
"They’re exploiting them for all of their resources, and they are creating a surveillance state,” said Riley Rodriguez, a candidate for Texas state Senate District 28.
In Holly Ridge, Lousiana, the construction of the world's largest data center has brought thousands of dump trucks and 18-wheelers driving through town on a daily basis, causing crashes to rise 600% and forcing a local school to shut down its playground due to safety concerns.
And people in communities across the US know the construction of massive data centers are only the beginning of their troubles, as electricity bills have surged this year in areas like northern Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio, which have a high concentration of the facilities.
The centers are also projected to use the same amount of water as 18.5 million homes normally, according to a letter signed by more than 200 environmental justice groups this week.
And in a survey of Pennsylvanians last week, Emerson College found 55% of respondents believed the expansion of AI will decrease the number of jobs available in their current industry. Sanders released an analysis in October showing that corporations including Amazon, Walmart, and UnitedHealth Group are already openly planning to slash jobs by shifting operations to AI.
In his video on Wednesday, Sanders applauded residents who have spoken out against the encroachment of Big Tech firms in their towns and cities.
"In community after community, Americans are fighting back against the data centers being built by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world," said Sanders. "They are opposing the destruction of their local environment, soaring electric bills, and the diversion of scarce water supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Protest in Oslo Denounces Nobel Peace Prize for Right-Wing Machado
"No peace prize for warmongers," said one of the banners displayed by demonstrators, who derided Machado's support for President Donald Trump's regime change push in Venezuela.
Dec 10, 2025
As President Donald Trump issued new threats of a possible ground invasion in Venezuela, protesters gathered outside the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo on Tuesday to protest the awarding of the prestigious peace prize to right-wing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whom they described as an ally to US regime change efforts.
“This year’s Nobel Prize winner has not distanced herself from the interventions and the attacks we are seeing in the Caribbean, and we are stating that this clearly breaks with Alfred Nobel’s will," said Lina Alvarez Reyes, the information adviser for the Norwegian Solidarity Committee for Latin America, one of the groups that organized the protests.
Machado's daughter delivered a speech accepting the award on her behalf on Wednesday. The 58-year-old engineer was unable to attend the ceremony in person due to a decade-long travel ban imposed by Venezuelan authorities under the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
Via her daughter, Machado said that receiving the award "reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace... And more than anything, what we Venezuelans can offer the world is the lesson forged through this long and difficult journey: that to have a democracy, we must be willing to fight for freedom."
But the protesters who gathered outside the previous day argue that Machado—who dedicated her acceptance of the award in part to Trump and has reportedly worked behind the scenes to pressure Washington to ramp up military and financial pressure on Venezuela—is not a beacon of democracy, but a tool of imperialist control.
As Venezuelan-American activist Michelle Ellner wrote in Common Dreams in October after Machado received the award:
She worked hand in hand with Washington to justify regime change, using her platform to demand foreign military intervention to “liberate” Venezuela through force.
She cheered on Donald Trump’s threats of invasion and his naval deployments in the Caribbean, a show of force that risks igniting regional war under the pretext of “combating narco-trafficking.” While Trump sent warships and froze assets, Machado stood ready to serve as his local proxy, promising to deliver Venezuela’s sovereignty on a silver platter.
She pushed for the US sanctions that strangled the economy, knowing exactly who would pay the price: the poor, the sick, the working class.
The protesters outside the Nobel Institute on Tuesday felt similarly: "No peace prize for warmongers," read one banner. "US hands off Latin America," read another.
The protest came on the same day Trump told reporters that an attack on the mainland of Venezuela was coming soon: “We’re gonna hit ‘em on land very soon, too,” the president said after months of extrajudicial bombings of vessels in the Caribbean that the administration has alleged with scant evidence are carrying drugs.
On the same day that Machado received the award in absentia, US warplanes were seen circling over the Gulf of Venezuela. Later, in what Bloomberg described as a "serious escalation," the US seized an oil tanker off the nation's coast.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Princeton Experts Speak Out Against Trump Boat Strikes as 'Illegal' and Destabilizing 'Murders'
"Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation," said one scholar.
Dec 10, 2025
Multiple scholars at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs on Wednesday spoke out against the Trump administration's campaign of bombing suspected drug boats, with one going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Eduardo Bhatia, a visiting professor and lecturer in public and international affairs at Princeton, argued that it was "unequivocal" that the attacks on on purported drug boats are illegal.
"They violate established maritime law requiring interdiction and arrest before the use of lethal force, and they represent a grossly disproportionate response by the US," stressed Bhatia, the former president of the Senate of Puerto Rico. "Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation that undermines regional security and diplomatic stability."
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Program in Law and Public Policy at Princeton, said that she has been talking with "military operations lawyers, international law experts, national security legal scholars," and other experts, and so far has found none who believe the administration's boat attacks are legal.
Pearlstein added that the illegal strikes are "a symptom of the much deeper problem created by the purging of career lawyers on the front end, and the tacit promise of presidential pardons on the back end," the result of which is that "the rule of law loses its deterrent effect."
Visiting professor Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that it was not right to describe the administration's actions as war crimes given that a war, by definition, "requires a level of sustained hostilities between two organized forces that is not present with the drug cartels."
Rather, Roth believes that the administration's policy should be classified as straight-up murder.
"These killings are still murders," he emphasized. "Drug trafficking is a serious crime, but the appropriate response is to interdict the boats and arrest the occupants for prosecution. The rules governing law enforcement prohibit lethal force except as a last resort to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, which the boats do not present."
International affairs professor Jacob N. Shapiro pointed to the past failures in the US "War on Drugs," and predicted more of the same from Trump's boat-bombing spree.
"In 1986, President Ronald Reagan announced the 'War on Drugs,' which included using the Coast Guard and military to essentially shut down shipment through the Caribbean," Shapiro noted. "The goal was to reduce supply, raise prices, and thereby lower use. Cocaine prices in the US dropped precipitously from 1986 through 1989, and then dropped slowly through 2006. Traffickers moved from air and sea to land routes. That policy did not work, it's unclear why this time will be different."
The scholars' denunciation of the boat strikes came on the same day that the US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in yet another escalatory act of aggression intended to put further economic pressure on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


