June, 21 2019, 12:00am EDT

Democratic Presidential Candidates United that NAFTA 2.0 Should Not Be Approved As Written
Leading White House Contenders Say Trump’s NAFTA Proposal Needs Stronger Terms on Labor, the Environment, Enforcement & New Monopolies for Big Pharma Must Be Eliminated
WASHINGTON
Democratic presidential candidates are united in the view that the Trump administration's proposal for a revised North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should not be approved by Congress without substantive improvements to the text Donald Trump signed last year.
All sixteen candidates -- including Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro and others -- who responded to a question posed by a national coalition working on trade policy agreed that the new NAFTA proposal "should not be enacted unless and until stronger labor and environmental terms with swift and certain enforcement are added and language on pharmaceutical monopolies that locks in high medicine prices is removed."
"Given how important Trump's trade promises were to his 2016 election, it's not surprising that those looking to unseat him are quick to point out that Trump's proposed NAFTA revision fails to make the changes needed to stop outsourcing and that its new giveaways for pharmaceutical companies would lock in high drug prices," said Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign, the coalition of labor, environmental, family farm, faith and consumer organizations that approached the various campaigns on the issue. "Americans deserve a comprehensive NAFTA replacement that actually protects jobs, raises wages, defends worker rights and safeguards the environment. A lot more work is needed to get there."
While some Republicans and corporate lobby groups are pushing for Congress to approve the NAFTA 2.0 text as written this summer, House Democrats are currently urging the White House to make changes to its NAFTA proposal in the areas of labor, the environment, enforcement and access to medicines before introducing the pact for a vote. Democratic Congress members' resolve could be bolstered by the unanimous support of so many Democratic candidates vying for the presidency.
Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillabrand, Mike Gravel, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren and Marianne Williamson each answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you agree that the revised version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed by President Trump on November 30, 2018 should not be enacted unless and until stronger labor and environmental terms with swift and certain enforcement are added and language on pharmaceutical monopolies that locks in high medicine prices is removed?"
The following candidates also offered these additional comments:
Sen. Cory Booker
"I am opposed to President Trump's new NAFTA deal. It should be renegotiated to strengthen labor protections and environmental standards, and improve access to prescription drugs."
Mayor Bill de Blasio
"America doesn't want NAFTA 2.0 and that is exactly what the agreement President Trump signed is.
"For decades Republicans - and too many Democrats - promised American workers that the benefits of free trade would 'trickle down' to them. It didn't happen and it won't happen under the terms of the deal President Trump has negotiated.
"Trump's new NAFTA will do nothing to address the problems with the old NAFTA. While masquerading as 'America First,' Trump's proposal prohibits 'Buy American' procurement policies. It makes no mention of climate change but gives oil and gas companies new tools to evade Mexican environmental laws. It allows big pharma to lock in higher prescription drug prices. And it doesn't do anything to address the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
"For Congress to consider approving this trade deal significant changes must be made: removing sweetheart provisions for fossil fuel and pharmaceutical companies, and significantly strengthening enforcement of labor and environmental provisions.
"What America truly needs is an entirely new approach to trade that puts working people and our planet first, not multinational corporations. Trump's NAFTA 2.0 doesn't provide that."
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
"NAFTA must be completely overhauled in order to establish dependable trading conditions that are fair for our communities and our workers. Any changes to NAFTA must strengthen enforcement provisions and increase protections for labor and the environment because our workers can out-compete anyone in the world on a balanced playing field. Too many drug companies care more about their own profits than whether sick patients have access to medicine. I will advocate that any new deal must break the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies on high drug prices to help people get access to the medicine they need."
Sen. Mike Gravel
"NAFTA and its updated worker pillaging version signed by Trump are treaties designed to extract the greatest amount of surplus value from workers by slashing wages through relocation and instigating phony race to the bottom competition between workers in North America. The Reagan Administration illegally collaborated with the auto industry to move it out of Detroit and Clinton put the nail in the coffin by signing NAFTA. At a moment when there's a timidly resurgent labour movement in Mexico and the United States, Trump is trying to stifle it through regulatory action and trade sleight of hands like the new treaty."
Sen. Kamala D. Harris
"I believe the purpose of any trade agreement must be to create jobs in America, raise wages, and strengthen the middle class. That's why, as president, I will not sign any trade agreement unless it contains strong and enforceable provisions to protect workers, safeguard our environment, and crack down on trade manipulation by other countries. In my Administration, labor will have a seat at the table to ensure any agreement meets that test. It's clear the so-called 'U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement' does not, and as a result, I will not support it."
Gov. Jay Inslee
"I believe we must revise North American trade policy in a way that directly confronts climate change and implements strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards that help the United States meet climate action goals. Currently, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiated by the Trump Administration does not contain sufficiently enforceable labor or environmental standards, nor does it even mention the term 'climate change.' Clearly, we must do better.
"I also believe that U.S. trade policies, trade agreements, and trade relationships should all be evaluated to ensure they are consistent with the swift and just transition to a global carbon-free future. Historically, American trade policy -- and most international trade agreements -- has often been an impediment to effective climate action. America's trade agreements have frequently preferred corporate profits over protections for workers, consumers, public health, and the climate or the environment. This profits-over-people approach to trade has led to a series of missed opportunities. That is why I have proposed applying a new and enforceable climate standard to American trade agreements, to condition their terms upon each party's commitment to adopt, maintain and implement policies specifically to fulfill their commitments to the Paris Agreement, and to take other actions, such as investing in global climate mitigation and adaptation, and adopting and implementing other agreements such as the Kigali Amendment."
Sen. Bernie Sanders
"The reality is that Trump's NAFTA 2.0 would do nothing to prevent corporations from shipping jobs to Mexico where workers are paid less than two bucks an hour. It includes outrageous giveaways to the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical industries. So, I say to Donald Trump: For once in your life, keep your campaign promises. Go back to the drawing board on NAFTA. Do not send this treaty to Congress until it includes strong and swift enforcement mechanisms to raise the wages of workers to prevent corporations from outsourcing American jobs to Mexico and protect the environment. And take out all of the riders in your treaty that increase prescription drug prices and benefit big oil companies. We need a trade policy in America that works for working families, not the CEOs of multinational corporations."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
"There's no question we need to renegotiate NAFTA. The federal government has certified that NAFTA has already cost us nearly a million good American jobs - and big companies continue to use NAFTA to outsource jobs to Mexico to this day. But as it's currently written, Trump's deal won't stop the serious and ongoing harm NAFTA causes for American workers. It won't stop outsourcing, it won't raise wages, and it won't create jobs. It's NAFTA 2.0.
"For example, NAFTA 2.0 has better labor standards on paper but it doesn't give American workers enough tools to enforce those standards. Without swift and certain enforcement of these new labor standards, big corporations will continue outsourcing jobs to Mexico to so they can pay workers less.
"NAFTA 2.0 is also stuffed with handouts that will let big drug companies lock in the high prices they charge for many drugs. The new rules will make it harder to bring down drug prices for seniors and anyone else who needs access to life-saving medicine.
"And NAFTA 2.0 does little to reduce pollution or combat the dangers of climate change - giving American companies one more reason to close their factories here and move to Mexico where the environmental standards are lower. That's bad for the earth and bad for American workers.
"For these reasons, I oppose NAFTA 2.0, and will vote against it in the Senate unless President Trump reopens the agreement and produces a better deal for America's working families. The President grabs headlines railing against GM's plans to axe thousands of American jobs in Ohio and Michigan - but his actual policies aren't stopping them or others like them from continuing to put corporate profits ahead of American workers. It's time for real change. We need a new approach to trade, and it should begin with a simple principle: our policies should not prioritize corporate profits over American paychecks. That should be true for NAFTA and true for every deal we cut."
Ms. Marianne Williamson
"We need to protect the interests of American workers, consumers and citizens in any new NAFTA agreement. Before Congress approves the new NAFTA 2.0, we must strengthen both labor and environmental standards, and write them into the core of the agreement so they are enforceable. And we must limit the monopoly control of pharmaceutical companies, so medicines can be more affordable and accessible for people who need them."
The Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) is a national coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, family farm, religious, and other civil society groups founded in 1992 to improve the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We are united in a common belief that international trade and investment are not ends unto themselves, but instead must be viewed as a means for achieving other societal goals such as economic justice, human rights, healthy communities, and a sound environment.
(202) 494-8826LATEST NEWS
Israeli Airstrike Kills Houthi Prime Minister in Yemen's Capital
As one Houthi leader pledged that "we shall take vengeance," Israel's defense minister said that "this is just the beginning."
Aug 30, 2025
Yemen's Houthis confirmed Saturday that an Israeli airstrike Thursday in the country's capital, Sanaa, killed "several" government officials, including Prime Minister Ahmed al-Rahawi.
The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, have targeted Israel and ships in the Red Sea over the US-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which has been increasingly denounced as genocide. Israel and the United States—under both the Biden and Trump administrations—have responded to the Houthis' Red Sea actions by bombing Yemen, where an ongoing civil war began in 2014.
As The Associated Press reported Saturday:
Thursday's Israeli strike took place as the rebel-owned television station was broadcasting a speech by Abdul Malik al-Houthi, the secretive leader of the rebel group in which he was sharing updates on the latest Gaza developments and vowing retaliation against Israel. Senior Houthi officials used to gather to watch al-Houthi's prerecorded speeches.
Al-Rahawi wasn't part of the inner circle around Abdul Malik al-Houthi that runs the military and strategic affairs of the group. His government, like the previous ones, was tasked with running the day-to-day civilian affairs in Sanaa and other Houthi-held areas.
Although the full list of Houthi officials killed in the strike has not been released, Reuters reported that unnamed sources confirmed that "the energy, foreign, and information ministers were among those killed."
The news agency also noted that while Al-Rahawi became prime minister around a year ago, "the de facto leader of the government was his deputy, Mohamed Moftah, who was assigned on Saturday to carry out the prime minister's duties."
In a Saturday statement, the Houthi government affirmed that it would continue to "fulfill its role" and "institutions will continue to provide their services to the steadfast, patient, struggling Yemeni people. It will not be affected, no matter the extent of the calamity... and the blood of the great martyrs will be fuel and motivation to continue on the same path."
"We affirm to our great Yemeni people, to the oppressed Palestinian people, to all the sons of our nation, and to all free people in the world, that we continue our authentic stance in supporting and aiding the people of Gaza, and in building our armed forces and developing their capabilities to face all challenges and dangers, just as our great Yemeni people are present in all fields and arenas with all determination, will, and faith," the government added, according to a translation from Drop Site News.
Both US President Donald Trump's administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive of the International Criminal Court for his country's conduct in Gaza—consider the Houthis a terrorist organization.
The Thursday strike came nearly a week after the Israel Defense Forces said that it intercepted multiple ballistic missiles launched by the Houthis, and at least one contained cluster munitions. Citing the IDF and Hebrew media, The Times of Israel reported Saturday that a missile fired by the Houthis overnight "fell short" of Israel, instead falling in Saudi Arabia.
The newspaper also shared Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz's response to the Houthis confirming Al-Rahawi's assassination. He said that "two days ago, we dealt an unprecedented crushing blow to the senior officials in the military-political leadership of the Houthi terrorist organization in Yemen, in a bold and brilliant action by the IDF."
"The destiny of Yemen is the destiny of Tehran—and this is just the beginning," Katz continued. "The Houthis will learn the hard way that whoever threatens and harms Israel will be harmed sevenfold—and they will not determine when this ends."
Meanwhile, according to Al Jazeera, Mahdi al-Mashat, a Yemeni politician and military officer who serves as the chairman of the Supreme Political Council of the Houthis, said in a video message that "we shall take vengeance, and we shall forge from the depths of wounds a victory."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No More Conspiracy Theories. Kennedy Must Resign,' Says Sanders Amid CDC Fallout
Make America Healthy Again is "a great slogan," the senator wrote. "The problem is that since coming into office President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite."
Aug 30, 2025
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, is endangering the health of the American people now and into the future. He must resign."
That's how US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) began a New York Times op-ed on Saturday, amid mounting calls for Kennedy to leave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), by choice or force, following the ouster of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez.
As Sanders detailed in the Times—and a Thursday letter to Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) demanding a congressional probe—Monarez was fired after reportedly refusing to "act as a rubber stamp for his dangerous policies." Her exit led to resignations and a staff walkout at the CDC, which is now being led by Jim O'Neill, a Kennedy aide and biotech investor.
Sanders and other lawmakers—including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a polio survivor and the only Republican to vote against Kennedy's confirmation in February—have long warned about the consequences of letting RFK Jr. hold a key health policy position in President Donald Trump's second administration.
"Mr. Kennedy and the rest of the Trump administration tell us, over and over, that they want to Make America Healthy Again," Sanders noted Saturday. "That's a great slogan. I agree with it. The problem is that since coming into office President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite."
"Despite the overwhelming opposition of the medical community, Secretary Kennedy has continued his long-standing crusade against vaccines and his advocacy of conspiracy theories that have been rejected repeatedly by scientific experts," the senator wrote. "It is absurd to have to say this in 2025, but vaccines are safe and effective. That, of course, is not just my view. Far more important, it is the overwhelming consensus of the medical and scientific communities."
Sanders pointed to guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization, and called out Kennedy's comments on autism, Covid-19 and polio vaccines, and immunizations in general.
"The reality is that Secretary Kennedy has profited from and built a career on sowing mistrust in vaccines. Now, as head of HHS, he is using his authority to launch a full-blown war on science, on public health, and on truth itself," he wrote, warning that in the "short term, it will be harder for Americans to get lifesaving vaccines," including for Covid.
However, "Covid is just the beginning. Mr. Kennedy's next target may be the childhood immunization schedule, the list of recommended vaccines that children receive to protect them from diseases like measles, chickenpox. and polio," the senator continued. He also sounded the alarm over the secretary "defunding the research that could help us prepare for the next pandemic."
Sanders, a leading advocate of Medicare for All, also took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed last month.
"America's healthcare system is already dysfunctional and wildly expensive, and yet the Trump administration will be throwing an estimated 15 million people off their health insurance through a cut of over $1 trillion to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," he noted. "This cut is also expected to result in the closing of or the decline in services at hundreds of nursing homes, hospitals, and community health centers. As a result of cuts to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance costs will soar for millions of Americans. That is not Making America Healthy Again."
"Secretary Kennedy is putting Americans' lives in danger, and he must resign," Sanders concluded. "In his place, President Trump must listen to doctors and scientists and nominate a health secretary and a CDC director who will protect the health and well-being of the American people, not carry out dangerous policies based on conspiracy theories."
Bernie Sanders is right—RFK Jr. must resign. His leadership is an assault on science, public health, and truth. We’re not just talking politics; we’re talking lives. #ResignKennedy #ScienceFirst”www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/o...
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth (@elizathewell.bsky.social) August 30, 2025 at 10:30 AM
Doctors, journalists, and others praised the senator's op-ed, with Trauma surgeon Mark Hoofnagle saying that "Bernie nails it."
Pennsylvania State University professor and A Desire Called America author Christian Haines wrote on the social media platform Bluesky that the piece was "clear and incisive, though I wish it didn't need to be said."
Also sharing the post on Bluesky, former Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse said: "It's delusional for anyone to think that RFK Jr. and Donald Trump are making America healthy again. With Kennedy's war against science, truth, and vaccines and Trump's war against Medicaid, their movement should be called MAKING AMERICA UNHEALTHY AGAIN."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Bid to Block $4.9 Billion With 'Pocket Rescission' Blasted as 'Authoritarianism 101'
"Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar.
Aug 30, 2025
Democracy defenders and members of Congress are condemning US President Donald Trump's effort to use a "pocket rescission" process to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid as authoritarian and illegal.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday shared on social media Trump's letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the move. According to a White House fact sheet linked in a subsequent post, much of the money was headed for the US Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump has gutted.
As The Associated Press explained:
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to September 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.
What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it's a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.
Shortly after the OMB social media posts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that OMB Director Russ Vought was helping shutter USAID, writing on the platform X: "Since January, we've saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And with a small set of core programs moved over to the State Department, USAID is officially in closeout mode. Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails. Congrats, Russ."
Meanwhile, Rubio's former congressional colleagues and others are sounding the alarm over the administration's effort.
"America is staring down next month's government funding deadline on September 30," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's clear neither Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown. With Trump's illegal 'pocket rescission': They seem eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their healthcare costs, compromising essential services, and further damaging our national security."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also put pressure on GOP lawmakers, saying that "this is wrong—and illegal. Not only is Trump gutting $5 billion in foreign aid that saves lives and advances America's interests, but he's doing so using an unlawful 'pocket recission' method that undermines Congress' power of the purse. I urge my Republican colleagues to say hell no."
While most Republicans on Capitol Hill have backed Trump's endeavors to claw back funding previously appropriated by Congress, GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted against his $9 billion rescission package earlier this year.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke out against Trump's new move, noting in a Friday statement that under the US Constitution, Congress has "the power of the purse," and the Government Accountability Office "has concluded that this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar, similarly stressed that "Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed. Trump's 'pocket recissions' are lawless and absurd. If a president opposes legislative spending decisions, he can veto them, subject to override, but once passed, he must execute on them."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, declared in a Friday statement that with the pocket rescission move, the Trump administration "demonstrated yet again its contempt for Congress' power of the purse and the Constitution's separation of powers."
"With this Constitution-mocking action, the administration is bringing us closer to a shutdown on September 30, and it doesn't seem to care," Gilbert said. "We call on Congress to push back, pass and abide by appropriations packages, and fight the administration’s illegal impoundments that harm regular Americans."
"This is not just a constitutional crisis, it's a matter of global justice," she added. "The congressionally appropriated funds that the Trump administration illegally aims to cancel support economic development programs to empower the world's most vulnerable and impoverished, and address some of the ravage of catastrophic climate change in developing nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular