Skip to main content
Assessing Trade Agendas in the US Presidential Campaign
  • Marcus Noland
  • Gary C Hufbauer, Peterson Institute for International Economics
  • Sherman Robinson, International Food Policy Research Institute
  • Tyler Moran, Peterson Institute for International Economics
Our analytical contribution in this Briefing is to work through empirically in detail the two candidates’ proposed trade policies in terms of what legally the president can do on her or his authority, what the impact would be on specific American industries and communities as well as on the economy as a whole, and what the foreign policy fallout would be, particularly in the Asia-Pacific. The analysis underlying all of our assessments is thus reproducible—and in this instance, we also provide the ability for interested individuals to look at how the candidates’ trade policies would directly affect the economic well-being of any chosen industry, county, or state in the United States.

Our analysis shows that the two candidates’ proposed policies are not equivalent in the harm they would do to the US economy if implemented. Clinton’s proposed trade and international economic policies would damage American well-being, primarily but not solely due to her stated opposition to TPP and to further economic integration. The policies proposed by Trump are another matter altogether. His stated approach to the global economy of waging trade war and protecting uncompetitive special interests would be disastrous for American economic well-being and national security. While Clinton’s stated trade policy would be harmful, Trump’s stated trade policy would be horribly destructive.
  • international trade,
  • trade war,
  • Trump,
  • Clinton
Publication Date
September 16, 2016
Citation Information
Marcus Noland, Gary C Hufbauer, Sherman Robinson and Tyler Moran. Assessing Trade Agendas in the US Presidential Campaign. (2016)
Available at: