Opinion: In lighter news, Trump withdraws U.S. from TPP

Despite failing to follow through on other campaign promises, Trump put the needs of American workers and consumers ahead of the interests of some of the largest corporate entities in the world, and I could not be more content with his decision.

Finally being free of the Trans-Pacific Partnership threat is the best news to come out of the Trump administration since he took office.

The TPP is a trade deal between 12 countries that border the Pacific Ocean, representing 40 percent of the world’s economic production. The trade negotiations have been ongoing since 2006.

Arguably one of the most important aspects of Trump’s campaign to his eventual voters was the economy, trade and globalization, so this formal withdrawal is in total accordance with what people hoped he would do once in office. Despite my massive disagreements with the Trump administration on virtually all other matters, I can unabashedly say that I am in support of this line of executive action.

Of all the clauses inside the TPP, the ones that concerned me the most were those which would have caused medicines to dramatically increase in cost, as well as those that posed serious threats to the free and open internet.

Also included in the TPP were investor-state dispute settlement procedures, known as ISDS. Basically, if foreign investors felt that a government that was part of the TPP could cause them to lose money, the vague language would’ve let those investors sue that government.

In the past, countries have been sued for labeling consumer products, such as cigarettes and GMO foods, as well as attempting to regulate carbon emissions. Overall, ISDS poses a threat to the sovereignty of any country that would’ve signed the TPP.

In October 2015, I was involved with a series of anti-TPP protests and demonstrations held at the Westin Hotel in Atlanta. International and domestic corporate representatives met at the Westin in an attempt to finalize the language of the TPP, and I worked with a rag-tag group of activists to try and disrupt the negotiations as much as possible. To our credit, we were able to extend the negotiations by a day, but it did end up getting finalized.

So believe me when I say this: thank you, President Trump, for placing the final nail in the proverbial coffin and killing any possibility of the U.S. ratifying the TPP.

To the best of my knowledge, although the economic climate of the U.S. is significantly better now than it was just before Barack Obama took office, millions of Americans are still struggling. As of 2015, according to the Social Security Administration’s wage index, approximately 50 percent of all income earners in America earned $30,000 or less. To further illustrate, that is 80 million people.

Once you take into account the cost of living, health care and other various expenditures, it becomes abundantly clear why Trump did so well with working class Americans. For those who find themselves in that half of all workers who make less than $30,000 a year, Trump’s vows to fight for them must’ve sounded like a godsend compared to the rhetoric coming from Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

As shocking as it may sound, Donald Trump “out-lefted” both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on trade, and as a result won the presidency. And now, because of President Trump, the U.S. involvement in the TPP is dead. Thank you, Trump.

I really hope that’s not the last time I get to say that in the next four years.

One thought on “Opinion: In lighter news, Trump withdraws U.S. from TPP

  1. “Despite failing to follow through on other campaign promises”. Huh? He’s been in office for just over a week, and has already, regrettably, started to implement his racist and bigoted campaign promises. How many more, and which ones, would you like him to implement?

    [ISDS] “Basically, if foreign investors felt that a government that was part of the TPP could cause them to lose money, the vague language would’ve let those investors sue that government”. Basically, no it wouldn’t. The TPP specifically states that a Government’s action that causes loss of profit is not, *of itself* grounds to raise a dispute. The only grounds for doing so are allegations that the government has breached the terms of the Agreement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *