Bidenomics Versus Maganomics: Pick Your Poison

Authors

Thomas Schoenbaum, University of Washington School of LawFollow

Abstract

Abstract: This essay compares the international trade policies of the two candidates for U.S. President in 2024, Joseph Biden[1] and Donald Trump, and argues in favor of a “third way” alternative to promote free trade in 2025 and onward. I first analyze the trade law revolution effected by the Trump presidency from 2017-2021. During these years the Trump administration adopted a protectionist policy rooted in nationalism and populism. As a direct result of Trump administration trade policy there occurred: (1) a significant retreat from globalization; (2) paralysis of the World Trade Organization; (3) a revival of U.S. unilateralism in trade policy; and (4) the U.S.-China trade war.

When Joseph Biden became president in 2021, he did not reverse the Trump era trade policies. Rather declaring his favor of a “worker-oriented” trade policy, the Biden administration defended Trump’s tariff policies while continuing his hostility to new free trade agreements and the multilateral trading system. Biden’s distinctive addition to Trump’s trade policy is a protectionist industrial policy featuring subsidies and a “buy American” mandate. Joseph Biden is expected to continue these policies and to cement Biden’s mandate for the next four years.

Nevertheless, Trump and Biden’s successor propose very different international trade policies for 2025 and beyond. Trump intends to adopt across the board protectionist tariffs on all imports which will cause inflation. Trump also proposes punitive tariffs on imports from China that will effectively “decouple” China-U.S. trade. Biden’s trade policy, while not as extreme as Trump’s, would continue Biden’s industrial policy and “buy American” protectionism.

This essay agrees with prominent critics of both Trump and Biden who propose a “third way” set of international trade policies that avoid protectionism. This “third way” would feature new free trade agreements with Asian-Pacific, European, and Western Hemisphere nations, rehabilitation of the WTO, revival of multilateralism and U.S. leadership, and a more constructive relationship with China.

First Page

127

Recommended Citation

Thomas Schoenbaum, Bidenomics Versus Maganomics: Pick Your Poison, 34 Wash. Int’l L.J. 127 (2024).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol34/iss1/7