Профиль

The US Administration just restricted the duration of student visas. What's the problem? Now political appointees have full discretion to block most international students from staying after graduation. They've promised to use their new power to do just that. My new @piie.com post explains—>

We have once again updated our Trade War Timeline 2.0. Check it out:

WATCH: @douglasirwin.bsky.social discusses President Trump’s plan to extend a 10% baseline tariff covering most trading partners. He says the Section 301 tariffs being used have a stronger legal ground than those struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.

Thanks to BBC News for the invitation to describe the two big opportunities that President Trump missed today by imposing his Section 301 tariffs, as well as HOW (not) TO WIN A TRADE WAR.

Latest must-read from PIIE's Michael Clemens! A new US rule to restrict student visas will hurt the US economy www.piie.com/blogs/realti...

Americans should be alarmed at the likely impact of the Trump admin's final rule restricting international students. It would drastically restrict high-skill foreign talent in STEM fields at the heart of innovation & productivity growth in the US economy. By @mclem.org:

Trump's Section 301 tariffs reach beyond the statute’s intention @kclausing.bsky.social says, & the focus on forced labor “is a mere pretext for recreating the IEEPA tariff regime.” There's “no evidence linking this sort of trade measure to the supposed policy goal” of cracking down on forced labor.

Fiscal and exchange rate policies are major drivers of trade (current account) imbalances. Raising the fiscal balance by $1 raises the current account by $0.30. Buying $1 of foreign exchange reserves raises the current account roughly $0.50 or more.

There is no reason to believe USTR's tariffs will be effective at reducing forced labor abroad. With the world accustomed to higher US tariffs, there is no evidence that changing US rationale for them will reduce forced labor in other countries.

Narrator: they are no longer planned but in fact in effect as of 12:01 AM today.

The USTR sets no benchmark a country could meet to exit the Section 301 forced labor tariff, & it ties the application of tariffs to trade concessions rather than labor outcomes.

Let's be clear. Trump's new tariffs merely recreate his unlawful IEEPA tariffs, and they are also unlawful. But it will take the courts a long time to establish this, if they do. In the meantime, US consumers and businesses will pay the price. www.piie.com/blogs/realti...

Mary Lovely warns that while the US could end up building more auto plants, because of automation, they would employ even fewer workers.

Fiscal & exchange rate policies are major drivers of trade imbalances. Other important drivers include productivity growth rates, per capita income, & demographic trends. Tariffs, on the other hand, do not have a major impact on trade balances.

The planned tariffs to combat forced labor again raise the question of whether the president has the legal authority to determine and implement US tariff policy—an authority that the Constitution vests in Congress. The answer is no.

NEW: None of the trade remedies being sought by the Trump administration would do anything to address any forced labor conditions anywhere. This action is about the Trump admin's effort to use any legal stratagem to wage its trade war & single out Brazil for punishment. By @mdebolle.com:

What is Section 338? We have answers.

For reference, here's the text of the Section:

And here:

Learn more here: