Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2021
Did both Republicans and Democrats vote for free-trade agreements that led to outsourcing?
While the economic impacts of trade liberalization are widely debated and difficult to measure, critics argue that free-trade agreements have led to the outsourcing of well-paying U.S. jobs to other countries. Three prominent pro-trade actions by Congress were bipartisan, with particularly strong support from Republicans (see vote tallies in the Google Docs file linked below).
The 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been blamed for 600,000 lost U.S. jobs over two decades, and its successor, the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, entered into force with bipartisan support.
Additionally, a Republican House majority enabled Democratic president Bill Clinton to grant China permanent normal trading privileges in 2000 ahead of the country's ascension to the World Trade Organization. This action helped stimulate greater trade between the U.S. and China, as well as a large U.S. trade deficit, which some believe has led to the loss of 3.7 million U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2018.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
- Economic Policy Institute Fast track to lost jobs: Free trade agreements are bad deals for working Americans
- Google Docs Partisan vote tallies for three free-trade agreements
- Congressional Research Service US trade policy: Background and current issues
- Council on Foreign Relations NAFTA and the USMCA: Weighing the impact of North American trade
- New York Times The China trade vote: A Clinton triumph; House, in 237-197 vote, approves normal trade rights for China
- Economic Policy Institute Growing China trade deficit cost 3.7 million American jobs between 2001 and 2018: Jobs lost in every US state and congressional district
- US International Trade Commission US International Trade Commission releases report estimating the historical impact of US trade agreements
About fact briefs
Fact briefs are bite-sized, well-sourced explanations that offer clear "yes" or "no" answers to questions, confusions, and unsupported claims circulating online. They rely on publicly available data and documents, often from the original source. Fact briefs are written and published by Gigafact contributor publications.
See all fact briefs
Between 2020 and 2022, under close editorial supervision, Gigafact contracted a group of freelance writers and editors to test the concepts for fact briefs and provide inputs to our software development process. We call this effort Gigafact Foundry. Over the course of these two years, Gigafact Foundry writers published over 1500 fact briefs in response to claims they found online. Their important work forms the basis of Gigafact formats and editorial guidelines, and is available to the public on Gigafact.org. Readers should be aware that while there is still a lot of relevant information to be found, not all fact briefs produced by Gigafact Foundry reflect Gigafact's current methods and standards for fact briefs. If you come across any that you feel are out of date and need to be looked at with fresh eyes, don't hesitate to contact us at support@gigafact.org.
Learn MoreLatest Fact Briefs
Is there a scientific consensus that life begins at conception?
Thursday, Aug. 4, 2022
Do countries around the world subsidize fossil fuels?
Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2022
Is the repeal of Roe v. Wade expected to increase the maternal death rate?
Wednesday, Jul. 27, 2022