Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer appeared before members of the Senate Finance Committee to explain the administration’s objectives for the dramatic trade policy that was rolled out last week—and now developing with escalating retaliations between the US and China. Greer attempted to alleviate concerns about the short-term pain expected as the market responds to the upheaval.
“We must move away from an economy based solely on the financial sector and government spending and we must become an economy based on producing real goods and services,” Greer said in his prepared statement. “This adjustment may be challenging at times. It is a moment of drastic, overdue change, but I am confident the American people will rise to the occasion as they have done before.”
Ranking member Ron Wyden (D-OR) emphasized widespread confusion over the plan due to conflicting statements by cabinet members that have implied the purpose of last week’s “Liberation Day” emergency declaration revolves around forcing negotiations to address foreign trade imbalances, incentivizing investment at home, or feeding the US Treasury. The theme was picked up by other committee members who cited particular concerns unique to their constituent business owners who contract with foreign companies along the supply chain, and the unease of Americans watching their retirement portfolios decline.
Ambassador Greer pushed back on the either/or supposition of the tariffs’ uses. While acknowledging the disruption and attendant fears experienced by Americans, Greer cited historically weak manufacturing and defense industrial base outputs, agricultural deficits, and the supply chain vulnerabilities that were exposed during the pandemic as evidence of the need for emergency measures and the resultant short-term pain.
Democrats Michael Bennet of Colorado, Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Maggie Hassan (NH) pressed for specifics on the expected “short-term pain,” and expressed displeasure with answers deemed evasive. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada grilled him on the ambassador’s role in the now-sidelined USMCA agreement, asking, “Why would any country want to do business with us?”
Greer stressed the United States’ leverage over the global market as a result of the current trade imbalances.
Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed a general agreement with the administration’s goal to re-shore manufacturing to the United States but remained concerned over the alla prima approach which requires discussions between officials and nearly 90 other nations.
Finance Committee Republicans were particularly concerned with the timeline, along with contingencies, exclusions and exceptions. Greer restated the president’s insistence that exemptions will not be considered. He further emphasized the state of the emergency to explain why firm resolve is necessary despite the pressures for a quick resolution.
Senator Thom Tillis was especially sharp in expressing his skepticism over the maneuver: “Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?”
Fissures among congressional Republicans appear to be growing since President Trump unveiled his Liberation Day tariffs last week. As economic uncertainty abounds amid heavy stock market losses, seven Senate Republicans signed on to a bill co-sponsored by Committee members Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)limiting the president’s ability to tack on additional tariffs and reign in the executive’s powers over international trade.
The Trade Review Act of 2025 would set in place a 60-day sunset for all hikes that are not encoded by a joint resolution between the two houses and would set measures for cancelation by resolution if Congress disapproves. The bill would require a 48-hour notification to Congress ahead of any increased tariffs, along with an explanation of the reason for imposing it. The bill would further require an assessment of how U.S. businesses will be affected by a proposed increase.
GOP senators backing the bill so far include Sens. Tills, Grassley, Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Todd Young (Indiana).
“For too long, Congress has delegated its clear authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to the executive branch,” said Grassley in a statement that echoed Rand Paul’s floor speech last week.
The president has made known that he plans to veto any such bill that would interfere with his charted course, but some members of his party are pressing for a showdown with Trump over the matter. While acknowledging the challenge of overturning a veto, Sen. Rand Paul said, “Win or lose, it’s worth the debate.”
Greer will appear before the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday.
Discussion (18)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Here too, people seem to argue the most over the details, but it mostly seems to be a short-term view, and often based on prognostications from people who don’t exactly have a reputation for being correct. But it’s a lot easier for people to believe warnings of disaster, somehow.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I'm obviously not an economist, but I'm wondering this: if we want more manufacturing on our shores, why this top-down shift in global policy with unpredictable results? Why not adjust domestic policy to make manufacturing here inviting and affordable?
MODERATOR • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I've had that question myself. The USMCA agreement exists because in his first term, Donald Trump demanded it. He said NAFTA was garbage and USMCA was awesome. (About 90% of USMCA was copied from the supposedly garbage NAFTA, but that's beside the point.) Trump demanded USMCA, he got it, then a few years later he grossly violates it. President Trump himself hasn't said this trade war is just a negotiating tactic, but many of his supporters say that's exactly what it is. Why should any country negotiate a new deal with this president when he so brazenly violates USMCA? Maybe they hope he'll be faithful to it for a few years, and that's better than nothing.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I agree 100%! We did that partly in the first Trump administration when they reduced our corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world (35%) to one that is more competitive (21%). I think it was one of the major achievements of his first term. Too bad he seems to be throwing it all away now.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Doesn't this statement just scream "CUT THE FEDERAL SPENDING." And yet the administration has no such plans despite the efforts of DOGE. I fear that the DOGE phenomenon will wither away and be seen as one of the greatest lost opportunities of the Trump Administration.
You're seeing five of 18 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.