Latest news with #CenterforEconomicandPolicyResearch
The Hill
03-08-2025
- Business
- The Hill
How foreign policy could crash Republican midterm prospects
This summer's MAGA revolt over the Epstein Files has challenged the longstanding assumption that President Trump has an unbreakable bond with the Republican base. Trump loyalists from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to Steve Bannon to Tucker Carlson have recently criticized the president not just on the Epstein disclosures but also on Medicaid cuts in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Yet new polling shows that another issue could cost Trump crucial support and substantially lower his standing among independent voters whom Republicans need in order to win future elections. While Republicans largely rallied around Trump following the June 22 bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, recent YouGov polling commissioned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrates substantial political risks for the president and his party if he supports an expanded war involving Israel and Iran. When respondents consider the economic consequences of a broader conflict, as well as their trust in the justifications offered for involvement in such a war, Trump faces overwhelming dissent among Independents. These voters are about one-third of the electorate and currently about evenly split between Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning. If an issue becomes important in an election and the Independent voters move strongly in one direction, that can swing the election. A clear majority of voters — 65 percent — reported they would hold Trump responsible if gasoline prices rose to $6 a gallon as a result of expanded U.S. military involvement. Among Independent voters, this sentiment rises to 69 percent. Further, when informed that economists would expect a significant rise in mortgage interest rates to result from an expanded conflict — potentially adding over $100,000 in lifetime payments for a typical home — 72 percent oppose U.S. military involvement, with two thirds of those expressing 'strong' opposition. Most polls treat foreign policy decisions as isolated events, simply asking whether voters support or oppose military action. But major interventions do not occur in isolation — they can impact gas prices, mortgage rates and overall confidence in politicians and their political parties. A true measure of public sentiment on expanded military involvement must account for these potential and even likely consequences, which often drive voter attitudes more than abstract strategic considerations. Donald Trump rose politically by highlighting Americans' declining trust in institutions, from government regulators and health experts to traditional media. But the polling shows that Trump himself faces serious accusations from his base of breaching public trust and caving to wealthy donors advocating unconditional support for Israeli policies that millions of voters view as wrong and dangerous. Sixty-three percent of respondents expressed concern that Trump's decision to attack Iran could be influenced by major campaign donors, a concern particularly strong among Independents. And two-thirds of voters — including nearly one-third of Republicans — feel that intervening in an Israel-Iran conflict contradicts Trump's core 'America First' promise. In June, Tucker Carlson accused Trump of being 'complicit in the act of war' following Israel's attacks on Iran, and influential MAGA voices like Steve Bannon echoed similar skepticism. Yet commentary alone is unlikely to shift conservative public opinion. People respond to tangible impacts in their lives. If Trump once again follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into major military action in the Middle East, the consequences may extend beyond geopolitics and significantly impact the president's party in next year's midterm elections. Consider some midterm math. On all five questions related to U.S. intervention in Iran, voters who identify as Republican or Democrat overwhelmingly aligned with their respective parties. For example, by a ratio of 88 percent to 12 percent, Democrats said they did not believe that 'Trump is getting involved in this war for the sake of U.S. national security.' Republicans held the opposite view, with 77 percent believing national security was the reason and 23 percent not believing it. This leaves Independent voters as potentially decisive. According to current polling data, Independents are evenly divided between 'Republican-leaning' and 'Democrat-leaning,' generally indicating close national elections. However, on questions regarding U.S. participation in a war against Iran, Independents are solidly opposed, by a margin of two to one. This leads to an overall result of 63-37 saying that they do not believe that U.S. involvement in such a war is 'for the sake of national security.' While the June war between Israel and Iran appears to be over, another Israeli attack in the near future remains quite possible. Should Trump decide to join such an operation before the next election, it could significantly undermine Republican chances of retaining Congress. Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is the author of 'Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press). Justin Talbot Zorn is a senior adviser at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Truman National Security Fellow, and served as legislative director for three members of Congress.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Sanctions as deadly as war, linked to mass fatalities every year: Study
Sanctions can cause as many fatalities as armed conflict, with unilateral penalties being associated with more than half a million deaths per year, according to a new analysis. Unilateral and economic sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union lead to a substantial increase in mortality that disproportionately hurts children younger than five years old, the study published in the Lancet Global Health journal found. Sanctions can hobble public health provision and keep humanitarian organisations from operating effectively, weighing on the death toll. 'Woodrow Wilson referred to sanctions as 'something more tremendous than war.' Our evidence suggests that he was right,' authors Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón and Mark Weisbrot wrote. 'It is hard to think of other policy interventions with such adverse effects on human life that continue to be pervasively used.' The researchers, whose work was funded by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank, looked at mortality rates by age group in sanctions episodes for 152 countries between 1971 and 2021. They used four unique econometric tools to isolate the causal relationship between categories of sanctions and higher mortality rates. Their findings were consistent across all four methods: Global, economic and unilateral sanctions are all associated with higher death tolls. United Nations sanctions are not, to any statistically significant level. The term 'global sanctions' in the study refers to all penalties, whereas 'economic sanctions' are trade and financial deterrents and 'unilateral sanctions' are imposed by either the US or the EU. UN sanctions potentially have less impact given they're framed as efforts to minimize impact on civilian populations, the authors point out, while US sanctions often aim for regime change or shifts in political behavior, which deteriorates living conditions in target countries. 'Many times, a rogue regime will blame sanctions for all the problems of its country,' Jeremy Paner, a sanctions lawyer at Hughes Hubbard, told Bloomberg before seeing the study. 'It's easy to blame the US or Brussels.' Paner, who previously served as lead sanctions investigator at the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, was skeptical of the study's conclusion, emphasizing that OFAC works to ensure that humanitarian groups can work in sanctioned countries effectively. 'The point of sanctions is to further foreign policy and American values, including humanitarian work,' he said. Rodríguez, the study's lead author and an expert on sanctions and the crisis in Venezuela, countered that even if humanitarian aid is allowed into sanctioned countries, there are formidable obstacles to delivery. Banks and nonprofits often avoid interactions with the sanctioned nation regardless of the exceptions for aid. 'Saying, 'I'm going to block your oil exports, but I'm going to allow you to continue importing humanitarian goods,' is almost like saying to somebody who has just lost their job, 'Don't worry, you can still go into the store and buy whatever you want,'' Rodríguez said in an interview. For decades, academics have debated how sanctions affect mortality, but have struggled to prove such a relationship. Joy Gordon, who focuses on sanctions at Loyola University in Chicago, said the Lancet study offers a 'compelling argument, supported by rigorous methodology, that sanctions directly impact mortality' across age groups. The researchers urged policymakers to exercise restraint with sanctions, especially as the tool's use has ballooned. Some 25 per cent of countries were sanctioned by the US, EU or UN between 2010 and 2022 — up from 8 per cent of countries in the 1960s, according to the study, which cited Global Sanctions Database figures.
Malaysian Reserve
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
Sanctions, on rise, are as deadly as armed conflict, study says
SANCTIONS can cause as many fatalities as armed conflict, with unilateral penalties being associated with more than half a million deaths per year, according to a new analysis. Unilateral and economic sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union lead to a substantial increase in mortality that disproportionately hurts children younger than five years old, the study published in the Lancet Global Health journal found. Sanctions can hobble public health provision and keep humanitarian organizations from operating effectively, weighing on the death toll. The researchers found that unilateral sanctions cause more than 560,000 deaths each year worldwide — falling within a range that the researchers calculated for annual deaths from armed conflict using past literature and their own calculations. 'Woodrow Wilson referred to sanctions as 'something more tremendous than war.' Our evidence suggests that he was right,' authors Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón and Mark Weisbrot wrote. 'It is hard to think of other policy interventions with such adverse effects on human life that continue to be pervasively used.' The researchers, whose work was funded by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank, looked at mortality rates by age group in sanctions episodes for 152 countries between 1971 and 2021. They used four unique econometric tools to isolate the causal relationship between categories of sanctions and higher mortality rates. Their findings were consistent across all four methods: Global, economic and unilateral sanctions are all associated with higher death tolls. United Nations sanctions are not, to any statistically significant level. The term 'global sanctions' in the study refers to all penalties, whereas 'economic sanctions' are trade and financial deterrents and 'unilateral sanctions' are imposed by either the US or the EU. UN sanctions potentially have less impact given they're framed as efforts to minimize impact on civilian populations, the authors point out, while US sanctions often aim for regime change or shifts in political behavior, which deteriorates living conditions in target countries. 'Many times, a rogue regime will blame sanctions for all the problems of its country,' Jeremy Paner, a sanctions lawyer at Hughes Hubbard, told Bloomberg before seeing the study. 'It's easy to blame the US or Brussels.' Paner, who previously served as lead sanctions investigator at the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, was skeptical of the study's conclusion, emphasizing that OFAC works to ensure that humanitarian groups can work in sanctioned countries effectively. 'The point of sanctions is to further foreign policy and American values, including humanitarian work,' he said. Rodríguez, the study's lead author and an expert on sanctions and the crisis in Venezuela, countered that even if humanitarian aid is allowed into sanctioned countries, there are formidable obstacles to delivery. Banks and nonprofits often avoid interactions with the sanctioned nation regardless of the exceptions for aid. 'Saying, 'I'm going to block your oil exports, but I'm going to allow you to continue importing humanitarian goods,' is almost like saying to somebody who has just lost their job, 'Don't worry, you can still go into the store and buy whatever you want,'' Rodríguez said in an interview. For decades, academics have debated how sanctions affect mortality, but have struggled to prove such a relationship. Joy Gordon, who focuses on sanctions at Loyola University in Chicago, said the Lancet study offers a 'compelling argument, supported by rigorous methodology, that sanctions directly impact mortality' across age groups. The researchers urged policymakers to exercise restraint with sanctions, especially as the tool's use has ballooned. Some 25% of countries were sanctioned by the US, EU or UN between 2010 and 2022 — up from 8% of countries in the 1960s, according to the study, which cited Global Sanctions Database figures. –BLOOMBERG
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump and Starmer call trade deal 'historic,' but questions remain
A trade deal with the United Kingdom announced by the White House on Thursday marked the first of its kind since President Trump launched sweeping global tariffs last month, offering a glimpse into the Trump administration's negotiating strategy as it seeks to reset terms with trading partners around the world. The agreement, hailed by Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer as 'historic,' kept the U.S. baseline tariff rate on U.K. imports at 10%, while eliminating duties on British aluminum and steel and significantly lowering tariffs on a limited number of U.K. car exports. In exchange, the White House said that London had agreed to lower barriers on U.S. farmers and ranchers seeking access to the U.K. market for exports such as ethanol and beef, and to increase access for U.S. aerospace companies to crucial British-made components. Although the White House called the agreement a 'milestone' in its trade policy, U.S. officials also described the deal as merely the 'end of the beginning' of talks to come over their trade relationship. And the British media described the agreement as a yearlong, temporary understanding that required further rounds of negotiations if it's going to last. Read more: Mattel considers price hikes in response to tariffs after Trump says kids don't need a lot of dolls Starmer, describing the announcement as the 'basis' of a deal, said he intended to continue negotiating with the administration to bring down its 10% baseline rate. 'We would like to go further,' he said from a manufacturing plant in the West Midlands. 'But please do not underestimate the significance of the tariff reductions today, because these are measured in thousands of good-paying jobs across the country,' Starmer said. Asked by a reporter whether Britain was better off in its trade relationship with America than it was a year ago, Starmer replied, 'The question you should be asking is, is it better than where we were yesterday?' The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 500 points on news of the deal, as Wall Street investors look for signs of progress in trade negotiations more than five weeks since Trump announced tariff increases on global trading partners, 'friend and foe alike.' But economists questioned the value of the announcement. "This looks like a deal that was largely done for show," said Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one of the first economists to identify the 2008 housing bubble. "There already were very few trade barriers to U.S. exports to the U.K., and this really doesn't change that picture in any meaningful way." Baker noted that U.K. exports still would face higher taxes than they had before Trump started imposing tariffs. "It will reduce our demand somewhat, but the ultimate impact on volume will depend on what other tariffs remain in place," he said. "In any case, the higher tax on imports from the U.K. amounts to a tax increase of around $6 billion a year on U.S. businesses and consumers." Of the largest U.S. trading partners, the United Kingdom stands out as having a trade deficit with the United States. The agreement will mean more to the British economy than it will to U.S. households. Although the U.K. accounts for roughly 3% of U.S. trade, the United States is Britain's largest trading partner, followed by the European Union. "It is good news, but it is not clear how much of a precedent it will be for trade deals," said Kenneth Rogoff, a prominent economist and professor at Harvard. Since the United Kingdom left the European Union in "Brexit," he said, "the U.K. was desperate for a trade deal with the U.S." And "the deal looks to be the product of years of negotiations that began long before 'Liberation Day,'" he added, referencing Trump's April 2 global tariffs announcement. Americans buy exponentially more goods from the United States' three biggest trading partners — Canada, Mexico and China — than from Britain, and there are few signs that U.S. talks with those three countries are closing in on trade deals. And with goods from China still facing tariffs of 145%, U.S. importers and retailers are warning that price increases for American consumers will become visible within a matter of days. From the White House, where he phoned Starmer to announce the deal to the media, Trump described the U.S.-U.K. agreement as 'a great deal for both parties.' Read more: Letters to the Editor: Hollywood needs incentives, not tariffs, to bring filmmaking back to the U.S. 'It opens up a tremendous market for us, and it works out very well. Very well,' Trump said. 'The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all of the products produced by our great farmers.' 'It's very conclusive, and it's a great deal, and it's a very big deal, actually,' he added. Trump underscored the potential for the export of up to $250 million in U.S. agricultural products to a market that had long been restricted for U.S. goods. But Starmer said that the U.K. government had drawn 'red lines on standards' with regard to agricultural imports, raising questions over what exact products would be eligible. Starmer said he hoped that the Trump administration would lower barriers on British pharmaceutical products in future talks, and also said the two governments already were discussing Trump's proposed tariffs on foreign film production. 'There aren't any tariffs in place on film at the moment,' Starmer said of the potential film tariffs, 'and of course, we're discussing it with the president's team.' Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
New York Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Labels Haiti's Powerful Gangs as Terrorists
A powerful alliance of armed gangs in Haiti that has plunged the country into violence and launched attacks against state institutions was designated on Friday by the Trump administration as a terrorist group. The move is likely to worsen an already dire humanitarian crisis in Haiti, where gangs control much of the country's economy, including key access and distribution points, including the main ports and major roads. The coalition of gangs, called Viv Ansanm — which means Living Together, in Haitian Creole — emerged last year under a pledge to protect civilians, but then immediately banded together to attack communities, prisons, hospitals and police forces. President Trump's designation gives his administration broad power to impose economic penalties on the criminal group, and potentially even take military action. But it also allows sanctions to be imposed on anyone whom the United States accuses of doing business with the gang coalition. If enforced, the move could end all trade with Haiti, experts say, since virtually no goods can move in or out of the capital, Port-au-Prince, without the payment of fees to the gangs. 'Humanitarian access programs would also likely cease,' Jake Johnston, a senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in a post on social media. 'Can't enter a community to disperse aid without negotiations' with the gangs.
