Business
How Trump and Biden killed the free-trade consensus on September 25, 2023 at 6:57 pm Business News | The Hill
The U.S. has turned sharply against free trade over the last two decades, shifting from an era in which members and presidents of both parties generally embraced one free-trade pact after another to one in which the forces of globalization are widely criticized, if not condemned.
Former President Trump’s recent campaign pledge to enact a general tariff of 10 percent on imported goods to the U.S. is only the latest arrow into the free-trade consensus, which has sputtered now under successive presidential administrations.
A dozen pieces of legislation implementing various trade deals were signed by U.S. presidents between 2001 and 2012, all following up on the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Congress also voted in 2000 to allow China to enter the World Trade Organization, a vote that opened up the U.S. further to Chinese imports.
But over the last decade, things have changed dramatically.
Only one trade deal has been approved by a recent U.S. Congress — in January 2020 under a bipartisan deal to approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement under Trump.
And that deal was seen by many as part of the new era since it made major pro-labor overhauls to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — which by that time had become almost a four-letter word for many globalization opponents in both parties.
Longtime critics of the U.S. era of free-trade argue the political world finally caught up to the grassroots consensus that trade deals were damaging the country.
“What we’re seeing here to some degree is elite opinion and policymaking catching up to where the public’s lived experience of these policies already was,” said Lori Wallach, a longtime critic of globalization and director of trade at the American Economic Liberties Project.
“There was an elite consensus … and it was obviously bipartisan … and there were all these grandiose promises of things that everyone would want, but the deliverables did not come forward,” she said.
Free-trade advocates and their supporters in the business community are unhappy with the shift.
For much of the 2000s, Republicans in particular backed free-trade diplomacy, arguing that trade deals would lower prices for U.S. consumers while creating markets for exporters and paving the way for stronger diplomatic alliances.
They’re now coming up against populist forces after Trump’s takeover of the GOP.
After winning the 2016 election in part on the promise to unwind decades of free trade deals, Trump sidelined the GOP’s most ardent free traders while making common cause with anti-trade Democrats.
Liberal populism typified by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), also deeply skeptical of trade, is rising in the Democratic Party.
Bill Reinsch, who served as a Commerce Department under secretary in the Clinton administration, said there’s “a lot of unhappiness in the business community on trade.”
At the same time, he acknowledged the old era is over and it’s unlikely to come back anytime soon.
“Business people would like to go back and negotiate real agreements, where we lower tariffs and get more market access in return, and we all grow and make more money. But no – there’s not a consensus now on this, and there’s not going to be any time soon,” he said.
How the free-trade consensus changed
Criticisms of globalization lingered throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, but were largely drowned out by the political free-trade consensus, particularly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Over the next several years, a GOP-controlled Congress approved free-trade deals with Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco, several Central American countries, Bahrain, Oman, Peru, Panama, South Korea and Colombia.
But there were repeated rumblings of a breach.
One seminal moment came in the early 2000s when the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), a business lobby, nearly split in two over the normalization of trade relations with China, which big multinationals supported and smaller manufacturers opposed.
While the bigger companies were profiting off cheap Chinese assembly lines and access to the Chinese market, smaller and mid-sized manufacturers were getting creamed by competition with the country’s cheap imports.
“Our world is different now,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in June.
“The reality [is] that the consumer who enjoys the low prices of imported goods is also a worker who must withstand the downward pressures that come from competing with workers in other parts of the world toiling under exploitative conditions.”
Free-trade expansion slowed under the Obama administration, but the Democratic president toward the end of his second term was pressing for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal intended to create a U.S.-friendly trade alliance in that region to counter the rise of China.
It became a fierce political fight as Trump ramped up his attacks, leading Hillary Clinton, who had backed the deal as Obama’s Secretary of State, to turn against it.
“Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she did not favor ratification of the TPP was a huge moment,” said Daniel Sargent, a historian of public policy at the University of California.
Clinton at the time was taking heat on the deal not only from Trump, already leading GOP presidential polls, but from the surprisingly strong primary challenge from Sanders.
Sargent said Clinton’s turnabout was particularly significant given her support for trade deals during the Clinton and Obama administrations.
What her about face “really indicated was that even the executive branch, which had been a champion of trade liberalization more or less since the days of the New Deal and Cordell Hull, could no longer be taken for granted,” he said.
“So I think that was really a defining moment.”
Trump’s own rise as a populist anti-trade politician was also significant. His criticism of the relationship between the U.S. and China dates back well before his presidential campaign, which was marked by themes of economic nationalism.
In 2011, he described the country as “neither an ally nor a friend.”
“They want to beat us and our own country,” he said.
Trump’s shocking defeat of Clinton put in the Oval Office a critic of trade who had the credentials of a businessman but supported closing borders to people and products.
Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA included worker protection and environmental provisions that Democrats backed and touted.
“The USMCA has a mechanism that allows us to bring cases against specific facilities that do not respect the rights of workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Over the last two years, we have been securing wins for workers at several facilities,” Tai said.
USMCA also did away with a controversial arbitration rule, known as the investor-state dispute settlement, long thought to allow corporations to bulldoze labor regulations.
Its elimination incensed Republicans on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee but was cheered by many Republican lawmakers on the state level, uniting them with Democrats.
Trump’s defeat in 2020 by President Biden put in the Oval Office a more traditional kind of policymaker in the White House.
It represented a shift from the Trump “America First” policies on immigration and diplomacy, but not much for trade.
How Trump’s changes are sticking
One of the Biden administration’s signature pieces of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), includes “Buy American” provisions for renewable technologies that are not allowed under WTO rules.
“We are favoring domestic production over imports. That’s flatly prohibited in the rules of the WTO,” Robert Lawrence, a professor of trade and investment at the Harvard Kennedy School, said in an interview with The Hill.
“It’s illegal, what he’s doing. We are violating rules which American foreign policy and trade policy tried to persuade other countries to adhere to for 75 years.”
Biden has also imposed new export controls with China covering artificial intelligence and quantum information systems amid rising national and economic security concerns that China is closing a tech gap.
“When it comes to international trade, [Biden] has continued pretty much along the same protectionist line that Trump started and he’s maintained most of Trump’s policies,” Lawrence said.
Also like Trump, Biden has sought to reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing, which has declined as a source of employment since the early 1980s.
Increased trade has been blamed in part for the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs and clout as well as stagnating U.S. wages, which haven’t moved much in real terms in 40 years.
One 2012 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found a connection between a steep decline in U.S. manufacturing employment starting in 2001 and a change in U.S. trade policy toward China that nixed potential tariff hikes on imports.
The report found that “trade is directly and indirectly associated with the large and long-lasting decline in U.S. manufacturing employment after 2001.”
Tim Hutchings, a retired master sergeant in the Columbia County, N.Y. sheriff’s department in and a 41-year veteran of the volunteer fire department, told The Hill he’s seen the vibrancy of his hometown of Hudson wither and fade in the days since it lost its manufacturing.
“After NAFTA came about, we lost WB McGuire, which was a loading dock manufacturer. Several years after that, we lost Cass, which was a humidifier-vaporizer-type manufacturer on the outskirts of town. L&B Products, which was a restaurant furniture manufacturer, they closed down probably in the late 1990s. We lost a ton of jobs here,” he said.
Business, Economy, Trade The U.S. has turned sharply against free trade over the last two decades, shifting from an era in which members and presidents of both parties generally embraced one free-trade pact after another to one in which the forces of globalization are widely criticized, if not condemned. Former President Trump’s recent campaign pledge to enact a general…
Sustainability is often spoken about as if it belongs only to scientists, policy experts, or environmental activists. On the Roselyn Omaka Show, Otto Cannon makes the case that it belongs to everyone. His message is both urgent and deeply human: sustainability is not just about the environment, but about creating a world where people, planet, and profit exist in balance.
Cannon’s mission is striking in its scale. He wants to build what he calls a global army of 10 million sustainability leaders—people across industries and communities who choose to think beyond short-term gains and take responsibility for the future they are helping shape.
My biggest mission is to raise a 10 million global army of sustainability leaders.
Otto’s understanding of this work did not begin in a conference room. It began in childhood, shaped by a father who taught him to see the world’s problems as personal assignments. That early influence instilled in him the belief that real leadership means stepping forward, identifying what is broken, and dedicating yourself to fixing it.
That mindset later became deeply personal. In one of the interview’s most emotional moments, Cannon shares how the death of his dog after swallowing a plastic bottle cap changed his life. What might have seemed like an isolated tragedy became, for him, a doorway into a much larger truth: waste is never just waste when it destroys ecosystems, harms wildlife, and threatens the future.
Instead of turning away, he turned pain into action. Through his work, he helped build a recycling company that processed over 10,000 tons of plastic and supported tree-planting efforts that have already reached more than 500,000 trees. His story reflects the broader idea of sustainability leadership, which is commonly framed as the integration of environmental, social, and economic responsibility into real-world decision-making.
What makes Cannon’s perspective especially compelling is the way he challenges common misconceptions. He argues that sustainability is too often boxed into environmental language alone, when in reality it applies to every sector—fashion, construction, energy, transportation, manufacturing, and beyond. This broader understanding aligns with current sustainability leadership thinking, which emphasizes systems, collaboration, and long-term value creation across sectors.
Profit should never come at the expense of people or the planet.
That belief is central to everything Cannon describes. For him, sustainability is not anti-business. It is about designing business, innovation, and progress in a way that does not leave harm behind for future generations. A solution that helps today but creates a deeper problem tomorrow, he argues, is not truly a solution at all.
This is also the thinking behind the Global Sustainability Summit and Awards in London, where Cannon brings together leaders from government, business, and civil society to share ideas, showcase innovation, and inspire action. Cross-sector collaboration is widely recognized as a core part of effective sustainability work, especially when the goal is cultural and systemic change rather than isolated projects.
The power of Cannon’s message lies in its accessibility. He is not calling only on policymakers or executives. He is speaking to creators, founders, farmers, designers, builders, and everyday professionals—anyone who has influence over materials, waste, systems, sourcing, or the choices that shape modern life.
By the end of the conversation, one image lingers: the idea that one person is a drop of water, but many drops together can become a wave. That is the future Otto Cannon is working toward—not a movement powered by one voice, but one built by millions who decide that sustainability is not optional, but necessary.
Business
GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Theme: “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation”
London, United Kingdom — The Global Sustainability Summit (GSS) is officially back for its landmark 5th Edition, continuing its legacy as one of the leading international platforms driving sustainable development, climate action, ethical investment, innovation, and global collaboration.
Convened annually at the prestigious British Parliament, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster, by Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto, the Summit has, over the last four years, successfully fostered international dialogue and partnerships that have contributed to the advancement of global sustainability goals, the establishment of sustainability-focused ministries, departments and policy structures across national and subnational governments, and the attraction of major investors into sustainable development projects, corporations and emerging economies.
This year’s summit, themed “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation,” will explore how emerging technologies, responsible leadership, sustainable finance, innovation, and global partnerships can shape a more inclusive, resilient and environmentally conscious future.
The 5th Edition promises to be the most impactful yet, bringing together world leaders, policymakers, diplomats, investors, academics, innovators, climate experts and youth leaders from across the globe to discuss actionable solutions toward achieving a sustainable and equitable future.
Among the distinguished speakers, delegates and honorees already lined up for the Summit are:
• His Excellency Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq — Executive Governor of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum
• His Excellency Senator Prince Bassey Otu — Executive Governor of Cross River State, Nigeria
• Ambassador Patricia Espinosa Cantellano — Former Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Former Foreign Minister of Mexico
• Lord Marvin Rees, Baron Rees of Easton OBE — Member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom
• Hon. Neema K. Lugangira — Secretary-General of Women Political Leaders (WPL), Brussels and Former Member of Parliament
• Her Excellency Dr. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah — President of the Republic of Namibia
• His Excellency Nangolo Mbumba — Former President of Namibia
• Former President of Tanzania
• Her Excellency Ambassador Professor Olufolake AbdulRazaq — First Lady of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairperson of Nigeria Governors’ Spouses Forum
• Your Excellency Dr. Dikko Umar Radda, PhD, CON — Executive Governor of Katsina State and Chairman of the Northwest Governors Forum, Nigeria
• Hon. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma — Governor of Khomas Region, Namibia
• H.E. Mr. Veiccoh Nghiwete — High Commissioner of the Republic of Namibia to the United Kingdom
• Her Excellency Ms. Macenje “Che Che” Mazoka — High Commissioner of Zambia to the United Kingdom
• Ms. Danielle Newman — Partner Lead, ICT, World Economic Forum
• Leanne Elliott Young — Co-founder, Institute of Digital Fashion & CommuneEast
• Ms. Chloe Russell — Producer & Presenter, Art, Science and Nature
• Professor Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger — University of Cambridge & University of Waterloo
• Dr. Alexandra R. Harrington — IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL)
• Professor Payam Akhavan — Massey College, University of Toronto
• Mr. Mallai C. E. Sathya — President, Dravida Vetri Kazhagam and International Movement for Tamil Culture Asia
The Summit will feature high-level panel discussions, strategic investment conversations, sustainability awards, policy dialogues, innovation showcases, youth engagement sessions and international networking opportunities focused on climate resilience, ethical financing, food-water-energy sustainability, circular economy, artificial intelligence, diplomacy and sustainable development.
Speaking ahead of the Summit, Convener Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto noted:
“As the world rapidly evolves through artificial intelligence and technological innovation, we must ensure that sustainability remains people-centered, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive. The Global Sustainability Summit continues to serve as a bridge connecting governments, institutions, innovators and investors to accelerate practical sustainability solutions globally. Our fifth edition is not only a celebration of progress made over the years, but also a renewed call for global collaboration and actionable impact toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Net Zero ambitions.”
The Global Sustainability Summit continues to position itself as a catalyst for transformative partnerships and sustainable global progress, reinforcing the urgent need for collective action toward a more resilient and sustainable future.
More announcements regarding additional speakers, partners and summit activities will be unveiled in the coming weeks.
The Michael Jackson biopic Michael is more than celebrity drama; it is a real-time lesson in how legal decisions can quietly rewrite a story that millions of people will see. You do not need a $200M budget for the same forces—contracts, settlements, and rights issues—to shape or even erase key parts of your own work.
What Happened to Michael
The film Michael originally included a third act that addressed the 1993 child sexual abuse allegations and their impact on Jackson’s life and career. Trade reports say this version showed investigators at Neverland Ranch and dramatized the scandal as a turning point in the story. After cameras rolled, lawyers for the Jackson estate realized there was a clause in the settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler that barred any depiction or mention of him in a movie.
Because of that old agreement, the filmmakers had to remove all references to Chandler and rework the ending so the story stopped years earlier, in the late 1980s at Jackson’s commercial peak.
According to reporting, this meant roughly 22 days of reshoots, costing around 10–15 million dollars and pushing the total budget over 200 million.
Meanwhile, actress Kat Graham confirmed her portrayal of Diana Ross was cut for “legal considerations,” showing how likeness and approval issues can wipe out an entire character even after filming.
For audiences, the result is a movie that intentionally avoids one of the most controversial chapters of Jackson’s life, which some critics argue makes the portrait feel incomplete or selectively curated.
The Hidden Power of Contracts and Rights
The key detail in the Michael story is that a contract signed decades ago could dictate what present-day filmmakers are allowed to show. That settlement clause did not just affect the people who signed it; it effectively controlled the narrative of a big-budget film made years later. This is how legal documents become invisible co-authors: they quietly set boundaries around what your story can and cannot include.
Creators face similar invisible lines with:
- Life-rights and defamation: If you dramatize real people, especially in a negative light, they can claim defamation or invasion of privacy if your portrayal is inaccurate or harmful.
- Copyright and trademarks: Unlicensed music, clips, logos, or artwork can trigger copyright or trademark claims that block distribution or force expensive changes.
- Distribution contracts: Some deals give distributors the right to re-edit, retitle, or repackage your work without your approval unless you negotiate otherwise.
Legal commentary warns that fictionalizing real events and people carries heightened risk because audiences tend to connect your dramatization back to actual individuals. That risk does not disappear just because you are “small” or “indie”; impact, not audience size, usually determines exposure.
Why This Matters for Indie Filmmakers and Creators
Independent filmmakers often choose the indie route precisely to maintain creative control, but they can face more risk if they skip legal planning. Common problems include unclear ownership of the script, missing music licenses, handshake agreements with collaborators, and no written permission to use locations or people’s likenesses. These are the kinds of issues that can derail distribution, block a streaming deal, or force last-minute cuts that fundamentally change your story.
Legal guides for indie filmmakers consistently emphasize a few realities:
- You do not fully “own” your film unless you have clear contracts for writing, directing, producing, and underlying rights.
- Unregistered or unlicensed creative elements (like music and logos) can make your project uninsurable or unattractive to distributors.
- Fixing legal problems after the fact is almost always more expensive and limiting than planning for them at the beginning.
So when you watch Michael skip over certain events, you are seeing, in exaggerated form, the same forces that can shape an indie short, web series, documentary, or podcast episode.
Practical Legal Lessons You Can Apply Now
You do not need a law degree, but you do need a basic legal strategy for your creative work. Here are practical steps drawn from entertainment-law and indie-film resources:
- Clarify who owns the story
- Use written agreements with co-writers, directors, and producers that state who owns the script and finished film.
- If your work is based on a real person or memoir, secure life-rights or written permission where appropriate, especially if the portrayal is sensitive.
- Be intentional with real people and events
- When telling true or inspired-by-true stories, avoid making specific, negative claims about identifiable people unless they are well-documented and legally vetted.
- Change names, details, and circumstances enough that the person is not clearly identifiable if you do not have their cooperation.
- Lock down music and visuals
- Use original scores, licensed tracks, or reputable libraries; never assume you can keep a song just because it is in a rough cut.
- Clear artwork, logos, and recognizable brands, or replace them with generic or custom-designed alternatives.
- Protect yourself in contracts
- When signing any distribution or platform deal, read the clauses about editing, retitling, and marketing carefully; ask for limits or at least consultation rights.
- Include terms that let you reclaim rights if a partner fails to release the work, goes dark, or breaches key promises.
- Document everything
- Keep organized copies of releases, licenses, and contracts; these documents are part of your project’s value and proof of your rights.
- Register your work where applicable (for example, copyright), which strengthens your ability to enforce your rights if someone copies you.
Education-focused legal resources repeatedly stress that preventative steps—basic contracts, clear permissions, and simple registrations—are far cheaper than dealing with takedowns, lawsuits, or forced rewrites later.
The Big Takeaway: Story and Law Are Connected
The Michael biopic illustrates what happens when legal obligations and creative vision collide: whole characters disappear, endings are rewritten, and the public only sees a version of the story that fits within old contracts.
As an indie filmmaker, writer, or content creator, you may not have millions at stake, but you do have something just as valuable—your voice and your ability to tell the story you meant to tell.
Understanding the legal dimensions of your work is not a distraction from creativity; it is a way of protecting it. When you know where the legal boundaries are, you can design stories that are bold, truthful, and still safe enough to reach the audiences they deserve.
67% Of Film Roles Are Now White Again — And Hollywood Knows Exactly What It’s Doing
Independent Film’s New Reality: 10 Brutal Truths You Have to Face in 2026
Building a 10 Million Army: One Leader’s Mission to Save Tomorrow
Advice1 week agoHow to Make Your Indie Film Pay Off Without Losing Half to Distributors
- Advice1 week ago
How to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- News4 weeks ago
FIPRM Expands Into Sports, Partners With Bolanle Media to Launch New Media Platform
- Business3 weeks ago
What the Michael Biopic Means for Every Indie Filmmaker
- Business2 weeks ago
GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
- News1 week ago
Can AI Really Steal Your Fingerprints From a Selfie?
- Film Industry1 week ago
Actors Win AI Deal – But Your Face Is Still Training the Machine
- Entertainment4 days ago
Ozempic Era: Beauty, Lizard Venom, Big Pharma
