Additionally, Trump’s tariffs will raise prices on basic, mass-market clothing from China more than on luxury goods’ prices because the markups are lower on cheaper items, said Edward Gresser, vice president and director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.
Category: Uncategorized
Rachel Canter Joins PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project as Director of Education Policy
WASHINGTON — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is proud to announce that Rachel Canter is joining PPI as Director of Education Policy for the Reinventing America’s Schools (RAS) Project.
Canter joins PPI after more than 16 years as the founder and executive director of Mississippi First, where she built a reputation as one of the most effective education reformers in the country. She brings a sharp focus on evidence-based policy, equity, and innovation — qualities that make her an ideal fit to lead PPI’s education policy initiatives at a national level.
In her new role, Rachel Canter will help chart a bold course for reclaiming America’s public schools as engines of opportunity, citizenship, and upward mobility. At a time when public confidence in K-12 education is faltering — and when neither political party offers a compelling vision for its future — Canter will help fill the policy vacuum with pragmatic, student-centered solutions that work. Her leadership will focus on restoring academic rigor, expanding high-quality public school options, and advancing policies rooted in evidence, not ideology. By working across sectors and with leaders at every level, she aims to help rebuild public education around a new compact with families — one that delivers on the promise of literacy, readiness, civic identity, and a future filled with possibility.
“Rachel Canter has a rare combination of deep policy expertise, practical experience, and a passion for expanding opportunity,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute. “We are thrilled to have her leading our education policy work, and we’re confident she’ll help shape the next generation of school reform with vision and urgency.”
Canter joins Curtis Valentine, Director of the Future Learning Network at PPI, in leading the RAS Project. While Valentine focuses on grassroots and grassroots advocacy, coalition-building, and political engagement, Canter will provide the policy infrastructure that underpins those efforts. Together, their complementary roles — one centered on policy development, the other on stakeholder mobilization — reflect a coordinated approach to changing how public education works for students and families.
“I’ve spent my career developing and advocating education policies that expand access, elevate quality, and center students — especially those too often left behind,” said Canter. “I’m honored to bring that work to PPI and help drive an education agenda that’s both visionary and grounded in what works. We have a tremendous opportunity to make lasting change.”
The Reinventing America’s Schools Project inspires a 21st-century model of public education geared to the knowledge economy. Two models, public charter schools and public innovation schools, are showing the way by providing autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among schools tailored to the diverse learning styles of children.
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.
###
Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org
How Democrats Can Rebuild Trust on National Security: Five Big Ideas to Start
In just about three months in office, the Trump administration has inflicted grievous damage on American national security. From threats to the sovereignty and independence of America’s closest allies to launching an unprovoked global trade war and politically motivated purges of the Pentagon, Trump has left America much weaker, far lonelier in the world, and deeply insecure than at any point in living memory. And matters will only grow worse over the course of Trump’s next three-plus years in office.
Democrats will need to go big and bold to even begin to repair this damage. Here are five ideas on national security that can help Democrats to do just that:
- A 350-ship Navy in ten years and a 250-strong bomber force as soon as possible as the core of a strong national defense.
- Rebuild the non-defense foundations of national power.
- Lift all of Trump’s tariffs, recommit to free trade, and pursue strategic economic cooperation with America’s allies.
- Double down on America’s alliances in Europe and Asia.
- Fully commit to a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine.
Read the full piece.
Kahlenberg for The Chronicle of Higher Education: Higher Ed Brought This on Itself
Academe is right to be alarmed by President Trump’s attacks on colleges and academic freedom. His administration appears to be acting in bad faith, motivated by a desire to punish political enemies and weaken the sector’s independence. The attempt to micromanage Harvard University’s viewpoint diversity is particularly alarming. Trump’s dangerous approach comes straight out of the authoritarian playbook of leaders like Viktor Orbán. It should be — and has been — roundly denounced.
But to end the discussion there misses the other half of the story: It is not simply rotten luck that landed higher education in this position. And so academic leaders must take this moment to look in the mirror. The truth is that, for decades, elite higher education has been starkly out of step with the public. At top liberal-arts colleges, one study found, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 48 to one among English-department faculty members, and 17 to one among philosophy, history, and psychology professors. While college leaders tirelessly championed diversity by race and gender, they tolerated, and sometimes abetted, an ideological monoculture.
Some academics wore this political disconnect as a badge of honor, a sign that higher ed’s leaders, faculty, and students were more enlightened than a benighted American public. And for years, they got away with it. But in our system, where even private colleges rely on enormous public subsidies, that was a dangerous game to play. Many large universities receive at least a quarter of their operating budgets from the federal government, and it was only a matter of time until we encountered an administration that sought to leverage that dependency to exact changes.
On one high-profile issue that the administration and conservative critics see as an easy target — the use of racial preferences in college admissions — elite colleges have been stunningly out of touch. And predictably, countermeasures have begun: The Department of Justice is already investigating admissions at Stanford University and the University of California’s Berkeley, Irvine, and Los Angeles campuses.
I’ve been writing about admissions for more than three decades, and over that time I’ve visited dozens of campuses. I frequently ask audience members to raise their hands if they oppose racial preferences. Very few hands go up. Often none do. When I next cite Pew Research polling showing that 74 percent of Americans, including a majority of people of color, oppose the consideration of race, my audiences seem surprised.
Maybe the American public is cold-hearted and doesn’t care about racial justice the way right-thinking people in elite colleges do? The polls contradict that as well: Americans support racial diversity, they just don’t think racial preferences are the right way to accomplish that goal. Instead, Americans support, by a substantial margin, colleges giving a break to economically disadvantaged students of all races, a disproportionate share of whom are Black and Hispanic.
This approach does not ignore America’s history of racial oppression. It is precisely because of that history that Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to find themselves in America’s lower socioeconomic brackets. Moreover, as I argue in my new book, Class Matters, the strong political support for economic rather than racial affirmative action makes sense given profound changes in American society over the past half century or more.
Read more in Inside Higher Ed.
Manno for Forbes: Workplace Career Guidance And Mentorship: Education And Gender Matter
Work is not only about the economic exchange that comes from earning a living. Work also involves social exchange. It is a place where we earn a living and make connections with other people. These connections nurture social capital, the relationships we need to work, live life, and reach our potential.
The American Perspectives Survey of over 5,000 U.S. adults conducted by the Survey Center on American Life is filled with insights into workplace social capital. It includes a discussion of the workplace career guidance and mentorship workers receive. It also describes the different workplace experiences and social relationships that exist between those with and without college degrees and between males and females.
Understanding education and gender differences in developing workplace social capital is important because it helps us understand social wealth and social poverty in the workplace and beyond. This awareness also should lead us to ensure that K-12 students receive career education and mentorship experiences before they graduate from high school. These K-12 experiences prepare students to take advantage of the job opportunities they will have for career guidance and mentorships that nurture workplace social capital.
Marshall for The Hill: Trump 2.0 is a Runaway Dump Truck Only Voters Can Stop
President Trump is having a grand time playing chicken with the U.S. economy, risking our prosperity to force other countries to submit to his protectionist diktats. It’s put him right where he wants to be — at the center of world attention.
But his vendetta against trade is alarming U.S. consumers, businesses and investors, and reawakening public doubts that he knows what he’s doing.
Most Americans don’t see the point in picking fights with friendly trade partners like Canada. Private sector leaders are aghast at Trump’s on-again, off-again threats to impose suffocating “reciprocal” duties on all imported goods.
While pausing those tariffs to stop the U.S. bond market from melting down, Trump has imposed an equally arbitrary 10 percent tariff on most of our trading partners. He’s also gone nuclear on China, raising tariffs to an absurd 245 percent and goading Beijing into levying massive retaliatory duties on U.S. exports.
PPI Statement on President Trump’s Attacks on Fed Independence
WASHINGTON — Today, Paul Weinstein Jr., Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s latest attacks on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the independence of the central bank:
“President Trump’s social media post claiming Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is ‘always TOO LATE AND WRONG,’ and his ‘termination cannot come fast enough!’ would be laughable if not for the fact that President Trump is clearly setting the stage to challenge the central bank’s independence in federal court. Under Powell’s leadership, the Fed has successfully brought down inflation from historically high levels while keeping the economy from falling into recession.
“Chairman Powell yesterday simply and factually observed that higher tariffs are likely to raise consumer prices and slow growth, which Trump himself has acknowledged in admitting that tariffs will cause ‘pain.’ Given President Trump’s reckless economic policies, including his misguided attempt to usurp Congress’ Constitutional tax authority and impose tariffs by decree, an independent Fed in control of monetary policy is more important than ever. Hopefully, Members of Congress and the federal courts will defend it.”
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.
###
Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org
Trump’s Tax Plans Could Make Future Tax Seasons Even More Complicated
For many, annually navigating a tax code they overwhelmingly feel is unfair and complex is a frustrating experience. But the Trump administration’s many new tax pledges — including no taxes on tips, auto loan interest, overtime pay, and more — could make it even worse. If enacted, they would provide only limited benefits to working Americans, while further complicating the tax code with arbitrary exemptions and loopholes.
Tax breaks should always strike a balance between the benefits they are creating and the costs they impose. While tax provisions can be used for laudable goals — including stimulating investment, promoting retirement savings, or reducing poverty — excessive or poorly designed exemptions can erode the tax base, create loopholes, and increase the cost of compliance for taxpayers and administrators. To be worthwhile, a tax break should deliver more in benefits than it costs in complexity. Trump’s various proposals don’t come close.
Trump argues that his “no tax” proposals are intended to alleviate the cost burden of middle and lower income Americans, but few would receive significant benefits. Most tipped workers already pay little to no income tax, so the exemption would do almost nothing for them. And worse, a broad tax exemption could even give high-earners a new way to game the system by reclassifying their wages as tips. Moreover, providing tax exemptions based on how people earn their paychecks inherently leaves many working Americans behind. While a waitress might qualify for tax exemptions on tip or overtime income, a truck driver or teacher wouldn’t.
But while most Americans receive few benefits from Trump’s “no tax” proposals, they will still be stuck with the costs. Since enacting these broad exemptions drastically shrinks the tax base, taxpayers who are unable to qualify for special treatment would be left to shoulder a greater share of the overall tax burden. Even if this doesn’t lead to immediate tax increases, the lost revenue from these expensive proposals would add to the national debt, crowding out vital government programs, driving up borrowing costs, and forcing an even larger tax hike in the future.
Furthermore, when numerous exemptions add layers of complexity to the tax code, it becomes more difficult for taxpayers to understand what they owe and for administrators to ensure the law is being followed. This creates opportunities for individuals and businesses to avoid taxation, whether through intentionally exploiting loopholes or unintentionally misinterpreting complex rules. A complicated tax code also becomes more difficult for the IRS to enforce, resulting in a larger “tax gap” — the difference between taxes owed and taxes actually collected — which both costs the federal government billions in lost revenue and undermines the fairness of the tax code
As Congressional Republicans begin to craft major tax legislation enabled by the budget resolution they passed last week, they should aim to craft a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and easier to navigate – not one that is even worse than the status quo.
Deeper Dive
- Why are Taxes so Complicated?, by the Tax Policy Center
- The 2025 Tax Debate: Individual Tax Deductions and Exemptions in TCJA, by the Bipartisan Policy Center
- Tip of the Iceberg? How Tax-Free Tips Could Sink the Tax System, by the Tax Law Center
- The Tax Gaps Many Shades of Gray, by Tax Policy Center
- 2025 Reconciliation Tracker, by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Fiscal Fact
During the busiest time of the year, the Trump administration has laid off or bought out roughly one-third of IRS staff, with plans for even more layoffs in the future. This will disrupt the agency’s progress in both modernizing its systems and improving its customer service and enforcement capabilities.
Further Reading
Other Fiscal News
- Trump Threatens Harvard’s Tax Status, Escalating Billion-Dollar Pressure Campaign, by the New York Times
- Powell Warns of ‘Challenging Scenario’ for Fed as Trade War Rages, by the Wall Street Journal
- US Engaging on OECD Global Tax Deal Despite Donald Trump’s Defiance, by Financial Times
- Republicans Ponder the Unthinkable: Taxing the Rich, by the New York Times
- Republicans Look to Blunt Dems’ Advantage on Family Tax Credit, by Politico
More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future
- Congressional Republicans Take Dangerous Step Towards Ending Budget Enforcement, by Ben Ritz and Alex Kilander
- Trump’s “Liberation Day” Comes at Great Cost to Taxpayers, by Ben Ritz and Alex Kilander
- PPI Statement on President Trump’s Attacks on Fed Independence, by Paul Weinstein Jr.
- Competing for the Upper Hand in the Ultimate High Ground: The Modern Space Race Between the U.S. and China, by Mary Guenther
- Trump Tariffs More Likely to Shrink than Enlarge U.S. Manufacturing Industry, by Ed Gresser
New PPI Report Urges Bold Action to Counter China’s Growing Capabilities in Space
WASHINGTON — For more than half a century, American leadership in space has been a cornerstone of national security, economic growth, and global influence. But according to a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), that leadership is on the verge of slipping away.
Today, PPI released a new report, “Competing for the Upper Hand in the Ultimate High Ground: The Modern Space Race Between the U.S. and China,” authored by Mary Guenther, Head of Space Policy at PPI. The report delivers a stark warning: China is moving aggressively to overtake the United States in space — and unless policymakers act swiftly, America could lose its competitive edge within the next 5 to 15 years.
“Space is no longer just about exploration — it’s the infrastructure of everyday people’s life and warfare,” said Guenther. “Our phones, our financial system, our military all depend on it. And right now, China is investing big, moving fast, and playing to win.”
In the report, Guenther outlines four ways America can change course to retain the high ground in space:
- Invest in America’s Space Programs: Congress must boost funding for NASA, space technology R&D, and national security space programs. As a share of the federal budget, NASA funding is at historic lows — even as its mission portfolio has expanded dramatically.
- Modernize Outdated Space Regulations: Space companies face a tangled web of regulatory hurdles that slow down innovation. Modernizing these rules — while maintaining the safety of the uninvolved public and national security — is essential to supporting a competitive U.S. space industry.
- Harness Private Sector Innovation: China’s advantage is state control. America’s advantage is its private sector. But to leverage it fully, the government must provide clear acquisition strategies, reward innovation, and remove artificial barriers to market entry.
- Rebuild and Expand International Partnerships: Just as the Apollo program inspired allies worldwide, America’s modern space efforts should continue to be a tool of diplomacy and soft power — especially as China courts new partners through its own space programs.
Space leadership is no longer a niche concern — it is a national imperative. As the report makes clear, space underpins nearly every aspect of American life, from the economy to national defense. The global space economy is projected to triple to $1.8 trillion by 2035, with high-paying American jobs and critical technological innovation on the line. U.S. military operations depend on space-based communications, navigation, and intelligence to maintain a strategic edge. And in the fight against climate change, space-based monitoring remains essential for tracking environmental shifts and managing scarce natural resources.
“This isn’t science fiction — it’s a geopolitical reality,” said Guenther. “China understands that space dominance will drive future prosperity and power. The U.S. led the first space race. But maintaining that lead requires political will and strategic investment.”
Read and download the report here.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
###
Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org
Competing for the Upper Hand in the Ultimate High Ground: The Modern Space Race Between the U.S. and China
INTRODUCTION
China’s main space policy goal is to usurp the United States’ leadership position in space by 2045 — and it increasingly looks like a goal they’ll meet. This development would have dire implications for America’s national security, global position, and economic growth. Indeed, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has stated, “Chinese space activities will increasingly erode the national security, commercial, and global influence advantages that the United States has accrued from its leadership in space.”
This erosion of American leadership could occur in the next five years as China is on track to reach parity with United States space power in most areas by 2030. In some areas, like positioning, navigation, and timing (the American Global Positioning Service, for instance), China already has superior capabilities.2 However, in most areas, like low-Earth orbit satellite broadband service and rendezvous and proximity operations, China still lags the United States, though China is working expeditiously to change that status quo.
Yet, Congress has not yet taken substantial action to address this, nor did the Biden administration. There were a number of pieces of space legislation introduced last Congress, but there was only one bill that passed into law that addresses this issue and it was narrowly focused. Space has a long-standing reputation for having strong bipartisan support. Yet we are seeing Republicans double down on their support for the sector while Democrats have gone quiet and focused on maintaining the status quo rather than encouraging the exciting innovations in this arena. The Trump administration firings have touched NASA, but to date, they have been glancing blows rather than the sucker punches experienced by other agencies. That said, while it remains to be seen how Trump’s tariffs on items like aluminum that are vital to the space industry, potential plans to slash NASA’s budget 20% and fights with nations that are traditional United States partners will play out for space, the impact is unlikely to be positive. Democrats must start to show up to the conversation and push for change via thoughtful, pragmatic solutions if the nation is to maintain competitiveness in the space domain.
There is still time to take action to invest in U.S. competitiveness and maintain American space leadership. This report will outline why space leadership matters to the nation, the state of play for strategically significant space capabilities, and recommend solutions for turning things around. These solutions must be undertaken in tandem as there is not a silver bullet. Experts believe China’s space investments may have already surpassed the United States’ when adjusted for purchasing power parity, though given the general opacity of Chinese government spending estimates that exact figure varies. Increased investment in targeted portions of American space programs remains vital, but more money alone won’t be enough. We must:
- Maintain stability in existing space programs and make additional investments that will help us go further and faster — both today and into the future;
- Enact regulatory reforms to minimize the number and duration of steps space companies need to take to get authorization for their activities without sacrificing crucial national priorities like the safety of the uninvolved public;
- Continue American international engagement and partnering with other nations; and
- Harness the private sector as efficiently as possible, which is vital to American success in space.
Read the full report.
Trump tariffs more likely to shrink than enlarge U.S. manufacturing industry
FACT: Five-eighths of U.S. imports are “business inputs,” three-eighths “consumer goods.”
THE NUMBERS: Imports of U.S. goods by type, 2024 –
| U.S. GDP. 2024 | $29.185 trillion |
| All goods imports: | $3.270 trillion |
| Consumer goods: | $1.225 trillion |
| “Capital goods”: | $1.113 trillion |
| “Intermediate” goods: | $0.534 trillion |
| “Raw materials”: | $0.327 trillion |
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Reviewing the likely effects of this month’s Trump administration tariffs on the U.S. space industry this week, PPI space expert Mary Guenther has a blunt warning:
“The ever-evolving tariff regime … will raise the cost of making rockets and satellites in the U.S., limit industry access to core inputs and materials, and encourage boycotts of American products and services abroad.”
Some background, then we can place her judgment against the administration’s view that tariffs mean ‘more manufacturing industry’:
The Trump administration’s “reciprocal” tariff system launched at midnight last Wednesday. Greeted icily by the stock and bond markets the next morning, it lasted about 5½ hours before “pausing” just after lunch. It and may or may not resurface in July. The April 2 decree which created it, though, imposed not one but two new tariff systems. The second is still in place, though with big holes punched into it with a sudden Friday-night exemption for semiconductors, smartphones, TVs, and some other IT manufacturers. (This is roughly 22% of U.S. imports from China, and 10% of all imports, and may last or itself be replaced by a “national security” tariff in a month.) Assuming the administration sticks with v.3 for a while, or returns to v.2, here are the basics:
1. Contents: The April 2 decree imposes
(a) a 10% tariff on all goods imports from countries other than China, Canada, and Mexico, except energy and (provisionally) the IT manufactures noted above;
(b) a 125% tariff on everything Chinese-made other than the IT goods (which, since the February Canada/Mexico/China decree remains in effect, makes a total rate of 145%, except the IT goods at 20%), and
(c) an exemption for Mexican- and Canadian-made goods entering under the still-surviving “USMCA.” Separate March decrees put 25% tariffs on cars, auto parts, steel, and aluminum, and the administration has threatened though not yet imposed similar 25% tariffs on medicine, lumber, copper, and semiconductor chips.
As a final note (d), the Congressionally authorized, Constitutionally legitimate tariff system is still in place and averages about 1.5%.
Tentatively assuming that the 145% tariff on Chinese goods means near but not total collapse of trade, while imports continue from the rest of the world, the likely overall U.S. average rate would then likely range from 15% to 20%. In U.S. history, these rates resemble those of the Hoover administration from 1930-32. Or, looking around the world today rather than backward through American history, the U.S.’ “peer” tariff economies would be countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Congo, and Chad in the 12% to 20% tariff range. (See below for a couple of tables.)
2. Impacts: What sort of impact would this tariff system have? In a “macro” sense, Yale BudgetLab estimates GDP growth cut by -1.1%, and prices up by 2.9%. More immediately, families buying clothes, groceries, appliances, flowers, and cars can expect prices to rise. (This won’t surprise them: the most recent UMichigan consumer-confidence survey reveals the highest inflation expectations since 1981.) But as Ms. Guenther implies and the numbers above show, imports of business inputs – “intermediate goods” like chemicals and metals, raw materials like energy and metal ores, and capital goods such as power equipment — are substantially larger than imports of consumer goods. So the Trump tariffs are likely to raise U.S. production costs even more than they raise mall and grocery prices.
This is why the administration’s view of tariffs that tariffs, in some way, make manufacturing companies larger seems so blinkered and naive. Taking automobiles as an example, the administration’s 25% tariff on cars would raise prices and push Americans to buy locally made cars. But its identical 25% tariffs on metals and parts (and depending on which administration official is speaking, on semiconductors too), plus its 10% tariffs on wiring, paint, glass, and so on, and its 125% tariff on any auto-related things made in China, will also make it much more expensive to build cars in the United States. So the likely outcome is that Americans will import fewer cars, and also buy fewer U.S.-made cars, while U.S.-made cars get more expensive abroad and also risk retaliation. That points to a smaller U.S. auto sector. The same goes for refrigerators, motorcycles, washing machines, planes, and the space industry’s rockets, satellites, guidance systems, specialized sensors and computers, and so on.
With this in mind, some specially protected “manufacturing sectors” might gain. But U.S. manufacturing in general will have higher costs and probably get relatively smaller. The earlier round of Trump tariffs provides some guidance here: per a 2023 U.S. International Trade Commission study, the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs over three years raised the two metals’ output by $2.2 billion, but simultaneously shrank the U.S. auto parts, machinery, toolmaking and other metal-using industries by $3.5 billion. On a larger scale, since the metals and “301” tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018/2019, manufacturing has fallen from 10.9% to 9.9% of U.S. GDP. Real manufacturing output growth and employment totals, meanwhile, have slowed from the annual $40 billion and 100,000 net jobs averages of the post-financial crisis Obama years to $30 billion and 30,000.
So: Good that the administration listened to the financial markets’ frank advice last week and, at least for now, abandoned its “reciprocal tariff” plan. They should keep listening — to markets worrying about macro impacts, to Guenther and other industry experts describing likely impacts on firms and industries, and to public opinion contemplating price shocks. All of them, in their different ways, are saying very similar things.
FURTHER READING
PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:
- Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
- Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
- Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
- Offer a positive alternative.
Along these lines, applause for two new bills, introduced last week, to safeguard the U.S. economy and defend the Constitution:
House Ways and Means Democrats call for canceling the April 2 decree and the February decree relating to Canada and Mexico, and for requiring Congressional votes of approval for any new “emergency” or “national security” tariffs.
Finance Committee Ranking Member Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), likewise.
Current tariff rates:
The actual U.S. tariff schedule. It is not a very good system, but is Congressionally authorized and Constitutionally legitimate.
… the Trump administration’s April 2 tariff decree.
… the April 9 version.
… and the April 11 “Clarification of Revisions, as Amended.”
Backwards through history:
The U.S. International Trade Commission has U.S. tariff rates (trade-weighted) from 2024 back to 1891.
Around the world:
The WTO’s Tariff Profiles 2024 makes it easy to look up and compare tariff rates (simple average, trade-weighted average, by sector, etc.).
… and the World Bank has an even easier interactive comparative table (though with “trade-weighted” tariff rates only) by country from the World Bank.
And a couple of tables:
1. An educated guess at this week’s U.S. tariff rate, placed against tariff rates abroad and in U.S. history:
| Bermuda | 29.5% |
| United States (Hoover administration, 1932) | 19.8% |
| Chad | 16.8% |
| Republic of Congo | 15.2% |
| United States (Trump v.3, April 12, 2025) | 15.0%?? |
| Venezuela | 12.8% |
| Ethiopia | 12.7% |
| Iran | 12.1% |
| Zimbabwe | 11.4% |
| Egypt | 10.4% |
| European Union | 2.7% |
| U.S. (2024) | 2.4% |
| China | 2.2% |
| Japan | 1.9% |
| U.S. (2016) | 1.5% |
| Singapore | 0.0% |
* WTO Tariff Profiles 2024 when available; World Bank database for Egypt, Iran, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Chad. Bermuda’s average tariff rate is the highest known current rate.
2. And an attempted breakdown of imports by current tariff type (though policy has been changing unpredictably). Using last year’s $3.27 trillion in imports as a base, and assuming the semiconductor, smart-phone, TV, etc., exemption stays on:
Chinese-made: 145% on $345 billion.
“National security” (232): 25% on about $500 billion in cars, auto parts, steel & aluminum, likely also medicines, copper, and lumber.
China partial exemptions: 20% (for now) on $96 billion in Chinese-made semiconductors, TVs, smartphones, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and solar technology.
April 2 decree “worldwide”: 10% on about $1.2 trillion in Asian but non-Chinese, European, Latin American and Caribbean, Middle East, African, and Pacific goods.
0%: About $820 billion in “USMCA” goods, plus all energy, plus $200 billion worth of exempted and non-Chinese-made semiconductors and other IT goods.
ABOUT ED
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.
Gresser in CNN: ‘Pink tariffs’ cost women more than $2 billion a year
“Most manufactured apparel and footwear are classified by gender in the US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), which sets out the tariff rates for all categories of merchandise imported into the United States. Tariff rates on women’s clothing were, on average, 16.7% in 2022 — 2.9 percentage points higher than the 13.6% average tariff rate for men’s clothing, according to Gresser.”
Read more in CNN.
Manno for AEI: The Growth of Earn-and-Learn Apprenticeship Degrees: Expanding America’s Mobility and Opportunity Structure
Key Points
• Earn-and-learn work-based education through apprenticeships is a promising and growing pathway to good jobs and other opportunities.
• To be successful, any effort to expand apprenticeship programs will have to brand and market them as genuine and effective pathways to jobs and opportunity.
• By valuing both educational and employment outcomes, the new apprenticeship degree paradigm makes the nation’s opportunity infrastructure more flexible and pluralistic.
Earn-and-learn work-based education through apprenticeships is a promising and growing pathway to good jobs and other opportunities—both for young people and for adults looking to switch careers. Those in apprenticeship programs earn a living by working, learn from mentors in the workplace and classroom, and receive an employer credential while taking on little to no student debt.
The recent popularization of the earn-and-learn model has spawned new forms of apprenticeships across the US, including apprenticeship degrees that combine work experience with the pursuit of a traditional college degree pathway. This work-based degree model aligns with Americans’ desire for more flexible, pluralistic pathways to opportunity. It also broadens the mobility and opportunity structure by recognizing and valuing diverse pathways to human flourishing beyond the pursuit of a traditional college degree.
Read the full report.
Manno for Real Clear Education: Earn and Learn Apprenticeships Create Opportunity for Young People
“Everyone wants to hire somebody with three years’ experience, and nobody wants to give them three years’ experience,” says Peter Capelli, management professor at The Wharton School. Many first-time job seekers confront this mismatch between work requirements and their ability to apply what they know to those demands. Analysts call this problem the job seeker’s experience gap.
K-12 schools, two- and four-year colleges, and workforce training programs can help young people overcome the experience gap through earn-and-learn apprenticeship programs. In addition to long-standing registered apprenticeships, new models are emerging, including youth apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, and apprenticeship degrees. National Apprenticeship Day is an opportunity to investigate this growing movement.
Read more in Real Clear Education.
Africa’s Digital Opportunity
INTRODUCTION
Africa stands at a remarkable crossroads of opportunity. Over the past two decades, the continent has not only experienced impressive economic growth but has also emerged as a global leader in digital transformation. Since the advent of the smartphone in 2007, Africa has made extraordinary strides in connectivity, innovation, and technological adoption. In 2007, fewer than 50 million Africans had mobile internet access; today, that number exceeds 600 million. Mobile money services, pioneered in Africa, now facilitate over $800 billion in transactions annually, transforming commerce and financial inclusion.
Africa’s economic trajectory further reinforces its promise. Led by Niger, African nations accounted for eleven of the world’s fastest-growing economies in 2024, with continent-wide GDP growth exceeding the global average by about one percentage point. Demographically, Africa is also the fastest-growing region, with the U.N. projecting that an additional one billion people will inhabit the continent by 2050. This growth presents both challenges and immense opportunities — particularly in the technology sector. By strategically investing in digital infrastructure, skills development, and regulatory frameworks that foster innovation, Africa can not only sustain its economic growth but also become a global technology powerhouse. But regulators and policymakers across Africa must foster this opportunity for growth with the right mix of regulatory frameworks and not make the mistakes others are making, such as the European Union.
Read the full report.
Jacoby for Forbes: Can Europe Implement Its Ambitious New Rearmament Plan?
When Andrius Kubilius considers Europe today, he thinks about the U.S. in the late 1930s. The former Lithuanian prime minister, now European commissioner for defense and space, sees many parallels. Americans lacked a sense of urgency about Nazi aggression. The U.S. had few reserves of manpower or weaponry. Its arms industry had been weakened by years of underinvestment. Manufacturers, uncertain about future orders, hesitated to ramp up production capacity, and money was in short supply.
In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt defied this apathy and inaction with the historic defense buildup known as the “Victory Program.” Eighty years later, Kubilius says, Western democracies face a different form of totalitarian aggression. But if America could do it then, Europe can and must do it now. “We have the same responsibility,” the commissioner wrote recently in a personal post, “to define and to implement our ‘Victory Plan.’ This is our moral task. For our grandkids to live also in peace.”
Kubilius is one of the architects of the European Union’s ambitious new rearmament strategy, ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030, approved in principle last month by 26 of the continent’s 27 heads of state. Unlike in the U.S. where it now seems unclear to many whether Russia is a friend or foe, few Europeans are confused about the need for the initiative. Kubilius sums it up with one fact: as things stand today, Russia can produce more weapons in three months than all the NATO member states, including the U.S., can produce in a year.