Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down the use of racial preferences in college admissions — a momentous decision that has reverberated through the landscape of higher education and begun to usher in a new approach to diversity.
In response to the ruling, then-President Joe Biden urged colleges to keep their commitment to diversity but adopt a “new standard” in admissions to reward students who had overcome adversity, including a lack of financial means.
How has that worked out?
Old ideologies don’t die easily, and there was initial resistance to the ruling on both the far left and the far right. But most schools have come around to the view that it’s time to find new paths to diversity, centered around addressing America’s great class divide.
“For every employer I interviewed for this book, from the largest tech companies to smaller and medium size businesses in cities or rural American, the most important resume signal today for candidates to get hired is not where they went to college, or even whether they went to college, but their experience relevant to the role they’ll be asked to perform. And experts anticipate that this will become even more of a trend if artificial intelligence begins to eliminate more entry-level jobs,” writes Kathleen deLaski, author of the new bookWho Needs College Anymore? Imagining a Future Where Degrees Don’t Matter.
The typical college degree does not provide graduates with the experience they need for the work role they will be asked to perform, creating an experience gap for graduates. DeLaski’s solution to this problem is an experience first model of college. This approach prepares students for jobs by integrating elements of what colleges traditionally offer with significant work experiences, especially for the career that interests the student.
President Trump is off to a manic start, carpet bombing Washington with executive orders of dubious legality, firing hundreds of thousands of federal workers and souring relations with America’s neighbors and allies.
I get that Trump was elected to shake up a status quo that working-class voters believe stacks the odds against them. But Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was right: Trump has no mandate to inflict ruinous trade wars on America’s friends, disable the federal government rather than reform it and throw Ukraine to the Russian wolves.
Green’s protest got him ejected from the president’s stemwinder in Congress Tuesday night, during which Trump served up his usual smorgasbord of self-congratulatory fantasies to rapt Republicans and dejected Democrats.
We shouldn’t forget that half the country didn’t vote for Trump and endorses neither his brazen power grabs nor his embrace of old ideas — high trade barriers and isolationism — that failed our country badly in the past. At 45 percent, Trump’s personal approval rating is the lowest for any newly elected president since he set the record low of 44 percent in 2017.
Republicans no doubt are thrilled their hero is “owning the libs.” But what matters now is whether Trump can deliver tangible benefits to the swing voters who put him narrowly over the top — independents, moderate Republicans and Democratic defectors, especially noncollege Blacks and Latinos.
WASHINGTON — Today, Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement regarding the “Congressional Trade Authority Act,” introduced by Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)
“Representatives Beyer and DelBene are absolutely right in requiring Congressional approval for any tariff action taken under a ‘national security’ headline. The Constitution gives Congress power over ‘Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,’ without ambiguity and with good reason.
“As policy, if a president (or any single individual) can use ‘national security’ declarations to create his or her own system of tariffs or other taxes, and impose whatever rates he or she wants on any product or country, Americans will be at constant risk of sudden price hikes in grocery stores, auto dealerships, real estate offices and machinery factories, as well as job loss and business failures in export manufacturing and the farm economy from retaliation and consumer boycotts abroad, and other harms emerging from impulsive and ill-advised decisions.
“As governance, every future president would face temptation to use this novel power in corrupt ways, to punish critics and business rivals or to reward supporters and friends.
“Most fundamentally, personal imposition of tariffs by presidents without any Congressional instruction or approval violates the core Constitutional principle of separation of powers and damages Congress’ ‘power of the purse’.
“If a president makes a valid argument for using tariffs in a national security case – as the Biden administration did in removing Most Favored Nation tariff rates from Russian goods in 2022 – Congress will recognize it and act. If Congress does not see an emergency, then it’s likely the president has not made a persuasive case for tariffs and import limits.
“The Beyer/DelBene bill is good policy and good government. Its passage will prevent further real-world harms and help restore Constitutionally appropriate tax and trade policymaking.”
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.
From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.
Senate Republicans and “moderate” House Republicans who are uncomfortable with the $4.5 trillion cost of extending the expiring tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term are pushing a new strategy: pretend it is free. Normally, the cost of legislation is measured as the amount passing the legislation would increase the deficit relative to a scenario where the legislation did not pass, which is known as a “current law” baseline. But Republicans instead want to score their upcoming tax bill against a “current policy” baseline that assumes every policy in effect today continues in perpetuity.
Although advocates of this approach suggest it would “zero out” the cost of extending expiring tax cuts, the reality is that it would do nothing to change the actual cost. If Republicans pass a bill with policies that are “fully offset” relative to current policy, the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product would increase by nearly twice as much compared to if they did nothing.
Aside from helping Republicans justify their budget-busting plans to themselves and the public, adopting a current policy baseline could potentially clear some legislative procedural hurdles. Budget reconciliation bills, which can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate without being subject to a filibuster, are not allowed to increase deficits over 10 years by more than the amount permitted in a previously-passed budget resolution. These constraints are the reason Republicans scheduled many tax cuts to expire at the end of this year when they passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.
By using a current policy baseline – instead of the current law baseline used in 2017 and for every other piece of legislation – Republicans are hoping to hide the true cost of extension so they can bypass reconciliation constraints and clear the path for their legislative agenda. Most experts believe budget rules do not allow lawmakers to subjectively select their preferred baseline like this. But if Republicans are somehow able to do so, either by exploiting legal loopholes or overruling the Senate parliamentarian, the results could annihilate any fiscal guardrails in future legislative debates.
Consider this scenario: After enacting the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which cost $1.9 trillion compared to a current law baseline, Democrats could have said that not extending the law’s one-time spending provisions would “save” up to nearly $20 trillion over the following decade compared to a current policy baseline. They could then have used these phony savings as an “offset” for a bill four times as expensive as Joe Biden’s original “Build Back Better” plan. Effectively, Republicans would be setting a precedent that enables far-left Democrats to enact prohibitively expensive proposals like the Green New Deal or Medicare-for-All and claim they cost virtually nothing, even as the national debt would balloon.
Some Republicans have argued that making tax cuts permanent is so important for economic growth that the benefits of extending them should outweigh any potential consequences. But according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, extending the tax cuts without offsets would be unlikely to generate any long-term economic growth at all – and could even reduce it, as higher borrowing costs outweigh any positive economic impact. Moreover, when the federal budget is on such an obviously unsustainable trajectory, no fiscal policy can be considered permanent. At some point in the not-too-distant future, some combination of tax and spending policies that currently have no expiration date will have to change to prevent, or react to, an economic crisis caused by exploding debt. If Republicans really wanted their tax cuts to be permanent, they would figure out how to pay for them.
THE NUMBERS: Ukraine economic indicators, 2022 and 2025* –
2022
2025
GDP
$161 billion
$189 billion
Growth rate
-29.7%
2.5%
Inflation
20.2%
9.2%
Unemployment
24.5%
12.7%
* International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook database October 2024
WHAT THEY MEAN:
As President Zelenskyy returns to Kyiv, some thoughts on Russia’s war, the Ukrainian cause, the White House’s revival of isolationism and appeasement, and the dangers it poses for America and America’s friends:
Three years ago this week, we noted that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was one of very few attempts since World War II — arguably only the second, together with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 — by one UN member to attack another and attempt to wipe it off the map. From this point of departure, we made three points about the event and the appropriate American and Allied response to it. Here they are, shortened a bit for space:
(1) The post-World War II ban on wars of conquest is the foundation of international order, whether one’s point of reference is international law and the UN Charter, or the logic of peace and security. Respect for it is essential to international achievement in any field, from peaceful settlement of disputes among countries, to scientific and medical progress, environmental protection, economic policy, and international security.
(2) Russia’s violation of this ban in the attack on Ukraine was then, and remains now, especially dangerous as the action not of the rogue dictator of an isolated minor power, but of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Should it succeed, we can expect more such events and a much more dangerous world. Should it fail, conversely, the taboo on wars of conquest will be stronger and future imitators more effectively deterred.
(3) The Biden administration and allies from Australia, Korea, and Japan to Canada, the EU, and the UK were right to respond with economic and military aid for Ukraine, and extensive sanctions on Russia. Hindsight from 2025 can dispute some of their specific choices, especially on weapons provision. But whether from the moral or the national-interest perspective, their decision to stand with Ukraine was correct.
It remains so now. Ukraine has used its support well. Its army defeated Russia’s initial attack on Kyiv in 2022 and holds the line in the east. Its very modest navy — mainly a collection of small boats armed with ingenious home-built naval drones — defeated Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in 2023, sinking a third of its capital ships and forcing the rest to shelter in port ever since. And on the home front, as the IMF data above show, Ukraine’s economy has grown by about 20% since the low of 2022, with unemployment and inflation both cut by half; its start-up tech community has created ex nihilo an internationally competitive high-tech defense industry; and its Black Sea victory has reconnected Ukraine’s agricultural heartland to customers in Europe and the United States. More basically, Ukraine’s public is not about to buckle, its government is stable, and its defense is a just cause. Americans have no reason to reassess our commitment.
The Trump administration, to our great dismay, has taken a different approach, vividly displayed in Friday’s White House meeting. In the past month it has refused to condemn Russia’s invasion, opened direct talks with Russia without the presence of Ukrainians or European allies, and now has made an open attempt — including stopping military aid — to coerce Ukraine itself. This is full of risk — above all for Ukrainians, next for U.S. allies such as the Baltic states and Poland, and finally for Americans too.
The administration’s recycling of the term “America First” for its approach is evocative and instructive. The first group to use this name, the “America First Committee,” was an organization created in September 1940 – that is, during the Battle of Britain — with a specific goal: to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from aiding the U.K. with ships, planes, industrial supplies, and food through the “Lend-Lease” program. Its roughly 800,000 members varied — some were sincere pacifists, others convinced isolationists and worried college students, and some admired dictators as “strong” and “decisive” personalities and considered fascism the energetic “wave of the future.” All of them were wrong, and some of them were bad. Their failure in 1940 was good for the world and America alike.
Eight decades later, Friday’s White House meeting – as well as the administration’s extraordinary decision to oppose the UN’s February resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of its neighbor – recall the ugliest part of this earlier America First movement. The February meeting by the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia — likely about Ukrainian land among other things and, we repeat, without Ukrainians present — echoes the naivete of the Committee’s pacifist/isolationist members: won’t a few concessions appease an aggressive power? Could it hurt to try? The obvious point of reference is the 1938 Munich Agreement, where the leaders of the two big European democracies — the U.K.’s Chamberlain and France’s Daladier — conceded Czech land to an aggressor in the hope of avoiding conflict. Here’s the classic in-the-moment verdict from an opposition MP:
“[Our people] should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: ‘Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.’
“And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
Churchill was speaking of a fait accompli. By contrast, Mr. Trump’s venture has so far not succeeded. Americans of both parties who have a greater sense of realism, who appreciate the danger of appeasement and isolationism, and who are more willing to be guided by right and wrong, may be able to prevent a second such outcome. They need to try.
PPI President Will Marshall (July 2024) on Ukraine and NATO.
Ben Ritz on the modest budget impact of aid to Ukraine, and the very high cost failure might bring.
And Ed Gresser on economic trends and the impact of Ukraine’s Black Sea naval victory, with a point of departure in Ukraine’s large society of beekeepers and their 11-tons-of-honey-a-day American market.
Primary sources:
The UN Charter. Core sentence: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
“The fundamental reason for the Second World War was the withdrawal of the United States out of the world-system: that, more than anything else, allowed the aggressors to get away with things. Not all the mistakes this country [i.e. the UK] was responsible for in the 1920s and 1930s equaled the one enormous and irreparable error the United States made in contracting out of responsibility.”
“Whatever concessions were justifiable to Weimar Germany, no concessions should ever be made to Hitler. That this was the right line to adhere to all the evidence now proves: hold the ring around Hitler’s Germany, and the break will come inside.”
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.
For almost a half century, Republican presidents consistently attacked racial preference programs rhetorically but did little to roll them back. That was true of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and even Donald Trump in his first term. Trump’s second term is different. The new administration has unleashed a flurry of executive orders and a “Dear Colleague Letter” upending racial preferences and associated trainings and bureaucracies that constitute modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
How should Democrats respond? Championing existing DEI programs, some of which are completely indefensible, is a political trap that must be avoided. At the same time, Donald Trump has overreached by attacking not only racial preferences (which are unpopular) but also race-neutral efforts, such as class-based affirmative action programs to promote racial diversity (which are broadly supported).
To thread the needle, Democrats would be smart to jettison unpopular and divisive DEI programs in favor of something better—a policy of “integration, equal opportunity, and belonging” that restores the original values of the civil rights movement including judging people based on merit, not race, emphasizing what we have common across racial divides, and championing free speech and dialogue rather than indoctrination.
Such a policy would embrace racial integration without racial preferences—which is precisely what the public wants.
WASHINGTON — Today, Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement in response to President Trump imposing a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada, and an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods:
“Mr. Trump has compiled a remarkable record over the past month: bad-faith economic assaults on America’s neighbors, deference to international aggressors, and escalating harm to the U.S., North American, and world economies. Signs of the effects are already evident in the U.S. economy, with warning lights flashing red in GDP, consumer confidence, and financial markets. Should today’s attempt to impose tariffs by decree stand, Americans can expect worse: where a few months ago Mr. Trump promised to bring costs down, families will in reality get higher costs for everything from home and auto repair to groceries, OTC medicines, and spring clothes. Meanwhile, American manufacturers, home-builders, and farmers will see production costs spike, and exporters will lose markets with Canada and China already retaliating. The national security costs are yet to be seen, but will be large.
“As harmful as these effects are, the lasting harm to American governance is likely to be even worse. One-man creation of a new tariff system is an open invitation to future corruption, as — aware they can create new tariff systems by themselves — all future presidents will face the temptation to use tariffs to punish critics and rivals and to reward supporters and cronies. And it is a grave harm to the separation of powers, as a usurpation of Congress’ Constitutional power over ‘Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,’ and substituting illegitimate rule by personal decree for actual legislation.
“House Speaker Mike Johnson, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, and their Senate counterparts, Majority Leader John Thune and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, must oppose this power grab and, per the Congressional oath of office, support and defend the Constitution by overturning Mr. Trump’s decision today.”
PPI recently outlined four key principles for responding to tariff-driven economic isolationism. Additionally, PPI has warned of the economic risks posed by Trump’s tariff policies in a recent report and detailed these concerns in testimony before Congress and in PPI’s own coverage. For further context on the Constitution over tariffs and taxation and how the legislative, not executive branch, has the authority, see the full text of the U.S. Constitution.
In the scatter plots for each state, every panel reflects the relationship between Black population and energy burdens in one Congressional District in that state. Within each district’s panel, one dot represents each census tract in that district. The slope of each panel’s light blue line reflects the correlation between higher black population and higher energy burdens for that district, with its confidence interval shown in gray (so a wider gray shading represents a looser fit for that panel’s blue line). Then, each Congressional District in the states included in PPI’s report “Energy Costs Come First: a New Approach to Environmental Justice” is mapped such that the fill color of each census tract scales according to the energy burden as a percent of area median income or the proportion of Black households as share of the tract’s population.
This appendix uses data from the Department of Energy’s Low-income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) tool collected through the Census Bureau. Importantly, these estimations are not causal and only reflect the statistical level of similarity between the two characteristics across the range of census tracts in each district. Additionally, the underlying data report values for energy burden calculated from area median income and average annual energy costs and so do not capture varying levels of energy burden within each tract or microdata like individual household burden. Even though this correlation does not allow for direct causal claims, the simplicity of this comparison provides significant insight when paired with the entire PPI report.
Each state listed below links to a PDF with this data:
It reminded me of a certain kind of unpleasant talk show. The guest shows up, a little nervous but earnest, looking forward to a serious discussion of the issues. But the host lies in wait, spoiling for a fight and ready with ammunition—in this case, complaints about the guest’s supposed lack of gratitude and a poorly planned visit last fall to an arms plant in Pennsylvania, a state thought at the time to be leaning Democratic.
So began last week’s meeting in the Oval Office, Volodymyr Zelensky vs. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. “Much was learned,” Trump posted on Truth Social shortly after the fracas, “that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion.” Sadly, he’s right, but the truth revealed wasn’t about Zelensky. It was about Trump and his unprincipled approach to American foreign policy.
It was 10 excruciating minutes of classic Trump: bullying, lies, and utter indifference to American values.
Rick Kahlenberg joins Ruy Teixera on the Liberal Patriot Podcast
Today, I sit down with my friend Rick Kahlenberg, an expert on all things affirmative action and the author of the forthcoming book, Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges. We kick off with a discussion of DEI trainings, the educational bureaucracy, and Trump’s latest executive orders. We then chat about how both sides of the political spectrum have problems with their approaches to racial diversity. Rick walks us through his 40-year journey to move Democrats towards class-based preferences in college admissions—a position that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama once supported. Finally, we close with a preview of our upcoming co-authored report titled, “Bobby Kennedy: Liberal Patriot.”
From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.
The Trump administration is laying off thousands of employees at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), just as tax season gets underway. These cuts will worsen customer service for millions of hardworking taxpayers as they try to comply with the law. And while the cuts make it harder for Americans to follow the law, it will empower those who break it, allowing tax cheats to continue avoiding paying their fair share.
Many of the 6,700 IRS staffers laid off were recent hires tasked with improving the agency’s poor responsiveness by answering phone calls, processing tax refunds, and assisting with filing. Cutting this staff at the beginning of tax season will reverse recent improvements at a time when households need the most tax help. And with even larger layoffs planned after tax season, the administration will set the stage for even more chaos in future tax seasons.
The administration claims to be making these cuts in the name of improving government efficiency and reducing waste. However, it is actually more likely to increase budget deficits by undermining efforts to close the “tax gap” — the difference between what taxpayers owe and what the IRS actually collects.
There are two main causes of the tax gap: well-intentioned taxpayers misunderstanding their obligations, and malicious tax cheats actively working to evade their obligations. The Inflation Reduction Act included additional funding for customer service to assist the former and enforcement to crack down on the latter, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office originally estimated would generate $180 billion in additional revenue over the next decade. These expected savings have already declined somewhat due to funding recissions, and laying off newly-hired auditors and customer support staff will go even further, potentially preventing the agency from realizing any savings at all.
Like any large agency, there is clearly room for the IRS to improve, including by modernizing its outdated technology or simplifying a complex tax filing process. But rather than work to truly make the IRS more efficient to save taxpayers money, Trump’s layoffs instead cost the Treasury billions in foregone revenue and taxpayers millions of hours in compliance headaches. While this is great news for tax cheats seeking to evade their responsibilities, it will hurt the law-abiding American businesses and households who will be left to pick up the tab.
The current U.S. Tariff schedule, which specifies the goods subject to tariffs and the rates they face, already has roughly 11,000 lines. Trump’s proposal to move to a reciprocal tariff system, where every imported good faces a tariff equal to the rate that the same American good would face if exported to its country of origin, would require an exponential expansion to at least 3.1 million lines.
“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former executive director of policy who now works at the US-based Progressive Policy Institute think tank, told CNN. “(The visit) is a big test for the relationships between Europe and the United States, and Europe and the United Kingdom.”
There were few, if any, people in the room who weren’t aware of the meeting under way that afternoon in Saudi Arabia—Russian and American diplomats talking about the future of Ukraine with no Ukrainian input. But none of the 3,000 attendees at the defense forum in Kyiv—a combination conference and expo designed to bring startups, investors, soldiers, and government officials together to discuss Ukraine’s burgeoning defense industry—mentioned the proceedings in Riyadh.
Even if a peace deal is signed in coming months, the world-class weapons industry that has emerged in Ukraine since Moscow’s invasion in 2022 is likely to play a pivotal role in the country’s future—both as a deterrent against future Russian aggression and an export-driven pillar of the Ukrainian economy.
The sprawling expo showcased just how much the fighting in Ukraine has transformed war as we know it. The four or five dozen companies present ranged from fledgling startups to established manufacturers producing at scale for the Ukrainian armed forces. Exhibition booths featured every conceivable type of drone, large and small, for use in the air, at sea, and on the ground. Also on display was a range of electronic-warfare jamming and spoofing devices.
FACT:The number of African American-owned exporters grew by 60% in 2022. (Most recent year available.)
THE NUMBERS: African American businesses exporting to Africa –
Year
Number of firms
Export total
2022
491
$192 million
2021
163
$105 million
2020
138
$45 million
2019
278
$45 million
2018
200
$27 million
2017
300
$62 million
* Census and BEA data collaboration
WHAT THEY MEAN:
A Black History Month look at U.S.-African trade and its role in the recent African American export boom:
As a point of departure, here’s then-President Bill Clinton peering into the future, as he signs the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the millennial spring of 2000:
“Sub-Saharan Africa is home to more than 700 million people [ed. note: now 1.25 billion], one of our biggest potential trade partners. I say potential because American exports now account for only 6 percent of the African market. This bill will surely change that as it expands Africa’s access to our markets and improves the ability of African nations to ease poverty, increase growth, and heal the problems of their people. It promotes the kinds of economic reform that will make sub-Saharan nations, on the long run, better allies, better trade partners, and stronger nations.”
Scrolling ahead a quarter-century: A unique Census Bureau/Bureau of Economic Analysis data collaboration, “U.S. Exporting Firms by Demographics,” provides the most detailed statistical portrait of a trading community anywhere in the world, with insights on exporting companies by size, export market, ownership by race and ethnicity, gender, veteran status, and more. Its count two years ago revealed an exceptionally severe blow to African American exporters during the COVID-19 pandemic. As economies worldwide closed the overall count of American exporting businesses fell by 17,000, or 5%. Loss counts varied by ownership but, in most cases, not by a lot: the Census/BEA counts of white-owned and women-owned exporters, for example, fell by 1.5% and 2%, that of Hispanic businesses dropped by 7%, and the number of Asian-American and Native American exporters remained stable. The African American exporting community, by contrast, lost a third of its members, contracting from 1,514 in 2019 to 1,001 in 2020.
The next edition, as we noted last February, found a modest but hopeful rebound in 2021, to 1,139. And the most recent, out three weeks ago, reports a surge to 1,802. Its count of businesses and their $1.2 billion in exports — substantially driven by a boom in exports to African customers — are both the highest numbers in the six-year-old series. A table:
Year
Number of Firms
Total Exports
2022
1,802
$1.195 billion
2021
1,139
$1.122 billion
2020
1,001
$1.097 billion
2019
1,514
$806 million
2018
1,400
$830 million
2017
1,200
$616 million
Policy likely helped support this strong recovery: Gina Raimondo’s Commerce Department made a concerted effort to raise the exporter count through more engagement with this and other “underserved” — women, rural, veterans, ethnic — communities through the Global Diversity Export Initiative. So did the economic environment across the Atlantic – Africa’s GDP growth is a point above the world rate, and the continental market is becoming simpler, more efficient, and easier for small businesses to manage as the African Continental Free Trade Area “AfCFTA” enters into force. African American firms seem to be tapping this opportunity especially quickly — almost 500 of the 1,802 exporters have African customers, and the African share of the total sales has jumped from 6% before the pandemic to 16%. A 2022 table by market:
Number of Exporters
Export Value
World
1,802
$1.195 billion
Mexico
154
$225 million
Africa
491
$195 million
(Nigeria)
204
$76 million
(Ghana)
104
$14 million
(South Africa)
41
$10 million
Canada
460
$162 million
European Union
319
$100 million
United Arab Emirates
110
$85 million
United Kingdom
201
$63 million
Caribbean Islands
n/a
$55 million
All Other
n/a
$310 million
In sum, very much the situation President Clinton imagined in which African growth supports American businesses and production, with particular (though by no means exclusive) benefits for the diaspora.
The cautionary notes in this relate more to policy than data or economics. Like all U.S. exporters, African American exporters are at risk of retaliation and loss of markets as the Trump administration threatens tariffs against America’s major trading partners. Mexico, Canada, and the EU, all recent targets, provide 40% of African American export earnings – a bit below the 50% for all U.S. businesses and far below Native American exporters’ 78%, but still a lot. On a lesser but still important scale, it isn’t clear that the newly confirmed Commerce Secretary, Mr. Lutnick, will have the same interest in export promotion generally, or this community specifically, that his predecessor did. And the African Growth and Opportunity Act itself, now approaching its 25th anniversary and still the “foundation” of U.S.-Africa economic relations today, ends this September — which would mean some fraying of business ties — unless Congress renews it.
So a lot to do and some risk to manage. But still, a happy piece of transatlantic community-building, African/African American business success, and modern black history to record this February.
If AGOA is the foundation of U.S.-African economic relations today, here’s a deep-past predecessor: President Lincoln’s Ambassador to the U.K., Charles Francis Adams (yes, son of President John Quincy & grandson of Founder John) spent most of the autumn of 1862 facing down London Confederate sympathizers and outwitting would-be gun-runners. But he also took a week to inaugurate U.S. commercial diplomacy with sub-Saharan Africa, to join Maryland-born Liberian President Stephen Benson as signatories of the 1862 U.S.-Liberia Treaty of Amity and Commerce. Ambassador Adams’ private diary for that rainy October day (via the Massachusetts Historical Society) shows some emotion:
“I had received this week powers to negotiate a Treaty of commerce with the Republic of Liberia. I notified President Benson of the fact, and he came this day to see me about it. I gave him the form of Treaty he had first sent through me to Washington, modified as it came back to me, both of us be put into shape and executed early next week. He did so. Thus it seems that my name is to be on the first national act recognizing the restoration of the status of the Americo-African to a condition of equality with the White. I think it is an era in our history. We received the mail bags from America and found the news generally quiet cheerful. A long letter from Charles [Charles Jr., then a Union Army Lieutenant] to his mother, giving an interesting narrative of the whole campaign in Maryland, including the two great actions at South mountain and Antietam, which he witnessed. I returned thanks to God for all his mercies, and especially for his preservation thus far safe and well.”
And some then-and-now from Ghana, Ethiopia, and Madagascar:
Dr. King reflects in 1957 on Ghanaian independence, transatlantic parallels between civil rights and decolonization, and the potential African American role in African economic development.
The Ethiopian Embassy recalls the launch of U.S.-Ethiopian trade and diplomacy in the 1903 Commercial Treaty signed by Ohio diplomat Robert Skinner and Emperor Menelik II – “King of Kings” by title, best remembered as war leader and preserver of Ethiopian independence, but also a capable commercial strategist when opportunity arose.
“Commerce between the people of America and Madagascar shall be perfectly free, with all the privileges under which the most favored nations are now or may hereafter be trading. Citizens of America shall, however, pay a duty, not exceeding ten per cent., on both exports and imports in Madagascar, to be regulated by a tariff mutually agreed upon, with the following exceptions: Munition of war, to be imported by the Queen of Madagascar into her dominions, or by her order. Prohibited from export by the laws of Madagascar are munition of war, timber, and cows. No other duties, such as tonnage, pilotage, quarantine, light-house dues, shall be imposed in ports of either country on the vessels of the other to which national vessels or vessels of the most favored nations shall not equally be liable.”
… and U.S. Amb. Claire Pierangelo (2023) applauds Madagascar’s success as an AGOA clothing exporter.
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.
