Thread: Yes, Unfortunately Ted Cruz Did Support Trans-Pacific Trade Deal (TPA) – With Video…

The one on the 23rd would end debate, and the vote on the 24th was to pass the bill.

Sorry Judy, you are correct. I misread.

Originally Posted by MW

Cruz done the right thing!!!

He was absolutely right in his demands that we be offered assurances that the Export-Import Bank remain expired (he didn't trust leadership). He was obviously concerned about rumors that leadership had plans to keep the bank alive. He was also right in demanding an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. In the end he voted with his conscience (against the TPA) because he was afraid of a "secret deal" to keep the Export-Import Bank alive and the failure to approve an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. I don't see the controversy here, he did exactly as expected and did what he thought was good for America in voting nay.

His own words:



Cruz should be celebrated for his actions, not admonished. Interestingly, another issue he was concerned about was the changes to our laws that would impact immigration.

Top Ten Ex-Im Facts

1. Boeing, GE, and Caterpillar received 87% of Ex-Im loan guarantees in FY13.
2. The Ex-Im Bank provided export financing for just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses.
3. The vast majority of exporters—98 percent—never received assistance from the Ex-Im Bank.
4. Export financing didn’t create new jobs, but merely redistributed jobs across America’s economy.
5. Among the top 10 buyers of Ex-Im exports, 5 were state-controlled and raked in millions of dollars from their own governments in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies.
6. There are 31 open corruption and fraud investigations into the bank.
7. The top beneficiaries of Ex-Im also had massive backlogs of orders, meaning jobs were not immediately lost when the bank expires.
8. Ex-Im subsidies benefited China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia. State-owned foreign airlines have received $16 billion in subsidized financing since 2009.
9. Taxpayers were on the hook for nearly $140 billion in the Ex-Im loan portfolio.
10. The companies advocating for the reauthorization of Ex-Im have admitted they do NOT actually need it.

http://heritageaction.com/2015/11/export-import-bank-fact-sheet/

One last thing, let's not forget that Trump is a free-trader too. He has admitted supporting free trade. It's easy to attack Cruz on this, but who is to say what Trump would have done in the exact same position? Cruz attempted to do what he thought was the right thing for us. Could Trump have done any more if he had been in the same position. Guess we'll never know that because Trump, in his current position, only has to talk the talk ..... not walk the walk.

MW, Cruz voted for the TPA. Cruz supports the TPA for the TPP. There was no change in the TPA bill concerning immigration provisions that weren't in the original TPA that he supported and voted for and advocated and went live on Breitbart with Ryan and did "rah rah cheerleading for the pep squad" free trade treason agreements. When the bill went to the House they removed the TAA which is the Trade Adjustment Act provision that the Democrats wanted.

TAA is money spent by Congress to provide extended unemployment benefits and re-training monies for all the American Workers displaced and put out of work by this TPP agreement that Cruz supports, voted for and advocated.

The bill passed 60 to 38 in the Senate. The Senate also that same day, June 24th, passed a trailer bill to another bill H 1295 and put the TAA back in the trade bill and it passed 76-22. Cruz voted against the trailer bill that would have paid for extended unemployment benefits and retraining funds for American Workers put out of work by the trade bill he supported, voted for and advocated. So clearly his vote against the trade bill the second time around had nothing to do with us, our country or our workers. He voted against the bill because he was mad at McConnell over the Ex-Im Bank deal.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00220

On the Ex-Im Bank Deal:

House Votes to Reauthorize U.S. Export-Import Bank
Strong bipartisan support increases odds that embattled agency will be revived
By Nick Timiraos
Updated Oct. 27, 2015 7:51 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The House Tuesday approved the reauthorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, with a majority of Republicans joining almost all Democrats to demonstrate a broad bipartisan coalition to revive the export-finance agency.

The measure passed 313-118.

More than half of the House’s 247 Republicans—127 in all—voted to renew the bank’s charter. Three years ago, 147 out of 242 backed it.

Passage had already been assured after Republicans had joined most Democrats on Monday in calling up a so-called discharge petition, a rarely effective procedural tool that allows a majority of lawmakers to dislodge legislation that has been held back by party leaders.

But Tuesday’s vote showed that an aggressive campaign by conservative critics to close the bank had done little over the last three years to turn GOP lawmakers away from supporting the bank. The vote marked a big victory for business groups that had fought to secure its revival.

The bank was unable to process new business this summer after its charter expired. GOP leaders bottled up legislation that would have reauthorized the agency’s charter with some changes.

The House bill copied language in a Senate amendment that passed with 64 votes in July. The House hasn’t acted on the underlying transportation bill to which it was attached, and Senate leaders have said they are unlikely to consider a stand-alone reauthorization measure.

Still, with a majority of lawmakers in both chambers voting to reauthorize the bank, supporters believe it is only a matter of time before they secure the necessary vehicle to send a reauthorization to the White House. One possibility is that a coming highway-funding measure will include the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization.

Opponents say the Ex-Im Bank puts taxpayers at risk and allows the government to pick winners and losers. They have strongly criticized a lobbying effort by the bank’s biggest patrons, Boeing Co. and General Electric Co.

“They’re great companies….I just wonder why they have to receive taxpayer subsidies,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), who as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee led the campaign to close the bank.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who is expected to become the next House speaker on Thursday, voted against the legislation, and most of the party’s presidential candidates have voiced support for letting the bank close. Only two, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, have said they support the bank.

Supporters of the bank say it keeps U.S. firms on a level playing field against foreign competitors that enjoy similar support from their governments. Exporters are already facing stiff headwinds this year from the rising dollar and a slowdown in global trade.

“Yes, Boeing does utilize the Export-Import Bank. Whenever a Boeing plane lands, 19,000 small businesses land with them,” said Rep. Robert Dold (R., Ill.).

Since Ex-Im Bank closed its doors to new business in July, small businesses have complained about deals they have lost because they can’t secure new credit insurance. Large firms, such as GE, have said they would move manufacturing and assembly jobs overseas so they can access export-credit support in other countries.

Congressional GOP leaders have largely opposed the bank, with the exception of outgoing House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) who last month pledged to “clean the barn” of unfinished and divisive legislative business before he submits his resignation at week’s end.

Conservatives have criticized Republicans who supported the discharge petition, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent. Mr. Hensarling said he hadn’t brought the issue up for a vote because a majority of Republicans on the panel didn’t support it.

Lawmakers said the discharge petition, which was last used successfully on campaign-finance legislation in 2002, only added to intraparty tensions that boiled over when Mr. Boehner announced his resignation last month.

“Right now I couldn’t convey to anybody how many elephants in the room and skunks in the garden party there are on so many different issues,” said Rep. Bill Huizenga (R., Mich.). “There’s a lot of bruised knuckles and hurt feelings.”

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-vo...ank-1445986019

Transportation deal includes Ex-Im renewal

By Vicki Needham - 12/01/15 03:03 PM EST

A deal struck Tuesday on a long-term transportation bill contains language reauthorizing the federal Export-Import Bank for four years.

The bank's charter, which expired at the end of June, has been the subject of heated debate between business groups urging renewal of the 81-year-old institution and conservatives who want Ex-Im shuttered.

"A multi-year reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank will help expand U.S. exports, create jobs and support economic growth,” said Thomas Linebarger, chairman of the Business Roundtable International Engagement Committee and chairman and CEO of Cummins Inc.

“Given the highly competitive global economy, American businesses of all sizes rely on the Ex-Im Bank to level the playing field in overseas markets," he said.

On Tuesday, lawmakers reached agreement on a five-year highway bill with funding set to lapse this week.

A group of House Republicans and Democrats — led by Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — worked together through the summer and in October used a rare procedural manuever known as a discharge petition to force a floor vote.

"I think that's a positive victory for jobs and for our economy," Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday. "So I'm hopeful that it will move forward.”

Republicans including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) have said the bank represents "crony capitalism" and needed to be closed permanently to lessen taxpayers exposure to risk posed by the bank, which helps finance oversees projects involving U.S. companies.

The Senate had included a renewal in its version of the highway bill this summer and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the only path for Ex-Im was via a transportation spending bill, even after the House easily passed a reauthorization bill with more than 300 votes.

On Nov. 4 the House easily passed the Ex-Im renewal on a 313-118 vote with 127 Republicans supporting the bank.

The bank's charter is reauthorized through fiscal 2019.

This story was updated at 5 p.m.

EX-IM Bank helps our companies produce exports made in the US, because it helps foreign buyers to buy our products in countries where their governments are involved in helping their companies with their exports. When you are helping produce exports you are protecting and creating jobs in your own country, so this type of federal loan guarantee which is all it is, it's no money, no budget, nothing at risk, there has never been a year in its 81 history where it had losses or failures or deficits, and it actually earns money for the government, $2 billion a year in fees are collected by our government off of the transactions. So there is no financial risk or cost issue related to Ex-Im Bank, it makes money.

This post is too long so I'm closing it now and will summarize in another.

Summary:

1. If Ted Cruz wanted to do the right thing on trade, he would have opposed TPA from the outset, but instead he promoted it, advocated it, and voted for it.

2. If Ted Cruz wanted to do the right thing on a TPA he supported, he would have supported the Amendment 1251 bill that would have restricted the President from adding countries without Congressional approval, but instead he voted against it giving Obama and any future President full authority to add China or Russia or both or any other country to the treaty without Congressional approval.

3. If Ted Cruz wanted to protect American Workers he would have opposed the trade bill from the outset, but instead he promoted it, advocated it, supported it and voted for it, knowing full well that its passage would cost many American Workers their jobs, which is why there was a TAA provision to pay for extended unemployment benefits and worker re-training funds.

4. If Ted Cruz wanted to protect American Workers in a trade bill he supported, then he would have voted for the trailer bill that the Senate added to H 1295 that put the TAA back in the trade bill that the House had taken out, but instead Cruz voted against it.

5. If Ted Cruz cared about American Workers, he would support the EX-Im Bank which helps American manufacturers with export loans to foreign buyers who purchase our American made export products like General Electric, Boeing and Cummins engine products, high-dollar items, lots of workers, great jobs and tremendous benefits, but instead Cruz voted to kill the Ex-Im Bank and put America's good jobs at risk and even more American Workers out of work.

None of these Cruz positions or actions were on behalf of the American People and none were in our best interest.

Judy, I'm going to tell you the exact same thing I've already told you once.

Cruz done the right thing!!!

He was absolutely right in his demands that we be offered assurances that the Export-Import Bank remain expired (he didn't trust leadership). He was obviously concerned about rumors that leadership had plans to keep the bank alive. He was also right in demanding an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. In the end he voted with his conscience (against the TPA) because he was afraid of a "secret deal" to keep the Export-Import Bank alive and the failure to approve an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. I don't see the controversy here, he did exactly as expected and did what he thought was good for America in voting nay.

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time, I'm going to tell you some of the many problems with the Export-Import Bank. Attempting to pass the Export-Import Bank off as a good thing just doesn't jell with me. Did you even take note of #6 and #9?

Top Ten Ex-Im Facts

1. Boeing, GE, and Caterpillar received 87% of Ex-Im loan guarantees in FY13.
2. The Ex-Im Bank provided export financing for just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses.
3. The vast majority of exporters—98 percent—never received assistance from the Ex-Im Bank.
4. Export financing didn’t create new jobs, but merely redistributed jobs across America’s economy.
5. Among the top 10 buyers of Ex-Im exports, 5 were state-controlled and raked in millions of dollars from their own governments in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies.
6. There are 31 open corruption and fraud investigations into the bank.
7. The top beneficiaries of Ex-Im also had massive backlogs of orders, meaning jobs were not immediately lost when the bank expires.
8. Ex-Im subsidies benefited China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia. State-owned foreign airlines have received $16 billion in subsidized financing since 2009.
9. Taxpayers were on the hook for nearly $140 billion in the Ex-Im loan portfolio.
10. The companies advocating for the reauthorization of Ex-Im have admitted they do NOT actually need it.

Export–Import Bank: Cronyism Threatens American Jobs
By Diane Katz


The Export–Import Bank (Ex–Im) funnels billions of taxpayer dollars each year to overseas businesses for the purchase of American products. This subsidized financing is supposedly a win-win proposition for exporters and their customers abroad. But rare is a subsidy that does not produce disparity elsewhere. In the case of Ex–Im, the losers include domestic companies that are left to compete against foreign firms bankrolled by the U.S. government.
This and other drawbacks of Ex–Im are important to acknowledge as Congress considers whether to reauthorize the bank before its charter expires on September 30. The decision should be an easy one. Ex–Im effectively ignores the impact of its actions on American workers, as well as the risks to taxpayers, while exaggerating the benefits of those actions.

Government authorities have documented a variety of problems with bank operations,[1] but the fact that Ex–Im financing handicaps at least some American businesses is sufficient reason to end it. Recently, for example, the bank approved $694 million in financing for U.S. equipment to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in Australia (owned by the country’s richest woman).[2] The deal was consummated despite warnings from the United Steel Workers, the Iron Mining Association, and all four Senators from Minnesota and Michigan that the subsidies would jeopardize thousands of U.S. mining jobs.[3]
Global trade benefits the U.S. economy, but Ex–Im subsidies confer a competitive advantage to a select group of favored firms. Rather than perpetuate this cronyism, Congress should allow the bank’s charter to expire and undertake tax and regulatory reforms that would strengthen the competitive position of all U.S. businesses.

Economic Impacts Ignored

Foreign firms receive Ex–Im financing to purchase U.S. equipment for manufacturing and resource extraction or to provide commercial services. However, the bank’s charter[4] prohibits financing under three conditions:

1. The recipient’s production is likely to create a surplus in world markets;
2. The recipient competes with U.S. production of the same, similar, or competing commodity; or
3. The financing would cause “substantial injury” to American producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.

These statutory prohibitions are intended to balance the interests of U.S. exporters and the domestic firms that would compete against subsidized businesses overseas. But there is a major loophole: The charter allows the bank’s board of directors to override the constraints if they decide that a transaction would produce a “net benefit” to the U.S. economy.

In order to determine the potential effects of an export subsidy, the bank is supposed to perform an economic impact analysis, but a review by Ex–Im’s inspector general (IG) of the analyses conducted between 2002 and 2009 found that the bank

did not address directly several elements of economic impact contemplated by the Charter, omitted relevant data and analysis beyond that considered necessary to support the staff’s recommendation, did not state the limitations and qualifications of the data, assumptions, estimates, methods and analysis, did not fully address the sensitivity of the staff’s conclusions to possible changes in assumptions and estimates that could be reasonably anticipated.[5]

Indeed, none of the Ex–Im personnel interviewed by the IG’s office possessed professional training or expertise related to economic impact analysis. Moreover, the bank does not consider the impact of any finance deal involving less than $10 million, which excludes some 80 percent of Ex–Im transactions.

All of this means that bank officials dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign firms without a meaningful consideration of the impacts on American workers and the businesses that employ them.

Distorting Competition

Every type of industry undergoes booms and busts. Neither one typically results from a single cause but instead is a product of myriad factors, including changes in demand, currency fluctuations, and innovation. But government policy can dampen gains and exacerbate losses, which is the case with export subsidies. Ex–Im financing of coal mining in Colombia, copper excavation in Mexico, and airplanes for India has been identified as contributing to losses among domestic firms.[6]

The following Ex–Im deals have been cited by lawmakers and industry experts as examples of just some of the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that put domestic firms at a competitive disadvantage:

• Australia’s Roy Hill mine ($694 million). The mine’s expected output (over the life of the financing) is expected to displace nearly $600 million worth of U.S. iron ore exports and cause a reduction of some $1.2 billion in U.S. domestic sales.[7]
• South Africa’s Kusile Coal power plant ($805 million); India’s Sasan coal power plant and mine ($917 million). Notwithstanding the Obama Administration’s war on coal,[8] Ex–Im has been a generous source of public financing for coal projects abroad.[9] These and other projects have exacerbated a 70 percent decline in coal prices since 2008.[10]
• Mongolia’s Oyu Tolgoi copper mine ($500 million). The copper from this open-pit and underground mine competes with excavations in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana just as global refined copper production is expected to exceed demand by more than 390,000 metric tons this year.[11]
• Papua New Guinea’s Liquid Natural Gas Project ($3 billion). Despite regulatory challenges faced by U.S. producers of liquid natural gas, Ex–Im approved $3 billion in financing for development of gas fields, on-shore and off-shore pipelines extending 400 miles, a gas liquefaction plant, and marine export facilities.
• Air India ($3.4 billion). The financing will guarantee the purchase of 27 Boeing aircraft intended for international service, including U.S. destinations. According to the Air Line Pilots Association, Air India will enjoy rates and terms that are not available to U.S. airlines, giving it a cost advantage of about $2 million per airplane. Surplus seat capacity resulting from Ex–Im airline subsidies—totaling about $50 billion between 2005 and 2011—has resulted in the loss of approximately 7,500 U.S. jobs.[12]

A No-Brainer

Ex–Im beneficiaries argue that export financing preserves American jobs, but the vast majority of bank subsidies benefit very large corporations that could self-finance or obtain private investment—as is the case for 98 percent of all U.S. exports. Rather than perpetuate these subsidies, Congress should help all American businesses by reducing corporate tax rates and regulatory burdens.

Allowing the bank’s charter to expire should be a no-brainer for lawmakers. (Even Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate, endorsed its end.[13]) With strong growth in privately financed exports, there is no justification for maintaining this Depression-era relic.

—Diane Katz is a Research Fellow for Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, a department of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-american-jobs

I support the Ex-Im Bank because it benefits our manufacturers who produce in the US which is good for American Workers. I don't support any policies devised or promoted by the Heritage Foundation, which is a 501 C 3 tax fraud "charity" using tax exempt money to promote globalism and free trade treason agreements at the expense of the American People.

FAIRTAX NOW!! Shut down these phony 501 C 3 tax fraud "charities" exploiting taxpayers monies to sell out the American People and bankrupt the United States.

FairTax Act of 2015: HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Originally Posted by Judy

I support the Ex-Im Bank because it benefits our manufacturers who produce in the US which is good for American Workers. I don't support any policies devised or promoted by the Heritage Foundation, which is a 501 C 3 tax fraud "charity" using tax exempt money to promote globalism and free trade treason agreements at the expense of the American People.

FAIRTAX NOW!! Shut down these phony 501 C 3 tax fraud "charities" exploiting taxpayers monies to sell out the American People and bankrupt the United States.

FairTax Act of 2015: HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Wow, you aren't serious, are you? The Heritage Foundation supports most of the same things ALIPAC does. The President & CEO of the Heritage Foundation, former Sen. Jim DeMint, was a fantastic friend to our cause when he served in the U.S. Congress 1999-2013. Just like Sen. Sessions, he was a staunch advocate against illegal immigration and supported reduced levels of immigration. Additionally, he had a lifetime grade of "A" with NumbersUSA. He supported nearly all, or all, of their top immigration priorities. The Heritage Foundation has been a critical cog in our machinery for many years. Saying you don't support ANY of their policies is really confusing. If you support ALIPAC and NumbersUSA, then you should also support the Heritage Foundation because they all pretty much have the same goals where immigration and border security is concerned.

As for the Export-Import Bank, its negatives outweigh its positives. Please refer to:

Top Ten Ex-Im Facts

1. Boeing, GE, and Caterpillar received 87% of Ex-Im loan guarantees in FY13.
2. The Ex-Im Bank provided export financing for just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses.
3. The vast majority of exporters—98 percent—never received assistance from the Ex-Im Bank.
4. Export financing didn’t create new jobs, but merely redistributed jobs across America’s economy.
5. Among the top 10 buyers of Ex-Im exports, 5 were state-controlled and raked in millions of dollars from their own governments in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies.
6. There are 31 open corruption and fraud investigations into the bank.
7. The top beneficiaries of Ex-Im also had massive backlogs of orders, meaning jobs were not immediately lost when the bank expires.
8. Ex-Im subsidies benefited China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia. State-owned foreign airlines have received $16 billion in subsidized financing since 2009.
9. Taxpayers were on the hook for nearly $140 billion in the Ex-Im loan portfolio.
10. The companies advocating for the reauthorization of Ex-Im have admitted they do NOT actually need it.

I realize they support enforcement of US immigration law. I didn't say otherwise. But they support free trade treason which makes them globalists free traders and they operate under a 501 C 3 tax fraud "charity" status when there is no charity involved. Jim DeMint was an avid supporter of the FairTax and I adore him for that and a great ally of ALIPAC. An attack on the free trade policies of the Heritage Foundation is not an attack on Jim DeMint or their rule of law position on immigration.

They are also wrong about the Ex-Im Bank deal. Getting rid of the Ex-Im Bank hurts our companies, including Boeing who is a huge new employer in Jim DeMint's home state of South Carolina and Cummins Engine that is a big employer in our state, so doing anything that hurts these major companies struggling to survive in the US is unwise, uncalled for and stupid! There may be a time in the future when everything is so great and wonderful that we could go to these companies who use it and say "hey, can we please get rid of this so our conservatives can strike it off their list" and they may say "oh yeah, sure, since you've passed the FairTax, we don't need this any more to level the playing field, go ahead and let it expire," but until then, they want it which means we need it and must keep it for them. These manufacturing companies are the foundation of the US economy, without them, we're nothing but a debt-ridden House of Cards.

The Senators that were fighting to keep the Ex-Im Bank are from the states where these companies have manufacturing operations, and if DeMint was still in the US Senate representing South Carolina, we wouldn't be having this discussion because he would have already put an end to this effort to terminate it, and kept the Ex-Im Bank in full force and effect for Boeing and other South Carolina manufacturers who use this program to help with their export business, and rightly so.

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I feel the Heritage Foundation is valuable to our cause and I think the Export-Import Bank hurts Americans much more than it helps them. By the way Happy New Year!

Originally Posted by MW

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I feel the Heritage Foundation is valuable to our cause and I think the Export-Import Bank hurts Americans much more than it helps them. By the way Happy New Year!

The Heritage Foundation may be valuable to our immigration cause, but it's harmful to our trade problem. Trapping you in the dichotomy of supporting one position that is favorable and another one that is devastating has been the work of most organizations that have contributed to the mess we're in.

It's hard to give value to someone or something that has produced no results. Trade issues are as big as they've ever been, immigration is still soaring, all thanks to the dichotomy of supporting one policy that is favorable while hammering away with another one that is even more harmful.

It's how Republicans perpetuate the problem .... oppose immigration but support free trade.

It's how Democrats perpetuate the problem .... support immigration but oppose free trade.

It's the natural born gridlock by design that paralyzes our country into the demise we're in.

It's what I call our Period of Ironies and Opposites.

The proper position for our country is to oppose both immigration and free trade, like Trump!

And ALIPAC and NumbersUSA!

The Heritage Foundation is not the road to fixing our country, as much as I like Jim DeMint, we are.

Happy New Year, MW!

STAY TRUE!! STAY TRUMP!!

Judy wrote:

The proper position for our country is to oppose both immigration and free trade, like Trump!

And ALIPAC and NumbersUSA!

Unfortunately Trump himself has admitted to supporting free trade. He may say he'll make better deals, but he still supports free trade. Until he's in a position to 'walk the talk' who knows what kind of deals he would make.