SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON U.S. TRADE POLICY AGENDA
For questions on the note below, please contact the Delta Strategy Group team.
On April 8, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing entitled, “The President’s 2025 Trade Policy Agenda.” The witness in the hearing was U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and his testimony is available here.
Key Takeaways
The following is a summary of the main topics explored in the hearing, with further details in the Discussion section.
- Republicans, led by Chairman Crapo (R-ID) and Senator Cornyn (R-TX), supported President Trump’s efforts to reduce non-tariff barriers with trade partners. Senators questioned Greer on non-tariff measures that are trade barriers, specifically countries that deny U.S. producers market access despite free trade agreements (FTAs) being in place. Greer highlighted the scale and variety of non-tariff barriers affecting U.S. trade, such restrict imports of ethanol for fuel use by using restrictive import licenses, referencing the increased comprehensiveness of the USTR’s National Trade Estimate (NTE). He discussed how unfair trade practices, such as high tariffs, trade barriers, and subsidies, distort markets and contribute to global trade imbalances and how evaluating a country’s trade deficit is a good way to assess the impact of these practices. He said, in order to maintain fair trade, the U.S. implemented a baseline ten percent to prevent arbitrage across different jurisdictions, with ongoing negotiations with fifty countries.
- Greer noted that, while there is no fixed timeline for new trade and tariff negotiations, the Administration is moving swiftly and deliberately, prioritizing sustainable outcomes over arbitrary deadlines. Greer emphasized the need to protect U.S. industries and prevent further deterioration of the trade deficit, stressing that trade must be reciprocal. He confirmed that the Administration’s trade strategy is focused on increasing domestic production for export, thereby reducing the trade deficit and expanding international market access for U.S. goods. He emphasized a dual approach of limiting unfair import practices while actively promoting U.S. exports through reciprocal trade agreements.
- Chairman Crapo emphasized the importance of making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent to provide businesses with long-term certainty, enabling them to make investments that drive growth and increase prosperity across all sectors of the economy. He criticized the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for offering subsidies to stimulate investment, arguing it is inefficient approach compared to permanent tax cuts. Greer highlighted the importance of reshoring manufacturing to rebuild the U.S. industrial base and address the agricultural deficit, ensuring fair market access for U.S. producers as well as coordinated international trade compliance and negotiations.
- Greer specifically mentioned countries like Brazil and India’s higher tariffs on U.S. goods, raising how Brazil charges an eighteen percent tariff on U.S. ethanol, while the U.S. only charges 2.5 percent. He emphasized that imbalance contributes to the growing trade deficit as he reiterated the Administration’s commitment to protecting U.S. industries, particularly manufacturing and agriculture, to prevent further erosion of the trade balance and ensure fair access to global markets.
- Greer clarified that imports from Canada and Mexico compliant with USMCA will continue to be duty-free. He noted that if countries violate the agreement or introduce Chinese products to circumvent the rules, tariffs will be imposed. He stressed that compliance ensures trade partners receive the duty-free treatment they are entitled to within free and fair trade.
- Senator Grassley (R-IA) called for an increase in Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under renewable fuel standards to help farmers by providing more robust domestic markets for crops like soybeans, noting that the Biden Administration policy fell short.
- Senator Cassidy (R-LA) questioned how FTAs will be evaluated moving forward, noting the Americas Act serve as a hemispheric trade policy by strengthening economic ties within the hemisphere and preventing China from expanding its influence.
- Democrats, led by Ranking Member Wyden (D-OR), criticized the President’s implementation of recent tariffs and protectionist trade measures, citing subsequent market turmoil alongside conflicting information on tariffs negotiations and deals. Senator Cantwell (D-WA) called for called for investing in innovation over implementing tariffs, arguing that the U.S. will not win the innovation economy through imposing blanket tariffs.
Summary
Opening Statements and Testimony
Chairman Mike Crapo (R – ID)
There is a large cost of being denied market access opportunities, but tariffs can advance U.S. interests in market access. Every enforcement action, whether it is a WTO dispute, a Section 301 investigation or a preference program review, ultimately relies on the threat of tariffs to secure objectives. Under the Trump administration, we will enforce our rights, negotiate, and expand opportunities. We must make TCJA permanent to provide businesses with the certainty they need to make long-term investments, drive growth, and increase economic prosperity across sectors. The last administration turned to industrial policy because it was certain that the free market failed in delivering what government planners believed necessary for climate and social agendas, with the IRA’s approach of subsidies to stimulate investments that the market would not. We can restore faith in free markets by making it easier than ever to do business here, with an Executive Order last week to assist major investors to navigate our regulatory system efficiently. The Biden administration pushed that the “right to regulate” trumped the principle of free enterprise. They deliberately cut from the USTR’s NTE various discriminatory measures imposed by foreign governments, compared to an exhaustive Estimate because the administration carefully identified how the U.S. loses out in the global marketplace. The last administration did not pursue market access in its negotiations, demanding governments to undertake several social and environmental commitments not approved by Congress. While tariffs inherently may be seen at odds with free trade, many of our trading partners deploy barriers that have gone unchallenged for too long. Free trade must be reciprocal, and we do not have it if others can impose barriers on us unchallenged while we lose ground.
Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D – OR)
The President’s trade agenda begins with our economy in purgatory, with markets for made-in-the-U.S.A. products slamming shut around the world, and the U.S. economy going from the envy of the world to a laughingstock. The Administration has yet to provide any understandable explanation for what his tax hike on U.S consumers is supposed to accomplish. In the last week, the White House has been all over the map when it comes to these tariffs, with no clear message about how they were determined, what they are supposed to accomplish, or how long they will be in place. There are questions whether they are a negotiating tool or a move to try and cut the U.S. off from global trade and usher in a new era of 1870s-style protectionism. The President and his advisors have repeatedly changed their stories, with the President saying that “tariffs give us great power to negotiate,” just after Commerce Secretary Lutnick said the tariffs were not up for negotiation. We are getting the opposite of economic security with Trump’s pointless tariffs. Americans will soon be poorer and face greater threats to our national security. This aimless, chaotic tariff spree has proven beyond a doubt that Congress has given far too much of its constitutional power over international trade to the executive branch, and it is time to take that power back. On a bipartisan vote, 51 Senators sent that signal last week by stepping in and passing legislation to lift Trump’s reckless tariffs on Canada. Now, Trump has slapped tariffs on about 180 other countries; this is an unforced error that requires a big response. Congress must support the bipartisan bill to end this new crop of global tariffs, and step in.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer
On April 2, President Trump declared a national emergency in response to the large and persistent trade deficit that has built up in recent years, driven in part by non-reciprocal tariffs, trading barriers, and other economic policies pursued by our foreign trading partners. He imposed tariffs to address this urgent emergency, with these measures aimed squarely at achieving reciprocity and reducing our massive trade deficit to reshore production in the U.S. This national emergency declaration and tariff action is the most significant change in U.S. trade policy since we allowed China to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). The American working class suffered concentrated losses from the so-called “China Shock” and other adverse effects of past trade policy and the conditions that gave rise to this massive trade deficit. President Biden left with a 1.2 trillion trade deficit in goods, the largest of any country in the history of the world. Our share of world manufacturing output declined from 2001 to last year, and in the fourth quarter of 2024, U.S. manufacturing as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it has been in twenty years. During World War II, we built nearly 9,000 ships; last year, the U.S. built only three ocean-going vessels. Our agricultural trade balance, which historically resulted in trade surpluses for our farmers, was in deficit during the last two years of the Biden Administration and likely will take some time to recover. These are all serious indicators of an economic and national security emergency, and we cannot ignore it.
A driver of this is unfair, unbalanced, and non-reciprocal trade, including the effect of higher tariffs imposed by other countries, the effect of non-tariff measures that promote other countries’ exports and obstruct U.S. exports, and other foreign economic policies favoring overproduction and integrating America’s manufacturing capacity. The lack of reciprocity is an important driver of our global trade deficit, particularly with certain countries; it is common sense to focus on these indicators. We only charge a 2.5 percent tariff on ethanol, but Brazil charges us an eighteen percent tariff, leading to our large trade deficit in ethanol with Brazil. Our average tariff on agricultural goods is five percent, but India’s average tariff is 39 percent, with our dangerous trade deficit driven by these non-reciprocal conditions. The President recognizes the urgency of the moment, issuing a comprehensive memorandum setting out his trade policy directive and executing on nearly all of these priorities. Companies have announced $4 trillion in new investment in the U.S., and nearly fifty countries have approached USTR to discuss the President’s new policy and explore how to achieve reciprocity. Several of these countries, such as Argentina, Vietnam, India, and Israel have suggested that they will reduce their tariffs and non-tariff barriers in line with the President’s policy, and these are welcome moves. Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over thirty years in the making, and we are finally taking an overdue and drastic in the right direction. We must move away from an economy that is based solely on government spending and a financial sector; we must become an economy based on producing real goods and services that provide jobs.
Discussion
Chairman Crapo (R-ID): What is the scope of the trade negotiations with Japan that you and Secretary Bessent will lead? Is the objective to pursue market access negotiations that aim for zero-to-zero barriers? Greer: We are taking discussions to a new level to have more market access in Japan, such as for improved and expanded agricultural market access. There are also structural impediments to some of our industrial goods due to standards and regulations. We need to make sure that our partners are solidified regarding liquefied natural gas and other resources, as opposed to being dependent on other countries that may not be as friendly. We have had years of non-reciprocal access, which has contributed to trade deficits. As countries approach us, we have told them that if they have a better idea to achieve reciprocity and reduce our trade deficit, we want to talk to them. We want to negotiate with them, but it goes both ways. Sometimes they have exports to us that are driven by subsidies and non-reciprocal treatment, such as blocking our exports, prohibitive tariffs, quotas that are not administered in the appropriate way, or other unfair trading practices.
Chairman Crapo (R-ID): What is your analysis of China’s compliance with the structural commitments it made under the Phase One agreement, specifically with purchasing commitments made in response to tariffs during the President’s first term? Greer: Our assessment is in the initial stages. China made significant movement to make these structural changes with respect to agricultural rules, financial services, or IP. During the Biden administration, there was little enforcement and communication, and the Chinese did not comply with this agreement in large part. I communicated our feeling that they have not complied with the agreement. It is not surprising, but we are certainly disappointed by it. We will see about the ongoing negotiations on compliance, as the Chinese have agency, but this is not a matter of U.S. policy. We hope that foreign countries will change their practices to make sure that they are fair as we continue to monitor the results.
Chairman Crapo (R-ID): Will you seek to include commitments on issues like technical barriers to trade and science-based agricultural rules in the agreement with India, given that its non-tariff barriers are as significant as its high tariffs? Greer: Yes, and I have a standing call with my Indian counterpart to address these issues. India already ended a digital advertising tax that affected some of our most competitive tech companies. We are in conversations with other countries, and if they want to have reciprocal trade with us, we expect them not to discriminate against our competitive services companies.
Ranking Member Wyden (D-OR): Will the tariffs go into effect tomorrow on the more than fifty countries that have approached the Administration about trade negotiations? Greer: The President is fixed in his purpose; the nature of the emergency is not something we can wait on anymore. We will have the plan go into effect and are coupling that with immediate negotiations with our partners. There are over fifty countries negotiating with us. If other countries can come to an agreement on reciprocal trade, then the President can consider it.
Ranking Member Wyden (D-OR): How can you commit that ongoing negotiations stop the bleeding caused by foreign retaliation but also open up markets that the Trump tariffs have closed off? Greer: Many countries are not going to retaliate, with Vietnam already lowering their tariffs. There may be other kinds of market access desired as we turn to negotiations with China. China seems to be choosing its own path on market access and using its agency when they elected to announce retaliation. We need to work with our closest friends to make sure that we have trading arrangements that work. The Chinese have not signaled positively. I see a distinct difference between those countries who have come to us and said, “We understand your issues, deficit, and desire for reciprocity, and we want to work with you on this,” and the Chinese approach, which has been, “We are going to retaliate.” We are trying to remedy a situation that has persisted for many years, and it would be wonderful if the Chinese agreed with that and wanted to work with us on it, but that is not where they are. Senator Cornyn (R-TX): Are there non-tariff barriers to trade, even where FTAs exist? What kinds of measures countries use to deny market access to U.S. exports that are not tariffs per se? Greer: The National Trade Estimate on Foreign Trade Barriers, compiled by USTR, details all the non-tariff barriers. India, a huge trading partner, restricts imports of ethanol for fuel use by using restrictive import licenses. These measures, whether licensing regimes or flawed science, are used to block our imports.
Senator Cornyn. (R-TX): What is the vulnerability created by China processing roughly ninety percent of the world’s critical minerals? Greer: That figure gives me great concern as we do have critical minerals in the U.S., but China has centralized the processing of minerals. In the Western Hemisphere, Bolivia, and Chile have critical minerals, but they are sent to China, processed, and then come back here. If China decides to exercise economic coercion or engage in other practices, they have a stranglehold on these resources. This is a very dangerous situation, and it underscores the urgency of what we are talking about.
Senator Bennet (D-CO): Do you agree that the short-term pain and burden, in the name of long-term gain, will be felt by U.S. consumers? Will the growing uncertainty lead to investment paralysis and economic slowdown, potentially provoking a recession? Greer: We should look at history and data for this. It is hard to project what is going to happen with prices, but in the first Trump term, the President imposed historic tariffs on an enormous amount of goods coming from China and inflation went down by 0.1 percent. During the Biden Administration, the historic inflation was not on imported goods or related to tariffs that President Biden put in place, but instead related to services. The challenges are going to be more for companies that are largely dependent on imports from China and Asia, because they must adjust their supply chains in a short period of time. The best way to have certainty is to build in the U.S., but we stalled on this issue for years. We have done these broad studies, but we must act.
Senator Bennet (D-CO): How do you view the decision to avoid targeting specific industries or geographies, given that it has resulted in simultaneous trade negotiations with countries and a heightened degree of uncertainty? Greer: If you look at the result of the reciprocal tariff, the Western Hemisphere generally has the lowest tariff rate. Our largest problems with non-reciprocity and deficit countries are mostly in Asia. There is a strategic outcome with respect to promoting production in the Western Hemisphere, as opposed to where we have all this overproduction in Asia that has given rise to our current problems with trade.
Senator Lankford. (R-OK): Is the goal to increase international trade by enabling the U.S. to manufacture and produce more domestically for export, thereby expanding market access? Do you have a timeline for negotiations with other countries? Greer: That is accurate, we are trying to bring down the deficit and have more production here. Part of that is making sure we are not getting too many imports that are driven by unfair trade practices but also promoting our exports overseas. The President has indicated that he is willing to negotiate with parties that want to pursue reciprocal trade. We do not have any timeline set because the outcome is more important than setting something artificially, but the U.S. and countries are moving very quickly. The trade deficit has been decades in the making, and it is not going to be solved overnight.
Senator Lankford. (R-OK): What guidance do you have for companies that must quickly decide whether to hold out or press on in negotiations with their overseas manufacturers? Greer: I understand the urgency, and Vietnam is one of those countries that understands that as one of the major targets of this action because their trade surplus with the U.S. is so lopsided. For every fifteen dollars they export to us, we send them one dollar, but they remain closed to our exports where we could be competitive in agriculture. They have come to the table with an offer without our invitation.
Senator Lankford. (R-OK): How will exclusions and exceptions be handled for products that cannot currently be sourced in the U.S. and are only manufactured in specific regions? Where should manufacturers turn in the short term if they are being pushed out of Asia? Greer: The President has been clear that he does not intend to have exclusions and exemptions. They can undermine the overall point, which is to get rid of the deficit and achieve reciprocity. Western Hemisphere countries have a much lower tariff than many of the Asian countries, and textile manufacturers would love to have Western Hemisphere textile and garment manufacturing be more competitive. Given the tariff differentials between Asia and the Western Hemisphere, people can start making decisions based on that.
Senator Whitehouse (D-RI): What is the effect of negative externalities in trade, and can they create an unfair trade imbalance.? Greer: This is a situation where you have a foreign country with weak regulatory regimes or a lack of environmental laws that do not bear the cost of that. Countries externalize these negative externalities to us, and we have to bear it. We do not compete on a level playing field as this creates an unfair trade imbalance, with pollution paid for by the U.S. instead of international polluters. Trade action can be appropriate, and when the President announced his reciprocal tariff regime last Wednesday, he specifically referred to pollution by other countries in his speech.
Senator Whitehouse (D-RI): What concerns do you have on small businesses failing while commercial companies that are well-resourced weather the fall out? Greer: USTR has a trade advisory council for small business, and the Small Business Administration has an international trade desk. Imports coming from Canada and Mexico that comply with the United States-Mexico Agreement come in duty free and will continue to do so if they follow the rules. But if they do not follow the rules or if they are trying to put in Chinese stuff, that is going to be tariffed. If they follow the rules, they are going to receive the duty-free treatment they are due.
Senator Hassan (D-NH): How will the revenue from the ten percent national sales tax on all imports, and even higher taxes on imports from over fifty countries, be used? Would the Administration reverse course if these tariffs led to ten percent inflation, and what rate of inflation would trigger a policy reversal? Greer: Any kind of tariff revenue that comes into the U.S. government goes to the Treasury, and Congress will decide what happens to that money. The President wants to have a very competitive tax policy that is good for everybody. This trade deficit and the offshoring of many manufacturing jobs is something that has persisted for too long, and it is dangerous. When we implemented tariffs in the first term, inflation went down. It is not a one-to-one relationship, but the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Senator Cassidy (R-LA): How can we develop more targeted approaches for products that are significantly over-tariffed? Greer: The tariff rate applied to these countries was a country-wide rate, it was not product-specific. If countries come to us and expect to have some kind of different plan, they will need to make changes. There are specific products and barriers that would have to be addressed. The President is fixed in his purpose in reshoring domestic manufacturing and supporting agricultural producers. These countries have to have reciprocal trade with us, which means taking care of the types of trade barriers and tariffs. We have to make sure that our industries are protected adequately so we do not go backwards with the deficit.
Senator Cassidy (R-LA): Are there any analyses regarding the FTAs we have within our hemisphere, and specifically address countries like Argentina that are seeking an FTA with the U.S.? Greer: We are, first and foremost, focused on addressing this emergency and implementing the reciprocal tariff action appropriately. With respect to relations in the hemisphere, any trade arrangements with these partners must be coupled with strong rules concerning third countries. We cannot have a situation where these countries use their export platforms to incorporate content and goods from China or other Asian countries, where we have serious concerns about our trade deficit and the offshoring of manufacturing. Any changes to these arrangements should include updates to rules of origin. The administration needs to know where these arrangements are being used to circumvent FTAs.
Senator Cassidy (R-LA): Can you clarify whether USTR plans to stick with the proposed $1 million fee for every vessel built in China, even if part of a foreign fleet, given the potential impact on U.S. ports and movement of goods? Is there consideration to modify that proposal? Greer: To address the lack of shipbuilding in the U.S., the proposed actions outline a series of potential remedies to incentivize shipbuilding in the U.S. Not all of them will be implemented or stacked. The President will carefully assess the timeline and incentives to ensure we can build shipbuilding capacity in the U.S. without negatively impacting our commodity exports.
Senator Cortez Masto (D-NV): Why would any country want to do business with us, let alone negotiate a trade deal, if we do not honor our existing agreements? Greer: We are the consumer of last resort, with countries, especially in Asia, building entire economies around exporting to us. They are very dependent on our markets; a major part of the trade deficit.
Senator Grassley (R-IA): In the medium to long term, do you plan to turn tariffs into trade deals that reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and is this Administration focused on trade reciprocity or Treasury replenishment? Greer: There is a sense of the emergency and urgency that we are facing on the need to reshore and manufacture domestically. The President stated very clearly that he is happy to engage in negotiations immediately with countries that believe that they can help us reduce our deficit and get rid of the non-tariff barriers and the tariffs that affect us. It is going to be country by country. There can be some countries where they are not able to address their non-tariff barriers or their tariffs or the deficit fully. There will be others who will, with the President having the option of making a deal. We are seeking reciprocity. We need to reshore manufacturing and get rid of our agricultural deficit. We need to make sure that if countries are going to trade with us, it has to be on a reciprocal basis.
Senator Cantwell (D-WA): What did the Administration do to proactively communicate with us regarding findings related to emergency orders issued by the President? Greer: Consultation requirements are a matter of good practice. USTR staff have had over 200 formal engagements with staff on the Hill over two months. The President’s America First Trade Policy Memorandum specifically said that he was going to investigate the trade deficit.
Senator Cantwell (D-WA): Do you believe we should be building alliances to counter China, and will the alliance-building process become more difficult? Greer: We need to be thoughtful, but we cannot wait. Previous robust trade disputes with our partners ended up with them reshoring factories here, and it did not make us less of a trade partner. China is taking a different path and is trying to retaliate, but Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company announced more investment in the U.S. to manufacture and lead in innovation in the U.S.
Senator Daines (R-MT): How can we maintain China’s commitment to critical agricultural exports? Greer: China needs to take down its trade barrier as a persistent challenge, especially as they tend to use economic coercion. President Trump is focused on working with partners who are respectful and committed to achieving reciprocity with us. We must make sure we open markets in other places too, so we do not have to be dependent on just one market.
Senator Young (R-IN): Is USTR actively mapping out which sectors and regions likely to bear the brunt of certain retaliatory measures, with contingency plans developed? Greer: Most countries have said they are not going to retaliate and that they would like to talk first to understand what they can do to help meet our goals. We are dealing with an emergency in terms of manufacturing and our trade deficit. Our hope and expectation is that countries will follow through on what they have said in bringing down their tariffs and non-tariff barriers to provide better markets and alternative locations.
Senator Young (R-IN): Does USTR have a formal process to evaluate whether these tariffs are achieving their intended goals, such as reshoring, improving market access, or ensuring reciprocity? Greer: President Biden left a historically high $1.2 trillion trade deficit, which we understand and know to be driven, in large part, by non-reciprocity. If countries are bringing down their tariffs and their non-tariff barriers, that is a good indicator in terms of outcome, but we also want to make sure that the trade deficit is going in the right direction. That means better market access and increased exports, but it also means that they are not using us as a dumping ground for their overproduction or their subsidized products. This is a country-by-country analysis based on trade barriers and expectations for fair trade.
Senator Johnson (R-MN): Do you have a list of what those products are that we need to reshore for domestic manufacturing? Greer: There were certain sectors that we excluded from the tariff action because they need their own investigation and consideration when it comes to tariffs or other actions. Semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, metals, and minerals are areas where we must reshore and think about the best way to incentivize this.
Senator Smith (D-MN): If the goal is to close trade deficits, does that mean the tariffs are being used as a negotiating tool? Greer: It can go both ways, many of these countries have closed off markets for our exports in unfair ways for decades, and nothing has persuaded them. The trade deficit is a global issue. A coherent approach to trade deficit and trade market barriers is country by country. Looking at a country’s trade deficit is a good approximation of the net effect of the unfairness of the higher tariff rates and trade barriers, as well as unfair trade practices, such as dumping and subsidies. We have the baseline of ten percent to make sure there is no arbitraging of different jurisdictions.
Senator Barrasso (R-WY): How is it determined if foreign trade and economic practices constitute emergency for our country? Greer: Our trade deficit of $ 1.2 trillion under Biden is a matter of national and economic security under the President’s consideration, especially considering China’s increased competition and unfair trade practices.
Senator Barrasso (R-WY): Will you address threats of subsidized foreign uranium and from Russia, circumventing exports through China, that are undermining domestic industry in efforts to end uranium imports from China as the U.S. continues to build its nuclear supply? Greer: I would have to talk to you about the best way to implement that kind of action.
Senator Blackburn (R-TN): How are you working address the actions of foreign governments weaponizing regulations to restrict U.S. market access for producers? Will you work to ensure that any potential trade deal with Vietnam, including their push for zero tariffs, includes strong provisions to prevent Chinese companies from benefiting by trans-shipping goods through Vietnam, given the record-high trade deficit with Vietnam in 2024? Greer: U.S. companies are the cleanest and most responsible and should always have the best treatment.
Senator Blackburn (R-TN): How could the digital trade chapter in the USMCA be used as a model to expand digital trade globally? Greer: U.S. digital trade companies are the most globally competitive and effective, and we cannot have them retaliated against or discriminated against, allowing Chinese competitors to take market share. In discussions on reciprocal trade or improved trade actions, we must ensure countries are not discriminating against our technology companies. We need a level playing field to secure the level of market access we want, whether through formal trade agreements or commitments from these countries.
Senator Blackburn (R-TN): Will you ensure that any potential trade deal with Vietnam, including the push for zero tariffs, has strong provisions to prevent Chinese companies from trans-shipping goods, especially given the record-high trade deficit in 2024? Greer: Countries cannot expect a different rate and cannot give preference to a third country like China, where they can just take advantage of it or use it to circumvent U.S. trade policy.