NAFTEXIT: Congress or no Congress, that is the question?

[viper37]

What does it take for the US to pull out of treaty?  It seems clear that to enter a treaty, you need Congress approval, but to exit a treaty, what do you need exactly?  Is a simple executive order from the President sufficient?

What about some form or enhanced "Buy American act", does that require Congress or simply the President?  Not that it really matters, with a majority of Republicans in both house, they'll do whatever Trump wants or risk alienating his base.  I'm still curious.


EDIT: Thanks Grey Fox

[Grey Fox]

It's NAFTEXIT in English.

[Zanza]

I guess that depends. A lot of treaties are enacted as domestic law acts and the executive cannot overturn domestic law.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nafta is federal law, passed by Congress, it needs an act of Congress to repeal.
This will be an interesting early test on how well the constitution and rule of law can constrain Trump

[OttoVonBismarck]

The legislation in America that implements NAFTA also allows the President to unilaterally raise tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so functionally he can bust it up all on his own.

[The Minsky Moment]

What he has said is that he will invoke 2205.  And the legislation does not give him that authority.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Trump has said a lot of things, I question the wisdom of deeply believing Trump actually knows anything about legislation or how it works, but he likely has people around him now that do. If he really wants to he can bring America out of compliance with NAFTA via raising tariffs, and Canada/Mexico will respond in kind and the agreement in its most important respects, will be dead (although there is more to NAFTA than just the no-customs area.)

[CountDeMoney]

Trump has said a lot of things, I question the wisdom of deeply believing Trump actually knows anything about legislation or how it works, but he likely has people around him now that do.

He can't read, but he knows people that do.  He'll get the damage he wants done.

[The Minsky Moment]

As a matter of practice I agree you are correct Otto
But the President's powers to alter tariffs under Nafta are constrained, e.g. there are supposed to be reviews and findings by the ITC etc.  so again it will be an interesting test on how much respect he has for traditional norms and rule of law.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The broader point is correct though, and it cuts through much of Trump's economic policy. Trump is advocating an almost Henry Clay style "American System", protectionism, emphasis on American domestic production etc. This puts Trump in opposition to traditional Main Street/Wall Street Republicans (which, as a Republican who has long supported free trade, I suppose that includes me), and also much of the GOP congressional membership.

I have no idea how it turns out, because I'm not convinced McConnell or Ryan have the spines to deliberately obstruct Trump, and I suspect Trump will respond in ways never before seen in terms of a President attacking members of his own party for intransigence. Bush was shut down on several of his pet projects by Republicans, and he kept it all back channel and respectful. Not sure what Ryan and McConnell will do when Trump travels to their home states and whips up local conservatives in hatred of them.

Trump has literally said one of the most important lessons he's learned is "to always get revenge, if someone screws you over, you have to pay them back ten times." So I could see him doing things a typical President wouldn't do because they'd be seen as unseemly or overly political, or would show too much intraparty tension.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If I had to bet on it, I'd say we probably see "reduction" in how free our trade is with Canada and Mexico, and possibly some legislation punitively going after corporations that offshore American jobs to Mexico. That second part will require a major shift in Republican behavior to pass through Congress.

I don't think we'll see 35% tariffs or outright trade war with China, Mexico or anyone else. Trump does have a circle of people from the business community and will have a lot of Washington insider advisers, I have to believe they're going to talk him down from something so destructive.

[Malthus]

This is the thing with Trump: no-one has a clue WHAT he will do. Certainly what he claims he will do is not a good guide, as he lies continually. It could be that he effectively does nothing and simply claims to have solved all the problems he ranted about, basically through sheer bluster, without actually yanking on the levers of power. In many ways, that's a best-case outcome.

[viper37]

The broader point is correct though, and it cuts through much of Trump's economic policy. Trump is advocating an almost Henry Clay style "American System", protectionism, emphasis on American domestic production etc. This puts Trump in opposition to traditional Main Street/Wall Street Republicans (which, as a Republican who has long supported free trade, I suppose that includes me), and also much of the GOP congressional membership.

I have no idea how it turns out, because I'm not convinced McConnell or Ryan have the spines to deliberately obstruct Trump, and I suspect Trump will respond in ways never before seen in terms of a President attacking members of his own party for intransigence. Bush was shut down on several of his pet projects by Republicans, and he kept it all back channel and respectful. Not sure what Ryan and McConnell will do when Trump travels to their home states and whips up local conservatives in hatred of them.

Trump has literally said one of the most important lessons he's learned is "to always get revenge, if someone screws you over, you have to pay them back ten times." So I could see him doing things a typical President wouldn't do because they'd be seen as unseemly or overly political, or would show too much intraparty tension.

what are the odds that he would create a brand new party, from the Tea Party movement and his other core supporters, splitting from the main GOP?

[CountDeMoney]

This is the thing with Trump: no-one has a clue WHAT he will do. Certainly what he claims he will do is not a good guide, as he lies continually. It could be that he effectively does nothing and simply claims to have solved all the problems he ranted about, basically through sheer bluster, without actually yanking on the levers of power. In many ways, that's a best-case outcome.

You don't run on such outrageous fringe concepts, garner electoral support for them, surround yourself with like-minded operatives that know how to push them through government, and then NOT follow through.

Oh, I think we all have a clue what he will do.

[grumbler]

You don't run on such outrageous fringe concepts, garner electoral support for them, surround yourself with like-minded operatives that know how to push them through government, and then NOT follow through.

Oh, I think we all have a clue what he will do.

We don't know how magic works, so we don't know what magical thinkers will accept as true magic and what they won't.  I think it is entirely possible that, if Trump says he has solved a problem, his followers will believe it, even if he appears to have done nothing.  They absolutely will ignore the man behind the curtain.