Kamala Harris’s Trade Policy: A Progressive Skeptic

Kamala Harris’s Stance on Trade: A Complex Landscape

During a presidential debate in 2019, Kamala Harris emphatically stated, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.” However, her stance on trade does not align with that of traditional free-trade Democrats either. In fact, she has expressed opposition to significant trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1992, which was supported by President Biden during his Senate tenure. Additionally, she also voiced her disapproval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an initiative championed by the Obama administration. Notably, in 2020, Harris was among the minority, being one of only ten senators to vote against the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (U.S.M.C.A.), a deal designed to replace NAFTA.

As she campaigns for the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s perspectives on trade and broader economic issues are expected to come under scrutiny. Unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade policy has not been a predominant theme in her public discourse. Consequently, her specific positions on trade remain somewhat ambiguous. William A. Reinsch, who holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, described Ms. Harris as “a bit of a blank slate,” suggesting that her views are likely to evolve towards a more skeptical approach to trade.

This skepticism is partly attributed to her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A. Reinsch noted, “This leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party, which is generally skeptical of trade agreements, especially those that prioritize market access.” However, he emphasized that there is a lack of substantial information to fully gauge her position.

Throughout her tenure as a senator representing California and her role as vice president, Ms. Harris has articulated some consistent themes that could indicate her potential trade policy should she secure the presidency. Notably, her objections to various trade agreements have often centered around their environmental impact and their inadequacies in addressing climate change.

While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it garnered support from many Democrats due to its enhanced protections for workers and the environment. Nevertheless, Ms. Harris ultimately concluded that the environmental safeguards within the agreement were “insufficient,” asserting that “by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”