"We are on pace this year to have a trade deficit that is larger than $800 billion. We have never faced that before, but we continue to put forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition that is neither free nor fair"
About this Quote
A trade deficit becomes a prop here, not a spreadsheet: $800 billion is deployed as a shock number meant to reframe “trade agreements” from technocratic policy into a vulnerability narrative. Becerra isn’t merely warning about imbalance; he’s arguing that the country is being asked to play by rules that others don’t follow, and that the predictable result is exposure, not prosperity.
“Naked to competition” is the tell. It’s visceral language that casts globalization as a contact sport where the U.S. has been stripped of armor by its own negotiators. That phrasing also dodges the wonkier debate about what a deficit actually measures; it translates macroeconomics into bodily risk and, by extension, political betrayal. The implied culprit isn’t “the market,” it’s a governing class that keeps “put[ting] forward” agreements despite mounting evidence of harm. Agency is assigned, so accountability can be demanded.
The line “neither free nor fair” is carefully calibrated. “Free” nods to conservative and business rhetoric about open markets; “fair” signals labor and middle-class anxieties about wage suppression, subsidies, currency manipulation, and lax labor or environmental standards abroad. It’s a coalition phrase, designed to make skepticism of trade sound like common sense rather than protectionism.
Contextually, this sits in the long afterlife of NAFTA-era politics and the recurring fights over fast-track authority and new deals. Becerra’s intent is to legitimize trade resistance as patriotic self-defense: not anti-trade, anti-naivete.
“Naked to competition” is the tell. It’s visceral language that casts globalization as a contact sport where the U.S. has been stripped of armor by its own negotiators. That phrasing also dodges the wonkier debate about what a deficit actually measures; it translates macroeconomics into bodily risk and, by extension, political betrayal. The implied culprit isn’t “the market,” it’s a governing class that keeps “put[ting] forward” agreements despite mounting evidence of harm. Agency is assigned, so accountability can be demanded.
The line “neither free nor fair” is carefully calibrated. “Free” nods to conservative and business rhetoric about open markets; “fair” signals labor and middle-class anxieties about wage suppression, subsidies, currency manipulation, and lax labor or environmental standards abroad. It’s a coalition phrase, designed to make skepticism of trade sound like common sense rather than protectionism.
Contextually, this sits in the long afterlife of NAFTA-era politics and the recurring fights over fast-track authority and new deals. Becerra’s intent is to legitimize trade resistance as patriotic self-defense: not anti-trade, anti-naivete.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|
More Quotes by Xavier
Add to List

