Bill Overview
Title: A bill to withdraw normal trade relations treatment from, and apply certain provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to, products of the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill withdraws normal trade relations treatment from Russia. Additionally, the bill requires the President to encourage U.S. allies and partners to (1) consider taking similar actions; and (2) condemn, at the World Trade Organization (WTO), Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Further, the President must direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to the WTO to seek suspension of Russia's membership in the WTO.
Sponsors: Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals dependent on trade between the US and Russia
Estimated Size: 5000000
- Russia is currently a member of the WTO and enjoys normal trade relations (NTR) with several countries, including the US. This bill impacts Russia directly by revoking NTR status.
- Revoking NTR affects the tariffs on goods traded between Russia and the US, increasing them and potentially reducing the volume of trade.
- The US imports various goods from Russia, including energy products, metals, and chemicals. Withdrawal of NTR will likely raise costs for importers and consumers of these goods.
- Exporters in Russia that ship products to the US will be directly impacted by losing favorable trade terms. These are businesses or industries based in Russia that rely on exporting to the US under NTR.
- The bill also includes provisions that aim to encourage US allies to take similar actions, potentially broadening the impact on Russian exporters.
Reasoning
- The 'No Most Favored Nation Trading with Russia Act' would likely impact industries reliant on specific Russian imports such as metals and energy. However, some US regions and demographics may not be directly affected if they do not consume or do business with these sectors.
- US businesses that rely on cheaper Russian imports might face financial strain as the increased tariffs would likely raise operational costs, affecting worker retention and salaries.
- Consumers might experience an uptick in prices for goods previously imported from Russia under more advantageous terms, affecting those with less disposable income disproportionately more than wealthier individuals.
- Industries directly related to or reliant on Russian imports are more concentrated in certain states that have a more significant stake in these trades, potentially skewing effects regionally.
- Given the policy's aim to potentially inspire similar actions from allies, there might be wider-reaching global trade shifts that indirectly require US businesses and consumers to adapt.
Simulated Interviews
Engineer in oil industry (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will probably increase costs for the company I work for, which might affect job security. We rely on Russian imports for a part of our operations, and losing favorable trade status isn't ideal.
- I think it's important to stand in solidarity against aggression, even if it means some financial impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Tech industry analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find geopolitical matters like this interesting, and while it's unlikely to impact me directly, it might influence some of the discussions in tech regarding supply chain diversification.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Metal import business owner (Midwest US)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could heavily impact my business's cost structure as we rely on Russian metals.
- There might be a need to pass increased costs onto customers or find alternative suppliers, hurting our competitive edge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Economic researcher (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a necessary stance to take from a foreign policy perspective, and while it might have economic drawbacks, understanding our international relationships is crucial.
- Personally, I won't feel a big impact on my daily life. It's more about the bigger global economic picture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
General store owner (Rural Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might need to raise some prices due to increased wholesale costs, which could turn some customers away.
- Rural areas like mine often feel economic shifts more sharply. It's a balancing act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Logistics manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased tariffs could complicate logistics in terms of increased shipping costs and finding alternative sources.
- It might not cause immediate disruption, but long-term, it might alter supply patterns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Software developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see it impacting my job or day-to-day life directly, which is a relief.
- I do think geopolitical stances like this are necessary for global positions against aggression.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired international trade consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Part of me understands the need for such policies, having worked in trade. However, the practical effects on businesses need more consideration.
- Retirement means less direct financial impact, but I do empathize with friends still in the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
Environmental engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might indirectly benefit renewable industries like mine as reliance shifts from Russian imports.
- I view it as a chance to strengthen domestic sustainability efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Chef (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This trade policy is mostly about global positioning, and for someone in my industry, it's business as usual.
- Our supplies mostly come from local or European sources, so no immediate threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on fuel prices and energy sector, given that a significant portion of US imports from Russia are energy products.
- Potential retaliatory measures from Russia affecting US exports.
- Compliance with WTO regulations and potential challenges at international trade forums.
- Dependency shifts in American industries requiring time and capital to adjust supply chains.