Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3725

Bill Overview

Title: No Trading with Invaders Act

Description: This bill requires the President to withdraw normal trade relations status from a country that commits, against a World Trade Organization member, an act of aggression that (1) violates international law, and (2) is not a legitimate act of self-defense. The bill also makes permanent the President's authority to impose visa- and property-blocking sanctions for violations of human rights and modifies such authority.

Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals globally involved in trade with countries committing aggression

Estimated Size: 20000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Import/Export Business Owner (New York City, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the bill is imposed on some major Asian countries I deal with, my business could face severe disruptions. It may force me to diversify my sources or potentially close down if alternatives aren't found.
  • The visa sanctions could affect my travel plans for business negotiations, further complicating matters.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 8
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Software Developer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy seems important for holding aggressive nations accountable. Personally, I don't think it will affect me unless there are spillover effects on the tech industry.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)

Age: 56 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could create major waves in the industry. We might need to rethink our strategies and possibly face higher operation costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

College Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I might see a spike in prices for electronics or other goods that I usually buy, which could be inconvenient given my tight budget.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Tech Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Sanctions are a critical tool for diplomacy. I don't see an immediate effect on my company’s operations unless there are secondary impacts.

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 8
Year 20 8 9

Government Policy Advisor (Washington, DC)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Such policies are crucial tools for enforcing international law. It’s challenging to measure its success in direct economic terms but vital from a strategic standpoint.

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 8
Year 20 8 8

Retail Manager (Miami, FL)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our supply chain could be disrupted, resulting in either increased prices or limited stock. Adjusting will be a challenge for inventory management.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Legal Consultant (Boston, MA)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Though I support the spirit of the policy, I do not foresee any direct impact on my wellbeing or my clientele.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Investor (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Frankly, this policy might destabilize certain markets I'm invested in, which could alter my portfolio strategy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 7 9
Year 3 7 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Factory Worker (Dallas, TX)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If components from sanctioned nations become scarce or costly, our plant might face shutdowns or reduced hours.
  • This could directly impact my employment stability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $50000000)

Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $50000000)

Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $50000000)

Year 5: $27500000 (Low: $16000000, High: $55000000)

Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $60000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Key Considerations