The 1990s opened a defensive snag with the United States on competitiveness and a broad political consensus on the need for the United States to be more aggressive in promoting its trade interests. This attitude changed dramatically over the decade, when the United States regained its international dominance in sectors that have formed as engines of growth and macroeconomic performance. By the late 1990s, America had established one of the most impressive records in decades on the exchange of trade agreements with important regional and bilateral partners and on the management of the multilateral trading system, which has a profound impact on economic and foreign policy. The administration has indicated that it will address some of these changes in Phase 2 of the negotiations and will partially maintain tariffs to maintain leverage for the next roundtable. Trump said he would remove all tariffs if the two sides reach an agreement in the next phase. Finally, it is worth briefly mentioning how trade policy was coordinated within the Clinton administration. President Clinton took office with the goal of strengthening international economic policy through the creation of a new coordinating body in the White House. Despite numerous lawn battles, variations in management styles and structures, and limited resources, the National Economic Council has developed a viable and effective model for integrating competing considerations that go into international economic policy and coordinating the various institutional actors. The quality of the process and participants helped to ensure general logic and coherence between policies, to strengthen the voice of policy makers throughout the decision-making process, and to increase the visibility of trade issues. During the administration, representatives of the international business community became a political development body that contributed to the development of policy recommendations and the monitoring of consistent implementation. And at the director level, coordination has developed over time as a shared responsibility between national and economic advisors for national security, in close coordination with the Chief of Staff. Many economists believe that any implementation of trade means is indeed protectionist and anti-trade.
Those who live in the world of politics and politics make more subtle differences. First, there is a big difference between the ad hoc implementation of protectionist measures and implementation in accordance with US trade laws and WTO rules. Second, there is a strong political justification for our trading fund statutes as a safety valve, which help to support a remarkably open trading system as a whole. Indeed, it is likely that the only politically feasible alternative would be regulation that would rely on comparable insurance by maintaining a higher level of tied protection in all areas. Apart from this, considerable progress has been made in defining policies that can significantly facilitate trade and investment relations across the Atlantic. The establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Partnership, the efforts of the transatlantic economic dialogue and the considerable progress made in achieving mutual recognition of product standards have yielded important economic results.