Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015

Overview

Delegation of Presidential Responsibilities: Executive Order 13733, issued by President Barack Obama on July 22, 2016, primarily aims to delegate and assign specific responsibilities under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. The Order details the allocation of presidential functions to various cabinet members and federal agencies to ensure the effective implementation of the Act. By doing so, the Order facilitates a more efficient execution of complex trade provisions, enabling specialized departments to utilize their expertise in managing specific aspects of the Act. This delegation of duties is critical in ensuring that the U.S. remains agile in its trade facilitation and enforcement efforts.

Enhancing Trade Coordination Efforts: Another critical aspect of this Executive Order involves enhancing inter-departmental coordination on trade-related issues. By creating clearer lines of responsibility and requiring inter-agency consultations, the Order seeks to ensure cohesive policy implementation. For instance, the assignment of responsibilities to the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of State, and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) underscores the need for a coordinated effort in addressing trade policies and enforcement. This not only emphasizes the need for cohesive internal government operations but also signifies a strategic approach to international trade relations.

Targeting Currency and Economic Policies: The Order also emphasizes engagement on currency exchange rates and economic policies. It mandates the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct enhanced analysis of foreign countries' economic policies, in consultation with the USTR and other agencies. This is particularly important in addressing the undervaluation of currencies, which could potentially harm U.S. economic interests. By doing so, the Order positions the U.S. to take remedial actions against countries that manipulate their currencies, potentially leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses and workers in the international market.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional Framework: The delegation of presidential functions under this Executive Order must align with constitutional provisions that grant the President specific powers over foreign affairs and trade regulations. By redistributing these responsibilities to various cabinet members, the Order adheres to both the constitution and the statutory frameworks established under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. This cements the Order’s legal standing while ensuring its adherence to established legal norms.

Statutory Enhancements: Statutorily, the EO supports the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act by operationalizing its provisions. This strategic move allows the government to address issues such as unemployment and currency manipulation, which are directly tied to this act. Furthermore, the EO clarifies the roles of various departments, thereby enhancing accountability and focusing efforts on areas critical to U.S. trade interests.

Impacts on Trade Policy: From a policy standpoint, the EO signals a robust U.S. commitment to enforce trade laws, underscoring a shift towards a proactive approach in resolving trade imbalances and protecting domestic industries. The focus on foreign currency valuation reflects a broader policy stance aimed at identifying and counteracting unfair trade practices, thus aligning with the Obama administration's goals of reinforcing economic security and international competitiveness.

Coordination and Implementation: The Order further specifies mechanisms for the coordination and consultation among federal agencies. This is not only a legal formality but also a policy necessity. By requiring dialogue between the Secretary of State, the Treasury, and other officials, it promotes a united front in trade enforcement, thereby bolstering the United States' negotiating position in international forums.

Who Benefits

Domestic Producers: U.S. producers, particularly within sectors vulnerable to unfair trade practices, stand to benefit significantly from this Executive Order. By targeting currency manipulation and facilitating fair trade practices, domestic industries can better compete on a level playing field. Sectors such as manufacturing, which often compete with foreign entities that enjoy currency-based advantages, are likely to see positive outcomes.

Export-oriented Businesses: The shift towards coordinated export promotion efforts ultimately serves U.S. businesses looking to expand their presence in foreign markets. By assigning the Secretary of Commerce duties related to export enhancement, the Order prioritizes assistance to American companies attempting to penetrate global markets, ultimately fostering economic growth and job creation.

Federal and Local Government Synergy: Federal and local governments benefit from improved synergy and communication, as the Order fosters coordination among regional entities, the federal government, and diverse municipalities engaged in trade promotion. This multi-layered approach amplifies the potential impact of trade promotions and exports, particularly benefiting local economies reliant on international trade.

Policymakers and Economists: For policymakers and economic analysts focused on trade, this Order facilitates streamlined information sharing and decision-making. By mandating specific reporting and consultation requirements among key departments, the Order enhances the analytical basis for crafting informed economic policies, positively impacting economic governance.

Who Suffers

Currency Manipulating Countries: Nations found to be engaging in currency manipulation might bear the brunt of this EO. The stipulation for enhanced engagement and analysis concerning currency manipulation serves as a precursor to potential trade actions against them, which could adversely affect their economies and diplomatic relations with the U.S.

Industries Benefiting from Weaker Imports: Industries and firms within the U.S. that rely on cheaper imports might face challenges. By leveling trade practices to curb unfair advantages such as currency manipulation, import-reliant businesses could encounter increased costs, which might then be passed on to consumers, ultimately straining some sectors.

Potential Bureaucratic Hurdles: The redistribution of duties among various departments and the requirement for inter-agency consultations could create bureaucratic complexities. These could potentially delay decision-making processes, affecting the timely resolution of trade issues and execution of trade policies.

Challenges for Implementation: Effective implementation of this EO may prove difficult for sectors within the government that have limited experience with the delegated responsibilities. Thus, certain organizations might suffer workload imbalances and efficiency challenges, potentially impacting their primary duties.

Historical Context

Continuity in Trade Policy: Executive Order 13733 represents continuity in President Obama's trade policy direction, emphasizing fair trade and enforcement against unfair trade practices. This focus had been increasingly evident during his administration, which sought to shore up American jobs and ensure fair competition. The Order reflects broader trends in historical legal adjustments and trade facilitation efforts, grounded in robust international economic posturing.

Preceding Legislative Framework: The Order follows several legislative and executive actions aimed at strengthening America's competitiveness in global trade. Prior trade policies under Obama's tenure often involved similar restructurings, enabling flexibility in policy implementation while ensuring adherence to legal mandates. The Order's alignment with the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 exemplifies this approach.

Administration's Trade Policy Vision: The Obama Administration articulated a vision that prioritized equitable international trade arrangements. The EO fits within this strategic vision by ensuring adherence to trade regulations and encouraging responsible economic policy practices globally. It reflects consistent policy messaging around supporting labor markets while addressing inequities in international commerce.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal Interpretations: Given the complex interplay between executive orders and legislative mandates, disputes can arise over the interpretation and execution of delegated functions. Critiques may focus on whether delegating such significant presidential functions could dilute accountability or create constitutional ambiguities concerning foreign relations powers.

Congressional Oversight and Pushback: Congress may express concerns regarding the extent of executive overreach, particularly if perceived as unbalanced or excessive in scope. This could lead to legislative pushback, aiming to restrict or redefine the scope of such delegation, potentially sparking debates over the balance of powers.

Diplomatic Relations: The EO’s directives regarding currency manipulation and associated remedial actions might strain diplomatic relations with affected countries. Heightened scrutiny on trade practices could inadvertently lead to escalated tensions, impacting multilateral trade negotiations or bilateral relations.

Implementation Challenges: Ensuring cooperation among the designated departments could prove challenging, particularly when agencies have conflicting priorities or limited resources for additional responsibilities. This might impede effective execution, calling into question the practicality of such comprehensive coordination.