More than any other attribute, rank corruption defines the second Trump Administration. Yet casual political observers may be forgiven for wondering: how much has really changed? Corporate money’s influence on public policy has assumed a particularly conspicuous place in international trade law.

For over a generation, “free trade” treaties have preempted elected leaders from protecting consumers and the environment, and subordinated workers’ and communities’ livelihoods to the whims of global capital. The tide is turning, however, and voters will soon see where their elected representatives in Congress stand, when they are asked to take a stand on Representative Rosa DeLauro’s House Resolution 1286, the Fair Trade for Working Families agenda.

Trade policy played a prominent role in the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the presidency. On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump characterized U.S. trade policy as a "betrayal" of American workers, which eliminated manufacturing jobs and enriched a "financial elite" at the expense of the middle class. He was right. Yet nearly halfway through a second term, President Trump has only added to the betrayal. Ironically, the nakedly transactional character of the current “tariff relief for Trump resort permits” paradigm appears to have opened space for genuine reform on trade.

The Fair Trade for Working Families agenda represents such reform. It is not “anti-trade.” It does not envision an American autarchy that reshores production of everything from textiles to iPhones. Rather, it embraces the principle that trade should deliver benefits to everyone, not just moneyed corporate interests. This principle may seem mundane, but a single example—country-of-origin labeling, or COOL—illustrates how far U.S. trade policy has fallen short of it.

COOL may seem comparatively inconsequential against the backdrop of massive job losses in the manufacturing sector, or the hollowing out of rural communities in service of exporting cheap, low-value-add agricultural commodities, but it neatly encapsulates the absurd rules that stripped power from consumers and the elected leaders that might dare to represent their interests. In a nutshell, Congress passed a law giving consumers the right to know the origin of beef and pork products. Corporate meatpackers challenged the law in federal court and lost. But they challenged the law in the World Trade Organization and won, and that was enough. Consumers lost the right to know.

COOL deserves emphasis because it shows how policymakers have explicitly subverted the American electorate’s will to the imperative of “free trade.” In 2015, then President Obama said, “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.” But just a few months later, Congress had changed the law to repeal COOL, in response to the WTO Appellate Body’s ruling that the U.S. had violated its treaty obligations.  

Why had the U.S. violated its treaty obligations? Under COOL, big corporate meatpackers—think Tyson, JBS, Smithfield—would have to spend money to keep track of which products came from Mexican or Canadian cows or pigs, versus American ones. A panel of unelected, unaccountable corporate lawyers turned international trade jurists assessed the value to consumers of knowing where a pork chop or prime rib comes from, and concluded that it failed to exceed the value to shareholders in maintaining a system where meat’s origin remains a mystery. Congress and a lame duck president did not push back.

Nor did President Trump when he came into office and renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. This was odd. After all, it was Canada and Mexico who sued the U.S. in the WTO, albeit in tandem with multinational meatpackers. Yet the new NAFTA—the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—is more notable for erecting new restrictions on public policy than tearing them down. In particular, the treaty’s “digital trade” chapter insulates the giant tech platforms—Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple—from laws that might put a check on monopoly profiteering and privacy abuses, some of which the U.S. Congress had nearly passed in the year before the treaty’s adoption.  

The chaos of the second Trump Administration’s tariff policy has not improved upon this sorry state of affairs. If anything, the pay-for-play tariff exemption system favors the deepest corporate pockets. But a new Congress will soon enter into power, likely with a mandate for far-reaching reform, including trade policy reform. H.R. 1286 offers a fix that goes beyond merely reasserting Congress’ exclusive authority to levy taxes.

The H.R. 1286 agenda is straightforward. It endorses “strong, binding labor and environmental standards” in trade agreements that “reward responsible production, not a race to the bottom.” It condemns the disgraceful evolution of trade agreements to “provide monopoly protections that enable pharmaceutical firms to raise drug prices.” It calls for policies that “prioritize benefits for independent and family farmers and rural communities,” like those that protect the right-to-repair, and COOL. It does not rule out tariffs as “a critical tool to counter unfair trade and corporate greed and to strengthen strategic sectors,” but it rejects their use in “backroom deals” to enrich the President’s cronies. Remaking trade policy in line with the H.R. 1286 principles aligns with what most Americans want, and it would increase democratic accountability.  

Which brings up a final point about COOL. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Americans want it, according to a poll commissioned by Consumer Federation of America. A bill to reinstate COOL, introduced by Wyoming Representative Harriet Hageman, has broad bi-partisan support. But many other congressional leaders, on both sides of the aisle, are happy to hide behind the demands of U.S. treaty obligations to carry water for the meatpacking industry. Sadly, it’s not an isolated example. The time has come to rethink trade policy. H.R. 1286 will let voters know what they can expect from their representatives, and whether they might want to vote for a new one.