Latest news with #ITIF
Forbes
02-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why The U.S. May Confront Non-Tariff Attacks Against Tech Firms
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump smiles during a phone conversation with Mexico's President ... More Enrique Pena Nieto on trade in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on August 27, 2018. President Donald Trump said Monday the US had reached a "really good deal" with Mexico and talks with Canada would begin shortly on a new regional free trade pact."It's a big day for trade. It's a really good deal for both countries," Trump said."Canada, we will start negotiations shortly. I'll be calling their prime minister very soon," Trump and Mexican negotiators have been working for weeks to iron out differences in order to revise the nearly 25-year old North American Free Trade Agreement, while Canada was waiting to rejoin the negotiations. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) I recently explained in Forbes that Trump trade negotiators could leverage the planned withdrawal of anticompetitive federal regulations to obtain a cutback in foreign anticompetitive market distortions (ACMDs) that harm American firms and consumers. A July 2 nonpartisan letter to senior Administration officials from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), joined by senior policy scholars, strikes a similar theme in calling on the Administration to target foreign governments' non-tariff attacks (NTAs) on America's leading technology companies. The letter recommends a 3-pronged negotiating strategy to counteract NTAs. Administration adoption of that strategy could bestow substantial benefits on U.S. producers, workers, and consumers. The NTA Problem As the letter explains, a new form of trade restriction is emerging that existing legal frameworks fail to address: non-tariff attacks (NTAs). NTAs are a specific type of ACMD that is growing in significance. Unlike traditional tariffs or known non-tariff barriers (NTBs), NTAs are disguised as legitimate domestic policies. Their true purpose is to target leading U.S. technology firms, undermine innovation, extract financial and intellectual assets, and weaken America's strategic position in the global tech race. Three features distinguish NTAs from traditional NTBs: As the U.S. seeks to rebalance trade relations, rolling back these unfair practices should be a top priority in negotiations. The ITIF has documented over 100 cases where U.S. trading partners have adopted policies aimed at limiting American tech firms' operations or siphoning their revenues. The European Union led this effort with its Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), which targeted major U.S. firms while largely sparing local competitors. In 2024 alone, regulatory fines on American companies in the EU totaled nearly $6.7 billion. Other countries are following suit: Brazil with similar regulations, India targeting U.S. firms under its data protection law, and Japan restricting dominant U.S. smartphone platforms. Although often framed as consumer protection, privacy, or digital sovereignty, these policies impose selective burdens that disadvantage American firms and empower foreign rivals. They also often harm the enacting countries themselves by disrupting ecosystems that support small and medium-sized businesses dependent on global platforms. These attacks also pose national security risks. U.S. tech firms are vital to innovation and defense sector competitiveness. By diverting investment from R&D, mandating tech transfers, or exposing sensitive capabilities, NTAs erode the strength needed to compete with China's state-led technology push. The consequences are severe: This problem is most pressing in the U.S.-China context. While America applies overt targeted measures like export controls, other nations exploit NTAs to undermine U.S. firms more subtly and effectively. These tactics distort markets far more powerfully than tariffs and shift global leadership toward China just as the U.S. needs unity and strength. Policy Recommendations Addressing NTAs is essential for preserving U.S. technological strength, protecting national interests, and maintaining U.S. leadership in the global digital economy. Current trade negotiations present a golden opportunity to confront the growing NTA threat and reinforce the foundations of American innovation and security. Keep in mind that NTAs do more than just harm American industry and national security – by harming our high tech companies, they present broad threats to overall American welfare. High tech firms are hugely beneficial to the American consumer. They provide high-quality, low-cost services to Americans (think Google or YouTube), are a huge sector in our economy, create jobs and wealth for Americans at large, and drive innovation that improves lives and the American consumer experience. In sum, countering NTAs is key to maintaining a dynamic, innovative U.S. economy. Appropriately, the ITIF letter highlights 3 vital criteria for confronting the NTA problem: 1. Make NTAs a top agenda item in all trade negotiations. 2. Secure binding agreements to block discriminatory digital regulations. 3. Set up systems to detect and respond to emerging NTAs. The Trump administration may wish to consider making these suggestions key features of its trade negotiating strategy. Success in rooting out NTAs would be a 'win-win-win' for American firms, workers, and consumers.
Forbes
02-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
U.S. Should Confront Non-Tariff Attacks Against American Tech Firms
I recently explained in Forbes that Trump trade negotiators could leverage the planned TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump smiles during a phone conversation with Mexico's President ... More Enrique Pena Nieto on trade in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on August 27, 2018. President Donald Trump said Monday the US had reached a "really good deal" with Mexico and talks with Canada would begin shortly on a new regional free trade pact."It's a big day for trade. It's a really good deal for both countries," Trump said."Canada, we will start negotiations shortly. I'll be calling their prime minister very soon," Trump and Mexican negotiators have been working for weeks to iron out differences in order to revise the nearly 25-year old North American Free Trade Agreement, while Canada was waiting to rejoin the negotiations. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) withdrawal of anticompetitive federal regulations to obtain a cutback in foreign anticompetitive market distortions (ACMDs) that harm American firms and consumers. A July 2 nonpartisan letter to senior Administration officials from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), joined by senior policy scholars, strikes a similar theme in calling on the Administration to target foreign governments' non-tariff attacks (NTAs) on America's leading technology companies. The letter recommends a 3-pronged negotiating approach to counteract NTAs. Administration initiatives along the lines suggested by the letter could bestow substantial benefits on U.S. producers, workers, and consumers. The NTA Problem As the letter explains, a new form of trade restriction is emerging that existing legal frameworks fail to address: non-tariff attacks (NTAs). NTAs are a specific type of ACMD that is growing in significance. Unlike traditional tariffs or known non-tariff barriers (NTBs), NTAs are disguised as legitimate domestic policies. Their true purpose is to target leading U.S. technology firms, undermine innovation, extract financial and intellectual assets, and weaken America's strategic position in the global tech race. Three features distinguish NTAs from traditional NTBs: As the U.S. seeks to rebalance trade relations, rolling back these unfair practices should be a top priority in negotiations. The ITIF has documented over 100 cases where U.S. trading partners have adopted policies aimed at limiting American tech firms' operations or siphoning their revenues. The European Union led this effort with its Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), which targeted major U.S. firms while largely sparing local competitors. In 2024 alone, regulatory fines on American companies in the EU totaled nearly $6.7 billion. Other countries are following suit: Brazil with similar regulations, India targeting U.S. firms under its data protection law, and Japan restricting dominant U.S. smartphone platforms. Although often framed as consumer protection, privacy, or digital sovereignty, these policies impose selective burdens that disadvantage American firms and empower foreign rivals. They also often harm the enacting countries themselves by disrupting ecosystems that support small and medium-sized businesses dependent on global platforms. These attacks also pose national security risks. U.S. tech firms are vital to innovation and defense sector competitiveness. By diverting investment from R&D, mandating tech transfers, or exposing sensitive capabilities, NTAs erode the strength needed to compete with China's state-led technology push. The consequences are severe: This problem is most pressing in the U.S.-China context. While America applies overt targeted measures like export controls, other nations exploit NTAs to undermine U.S. firms more subtly and effectively. These tactics distort markets far more powerfully than tariffs and shift global leadership toward China just as the U.S. needs unity and strength. Policy Recommendations Addressing NTAs is essential for preserving U.S. technological strength, protecting national interests, and maintaining U.S. leadership in the global digital economy. Current trade negotiations present a golden opportunity to confront the growing NTA threat and reinforce the foundations of American innovation and security. Keep in mind that NTAs do more than just harm American industry and national security – by harming our high tech companies, they present broad threats to overall American welfare. High tech firms are hugely beneficial to the American consumer. They provide high-quality, low-cost services to Americans (think Google or YouTube), are a huge sector in our economy, create jobs and wealth for Americans at large, and drive innovation that improves lives and the American consumer experience. In sum, countering NTAs is key to maintaining a dynamic, innovative U.S. economy. Appropriately, the ITIF letter highlights 3 vital criteria for confronting the NTA problem: 1. Make NTAs a top agenda item in all trade negotiations. 2. Secure binding agreements to block discriminatory digital regulations. 3. Set up systems to detect and respond to emerging NTAs. The Trump administration may wish to consider making these suggestions key features of its trade negotiating strategy. Success in rooting out NTAs would be a 'win-win-win' for American firms, workers, and consumers.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
SMRs, not large reactors, are ‘future of nuclear power': ITIF
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter. Small modular reactors are more likely than larger designs to achieve long-term 'price and performance parity' with conventional energy sources, such as gas, but only with substantial, ongoing support from the U.S. government, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said Monday. Authored by ITIF Center for Clean Energy Innovation Research Director Robin Gaster, 'Small Modular Reactors: A Realist Approach to the Future of Nuclear Power' advised the U.S. Department of Energy to develop independent SMR assessment capabilities that focus on price and performance parity, or P3, while expanding support for basic and applied nuclear research and funding efforts to commercialize and scale promising technologies. With robust federal backing, SMR developers could support 'an important strategic export industry' for the United States over the next two decades, the report said. ITIF's analysis pushes back on the notion that new gigawatt-scale reactors will play a major role in the United States' future energy mix. A range of pro-nuclear voices have supported the idea of 'fleet scale' large reactor deployments, including private sector developers like The Nuclear Company and DOE under former President Joe Biden. In a September update to its 'Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear' report, DOE said the U.S. would need to deploy a mix of SMRs alongside larger Generation III+ reactors, like Westinghouse Electric's 1,117-MW AP1000, to meet expected future power demand. DOE recommended a 'consortium approach' to enable serial deployments of five to 10 reactors of the same design. President Donald Trump sounded more skeptical of large reactors on the campaign trail last year, telling podcaster Joe Rogan in October that projects like the twin AP1000 reactors at Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 — which took more than a decade to complete and ran billions over budget — 'get too big, and too complex and too expensive.' Without the real-world learnings generated by a critical mass of AP1000 deployments, it's unlikely that new large reactors will come down the cost curve to reach P3, ITIF said in the report. 'There are simply not enough orders in the United States to generate sufficient scale economies' for large reactors even as the AP1000 emerges as the 'standard' U.S. design, the group said. While it won't be clear whether SMRs can reach P3 for 'at least a decade … there is a greater possibility that SMRs will indeed scale, costs will fall, and P3 will be achieved.' As a category, SMRs have several advantages that could help them outcompete larger reactors and greatly expand the nuclear reactor market in the process, ITIF said, including: Power outputs ranging from single-digit megawatts to 300 MW, allowing for a wider range of real-world applications; Higher outlet temperatures that suit some SMRs for high-temperature industrial processes; Modular design that allows for higher-energy, multi-reactor aggregations; Passive safety features that may reduce construction costs and accident risk; and, Cheaper fuel and less refueling downtime in at least some SMR designs. Still, ITIF said the first commercial SMRs will likely cost more per MWh than renewables, gas-fired generation and existing large reactors, ITIF said. They are also sure to face significant risks on the path to commercialization, including technological issues, regulatory barriers, market challenges such as higher-than-expected deployment costs and political risk due to the likely need for long-term government support, ITIF said. Since President Trump's first term, the federal government has invested billions to support both the existing nuclear power fleet and emerging nuclear technologies, especially SMR and microreactor designs. DOE's Liftoff Report detailed a range of recent and ongoing federal financial incentives and enablement programs for nuclear technology. These include 'stackable' Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, which face an uncertain fate this year as Congress looks for tax-cut offsets, as well as DOE's $900 million Generation III+ SMR program, Idaho National Laboratory's National Reactor Innovation Center, the U.S. Department of Defense's mobile and fixed microreactor initiatives, and billions in unspent IRA funds held in DOE Loan Programs Office accounts. The Gen III+ SMR program is open for applications through April 23. Through it, DOE intends to 'jump-start' deployment of light-water SMRs, which share more in common with existing designs for larger light-water reactors than non-water-cooled Generation IV SMRs, said Jeff Merrifield, chair of the United States Nuclear Industry Council board of directors and partner in Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP's energy practice. 'Many [Gen III+] designs being proposed utilize fuels and components similar to currently-existing reactors,' which could in theory avoid some licensing challenges that novel reactors may face, Merrifield said. The fuel issue is particularly important from a time-to-market perspective given tight supplies of the higher-potency HALEU many Gen IV reactors require, though the federal government is 'working in overdrive to increase [HALEU] enrichment,' he added. To give SMRs a chance at achieving price and performance parity, governments — federal, state and local — must share financial and nonfinancial risk with the numerous other likely stakeholders in future SMR projects, including technology vendors, utilities, corporate offtakers, lenders and ratepayers, ITIF said. On the financial side, long-term power purchase agreements will likely be 'mandatory' for larger SMRs given lenders' reluctance to fund such expensive projects, along with government support through grants, tax credits and loan guarantees, ITIF said. Development groups can also look to international financial risk mitigation frameworks, such as direct government ownership, subsidized loans and market-based contract-for-difference subsidies, ITIF said. The federal government is already working to reduce nonfinancial challenges like technology risk, cumbersome Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing processes, and limited HALEU availability from non-Russian sources, which has already compelled at least one early-mover Gen IV reactor developer to source its fuel outside the United States, ITIF said. But DOE, NRC and other agencies must do more to support early technology development, validation, early deployments and deployments at scale over the coming decade, it said. Recommended Reading US 'nuclear renaissance' faces high capital costs, uncertain federal policy support: ICF
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
No sector 'will escape unscathed' even with tariff exemptions
President Trump announced certain goods exempt from reciprocal tariffs, including semiconductors, lumber, copper, and pharmaceuticals. Stephen Ezell, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) vice president of global innovation policy, joins Catalysts to discuss how tariffs can impact the pharmaceutical industry despite the exemption. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. We're going to produce the cars and ships, chips, airplanes, minerals and medicines that we need right here in America. The pharmaceutical companies are going to become roaring back, they're coming roaring back. They're all coming back to our country, because if they don't, they got a big tax to pay. President Trump granting pharmaceuticals an exemption to his hefty reciprocal tariffs alongside semiconductors, lumber, copper, and some minerals, but the industry is already bracing for that to change with Denmark's benchmark index entering into a bare market amid concerns about Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk and potentially some tit-for-tat there. I want to bring in Steven Esell. He is Information Technology and Innovation Foundation's VP for global innovation policy. Stephen, great to have you here. Pharma, somewhat safe for now, where, where's it heading in your view? Yes, pharmaceuticals were exempted today. However, we have been continually led by the Trump administration to expect that the drug industry will see tariffs at some point in the future. There is word out that the administration may open a section 232 investigation into pharmaceutical imports in the United States. Section 232 investigations are opened under national security grounds. Uh, so while the industry is out of the woods for the moment, we may see tariffs in the future. It should also be noted as your viewers see today that while the pharmaceutical industry won't experience tariffs directly, there is no industry business or citizens that will escape unscathed from these tariffs today. Uh, in particular, these tariffs are going to make drug innovation and drug manufacturing in the United States more expensive. If you think about it to innovate drugs, we have to have very sophisticated equipment like gene sequencers or scanning electron microscopes. To manufacture drugs, we have to have vacuum pumps and biosafety cabinets. These inputs and components come from suppliers all over the world. So, even though the pharmaceutical product will be not exposed to the tariff, all these inputs and components will, and that's going to make US pharmaceutical manufacturing going forward less globally competitive.
