When President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into law in 1993, he promised it would create jobs, raise living standards, and usher in a new era of prosperity for American workers. In reality, NAFTA gutted U.S. manufacturing, accelerated outsourcing, and even compromised national security. The deal may have pleased corporate lobbyists and Wall Street analysts, but it left millions of working Americans behind.

Now, more than 30 years later, the consequences of Clinton’s decision are painfully clear—and we’re still living with them.

The Promise of Prosperity

President Clinton framed NAFTA as a leap forward. “This is a good deal for our country,” he declared in 1993. “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs” (Clinton, 1993). He wasn’t alone. Economists, business leaders, and most of the political establishment backed the agreement, which eliminated trade barriers between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

But opponents warned that NAFTA would accelerate the offshoring of U.S. jobs, especially in manufacturing. They were right.

Manufacturing Jobs Evaporate

Since NAFTA’s passage, the United States has lost more than 4 million manufacturing jobs—many of them in the same industrial regions Clinton once promised to help (Scott, 2011). These jobs didn’t just vanish into thin air—they moved to countries where labor was cheaper and environmental regulations were weaker.

By 2004, the Economic Policy Institute estimated that the U.S. had lost 879,000 jobs to Mexico alone due to NAFTA (Scott, 2003). The hardest-hit areas included Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other former manufacturing hubs that had once formed the backbone of the American middle class.

Factory closures became commonplace. Entire towns shrank. Workers who had once earned solid, middle-income wages found themselves in part-time service jobs, often with no benefits or job security.

Clinton’s trade legacy had created what economists now call a “China Shock”-like ripple years before China joined the World Trade Organization. It reshaped the American labor market—and not for the better.

Outsourcing Becomes Standard Practice

Clinton’s administration didn’t just push NAFTA. It also helped normalize a corporate culture where outsourcing was no longer seen as a necessary evil, but a strategic advantage.

American corporations raced to set up manufacturing operations in Mexico and later in Asia. Why pay a union worker in Indiana when a factory in Monterrey could produce the same product for a fraction of the cost?

This shift helped boost short-term profits, especially for shareholders and executives. But it did lasting damage to the idea that American companies had any obligation to American workers. “The Clinton years entrenched the ideology that markets—not communities—should determine the future of labor,” wrote historian Judith Stein (Stein, 2010).

Outsourcing expanded beyond factories. It affected everything from customer service to tech support. Even high-skilled industries began sending jobs abroad. In a globalized world, loyalty to country took a back seat to loyalty to quarterly earnings reports.

A Security Risk Few Saw Coming

It wasn’t just blue-collar workers who paid the price. America’s national security also took a hit.

As more and more defense-related manufacturing moved offshore, the Pentagon grew increasingly dependent on foreign-made parts and supplies. In some cases, these parts were used in critical defense systems, including aircraft, communications equipment, and even nuclear technologies (GAO, 2017).

Outsourcing defense components has made the U.S. more vulnerable. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly warned that relying on foreign suppliers “can create security and mission risks for the Department of Defense” (GAO, 2017). This isn’t a hypothetical problem—it’s real. In 2018, a Pentagon report revealed that many essential military technologies depend on a fragile supply chain outside the United States (DoD, 2018).

In a world increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, Clinton’s trade policies did more than just harm workers—they helped undermine America’s ability to defend itself.

The Cost of #Triangulation

President Clinton loved to “triangulate”—to position himself between Republican and Democratic extremes in the name of pragmatism. On NAFTA, he triangulated America’s working class right into economic irrelevance.

Labor unions, environmentalists, and consumer advocates warned of the risks. Clinton ignored them. Instead, he sided with the Chamber of Commerce, multinational CEOs, and conservative think tanks who promised NAFTA would “lift all boats.”

But it didn’t. It sank the ones docked in Detroit, Toledo, and Pittsburgh while raising yachts in Manhattan and Malibu.

A Trade Legacy That Still Hurts

Decades after NAFTA, politicians across the spectrum—from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump—have condemned the agreement and its consequences. Trump even rebranded NAFTA as the USMCA in 2020, though many of its core structures remain intact.

Clinton’s defenders argue that globalization was inevitable, and that NAFTA merely formalized trends already underway. But the truth is, trade policy is a choice. And Clinton chose to prioritize capital over labor, profits over people, and shareholders over citizens.

NAFTA didn’t just cost the U.S. jobs. It helped transform the American economy into a landscape of precarity—where once-stable communities became casualties of economic theory.

August 19 Preview: Why We’re Reopening the Clinton File

This article is part of a broader review of President Bill Clinton’s years in office. Starting August 1, we’re publishing one post per day examining the decisions, compromises, and contradictions of the so-called “Third Way” Democrat. From mass incarceration to Wall Street deregulation, we’re revisiting Clinton’s legacy with fresh eyes—and sharper questions.

On August 19, we’ll post a brief explaining why this review matters now, and why understanding Clinton’s record is essential for confronting today’s political challenges.

Spoiler: it’s not just about the ‘90s.

📦🔧 #Triangulation

References

Clinton, W. J. (1993). Remarks on Signing the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-implementation-act

Department of Defense. (2018). Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States. Retrieved from https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASSESSING-AND-STRENGTHENING-THE-MANUFACTURING-AND-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-SUPPLY-CHAIN-RESILIENCY.PDF

Government Accountability Office. (2017). Defense Supply Chain: DOD Needs to Better Assess Risks and Improve Its Strategy to Address Supply Chain Risks. GAO-17-768. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-768.pdf

Scott, R. E. (2003). The High Price of “Free” Trade: NAFTA’s Failure Has Cost the United States Jobs Across the Nation. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

Scott, R. E. (2011). The China Trade Toll: Widespread Wage Suppression, 2.8 Million Jobs Lost in U.S. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-trade-toll/

Stein, J. (2010). Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies. Yale University Press.