On July 15, Trump AdministrationOpenInvestigation of a section 301 in Brazilian trade practices.
The investigation targets Brazilian “acts, policies and practices” Six Extensive region: digital trade, preferential tariffs, anti -corruption, intellectual property protection, using ethanol market and harvesting of illegal forests.
Some of these complaints have long been, such as about ethanol. Forest harvesting is of recent vintage.
Bundling all six in a large huge case will make it difficult to interact on targeted solutions. But Brazil ended the conversation before a single start about providing Mexico and India preference tariff treatment.
Why before turning, consider what is at stake in this investigation.
The US digital service providers have to face a wide variety of subtle nor subtle obstacles to trade in Brazil. They need fair market access. American ethanol exporters also require relief from tariffs from Brazil again, off-back. They are kept through wrinkles.
Then there are American innovators, who have waited patiently for this investigation for decades.
The American trade representative has long been concerned about Brazil’s failure that there is a failure to adequately protect and apply intellectual property. since 1999Every US trade representative Special 301 reports Brazil has been called for excessive patent pendency. average The delay is about seven years; For pharmaceuticals, it is almost a decade.
It maintains state -of -the -art treatments developed by American firms outwards in Brazil, waiting for proper intellectual property protection.
Also, BrazilianRegulatory data protectionThe country is a violation of international commitments and discrimination for confidential drug testing data. Indeed, Brazil provides regulatory testing data protection for veterinary, fertilizer and agrochemical products.
Other Worry Brazil’s intellectual property also persists, including inconsistent copyright enforcement, widespread availability of pirated and sale of opaque processes related to the sale of fake goods and recognition of geographical signals, for example.
These issues warrant a section 301 investigation alone. But they, like the concerns of digital trade and ethanol, are risking from sick-defined complaints about Brazil’s “partial scope” agreements.
Here is the issue. Brazil, as a member of and Mercosur Trade blocks (including Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay), have several partial scope agreements, one with Mexico and the other with India.
Congress Do not like These deals because they decrease from the need of the World Trade Organization that free trade agreements are considered to cover “all trade”.
Both Brazil-Mexico And MERCOSUR-India Want to go there.
As BrazilExplainedA world trade organization “Transparency Exercise”, in the presence of the US and others, plan for its treaty with Mexico is that it will “include commitments in all areas that have signed a modern trade agreement.”
same way,Article 2OfMERCOSUR-IndiaThis suggests that parties are committed to developing the treaty in a completely free trade field.
It is important to note that neitherBrazil-MexicoAnd neitherMERCOSUR-IndiaWas mentioned in2025 National Trade Estimate ReportIn fact, American trade representative did not extend anyone QuestionAbout the deal in Brazil2022 World Trade Organization Trade Policy Review,
So, what is this complaint really? Is this that these infections are not reliable? Or that they are not sufficiently ambitious?
If it is about the deadline, it will generally harm American trade relations with developing countries.
there are27 partial scope agreementIn today’s global economy. Demanding that they turn into free trade deals on the Washington watch, supported by the dangers of punitive tariffs, will pursue poor countries in China’s arms. Actually, Beijing is giving themZero tariffWhile Congress cannot renewGeneralized System of Preferences,
If it is about “all trade”, then America will have a even bigger fight on its hands. The World Trade Organization does not define what it means. Closest it comesTellIt is “not all trading” but “is much higher than only a few business.”
The Trump administration may ask hard questions, but the US will pits against many with enforcement operations to decide and return the benchmarks – if not all – of their business partners.
Finally, no matter how this complaint is, Brazil cannot address it on its own. Mexico, India and Mercosur sports have skin. This will distract Brazil from other five issues.
Section 301 Brazilian investigation of Trump is large, brash, and is very clever. American exporters need to focus more, clearly defined action is required if they are for profit. No one has more on the line than in the US innovators.
Mark L. Busch Carl F. Landegers are Professors of International Trade Diplomacy at Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
