I am continually amazed by the apparent need that reporters feel to describe the trade agreements negotiated by the U.S. government as "free trade" agreements. (See the Timesarticle on the Colombian elections for the current target of my wrath.) What possible additional information do reporters and editors believe that they are conveying by including the word "free?"
As I have written elsewhere, these agreements do not free all trade -- there are still substantial obstacles facing Colombian doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who would like to sell their services in the United States. This agreement also increases protectionist barriers by stengthening patent and copyright protection. (Even if you think these protections are good, they are still forms of protection.) So, why don't these reporters just save themselves a word and more accurately describe these pacts as simply "trade agreements."
If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. For over 30 years, The American Prospect has delivered independent reporting that exposes corporate power, investigates political corruption, and analyzes threats to our democracy. Unlike many media outlets, we’re not owned by billionaires or corporations—we’re powered by readers like you.
Today’s independent journalism faces unprecedented challenges. Your support makes our reporting possible and keeps our work free and accessible to all. Whether it’s $5 or $50, every contribution helps sustain our nonprofit newsroom.
Join our community of supporters and make a donation today to help keep independent journalism thriving.
Copyright 2025 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved
