Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently spoke about the challenges Europe faces in trade negotiations with the United States. During an interview with Bloomberg TV, he pointed out that the European Union struggles with a “collective action” problem. This means that with 27 member countries, each having their own interests and priorities, reaching a consensus on trade can be very difficult.
Bessent highlighted that this situation is not just a criticism of the EU but reflects a larger geopolitical issue. He suggested that President Trump’s recent threat of a 50 percent tariff on EU imports might actually push Europe to act more decisively. By increasing the stakes, Trump’s approach could create a sense of urgency that Europe needs to start serious negotiations.
Bessent believes that the slow pace of the EU’s decision-making has led to a crisis of governance. Many countries within the EU may not even be aware of what is being proposed in their name. He sees Trump’s tariffs as a way to force European leaders to confront these issues head-on.
While many critics view Trump’s tariffs as reckless, Bessent argues that they serve as a credible ultimatum. The real problem for Europe isn’t a lack of interest in trade but rather its complicated decision-making structure. By imposing a deadline and potential consequences, Trump’s strategy could help clarify what needs to be done.
In a separate but related issue, Trump also made headlines by announcing that Harvard University would lose its authority to grant visas to international students. This decision has sparked a debate about the increasing number of foreign students at elite U.S. universities and the impact on American students. Critics argue that as international enrollment rises, American students are being pushed aside.
At Harvard, the share of international undergraduates has jumped from 7 percent to 18 percent over the past two decades, all while the total class size has remained the same. This means that for every foreign student admitted, an American student was likely turned away. Critics emphasize that this isn’t just about immigration; it’s about how universities are prioritizing revenue over fairness in admissions.
Defenders of the current system argue that international students pay higher tuition, which helps subsidize costs for domestic students. However, critics challenge this claim, suggesting that the additional revenue does not lead to lower prices for American students. They see this as a form of price discrimination where universities profit from international students while ignoring the impact on local students.
In summary, both of these issues reflect broader themes of governance, fairness, and economic strategy. Whether it’s trade negotiations or university admissions, the stakes are high, and the decisions made now could have lasting consequences.