Trade causes invasions: this conclusion is supported by the strong positive correlation of trade volume with numbers of established nonindigenous species, empirical studies of species in trade, and the absence of reasonable alternative explanations for such correlations. The causal argument is robust for transportation related pathways (which cause “unintentional” introductions) and especially to commerce in live organisms (“intentional” introductions). Recent advances in bioeconomic risk analysis for intentional introductions demonstrate that risk assessments based on the characteristics of species can provide both environmental and financial benefits. Nevertheless, both industry practices and federal policy allow damages to continue to accumulate in the U.S. To achieve the established U.S. policy goal of preventing introductions of invasive species, industries involved in the plant and animal trades must correctly identify what is being sold and submit to risk assessments before importation occurs. This requires changes to both U.S. Department of Agriculture practices and to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service policy. A review of the history of implementation of the injurious wildlife section of the Lacey Act illustrates the general failure of current U.S. approaches to reducing invasions. As recommended by the recent ESA position paper on invasions, improved policies would incorporate the rapidly advancing techniques of species specific risk assessments.