At this week’s OECD ministerial summit in Paris, world trade leaders confronted a sobering reality: the United States, under President Donald Trump’s second term, is doubling down on a unilateral trade strategy, raising doubts about the future of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the multilateral system it represents.
Behind the grand halls of the OECD’s Château de la Muette, the atmosphere among ministers was markedly grim, despite public affirmations of support for global cooperation. According to diplomats in attendance, the U.S. message was blunt: America is prioritizing its trade deficit and asserting its power outside multilateral frameworks. “This is the way the world is going to look, so you better get used to it,” said one diplomat who attended a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
As The Financial Times reported, the gathering marked the first major congregation of trade ministers since Trump’s controversial “liberation day” tariffs were reimposed in April. While some officials hoped the Paris meeting might revitalize efforts to reform the WTO, discussions proved fruitless. When WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala invited ministers to propose specific compromises, none came forward. “We’re really where we were before the meeting, which is nowhere,” one attendee remarked.
Trump’s approach has already sent ripples through the global economy. The OECD warned this week that the ongoing trade war risks pushing global GDP growth to its lowest point since the COVID-19 pandemic. “Weakened economic prospects will be felt around the world, with almost no exception,” said Álvaro Pereira, the OECD’s chief economist, who called for urgent efforts to reduce trade barriers.
Despite these warnings, Washington remains focused on crafting a series of bilateral, nonbinding trade deals, bypassing the WTO entirely. After striking an agreement with the UK in May, the Trump administration has dispatched letters to several countries reminding them that offers to avoid “reciprocal tariffs” must be submitted before the July 9 deadline.
Experts say this tactic undermines the legitimacy of the WTO. “By establishing a series of ‘deals’ that are nonbinding in nature, the U.S. is suggesting that the trading system does not require strong multilateral commitments to function,” said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The WTO, long hailed as the foundation of global trade governance, has seen its influence dwindle. Its dispute settlement mechanism has been virtually paralyzed since 2019 when the U.S. blocked new appointments to its appeals body. Persistent gridlock over fisheries and agricultural subsidy negotiations has only deepened the sense of dysfunction.
Nevertheless, some participants in Paris saw a sliver of hope. Greer’s attendance itself was taken as a signal that the U.S. remains marginally engaged. He also indicated support for extending the WTO’s ecommerce moratorium, which prevents tariffs on digital transactions—a move that some interpreted as a small but meaningful concession.
UK Trade Minister Jonathan Reynolds said the U.S. was effectively forcing the world into a new round of WTO reform talks. “What the U.S. is doing is forcing a WTO round on the world, and using its force to do that,” he told a conference in Brussels the following day.
Costa Rica’s Trade Minister Manuel Tovar Rivera, who chaired the OECD meeting, expressed cautious optimism. “There are signs of good momentum,” he said, noting the significance of Greer’s attendance just days after his Senate confirmation. “I need you in Paris, we need to talk to each other — and he delivered.”
Yet, most trade ministers interviewed by the Financial Times were realistic about the deep divisions that remain. “There are significant differences of opinion, particularly about the role of tariffs,” said Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell. “The organisation can’t stay as it is. It has to change.”
South Africa’s Parks Tau agreed that the U.S. stance, while disruptive, did acknowledge the need for engagement. “The U.S. said, ‘we think the system has been unfair to us and we need to reset, but it doesn’t mean we don’t need a framework of engagement’,” he said. “What that looks like is something that currently we are all guessing at.”
As Paris concludes without consensus, it’s clear the future of global trade governance is at a crossroads. Whether the crisis sparked by Trump’s return to unilateralism will be the shock that finally spurs reform—or the last nail in the WTO’s coffin—remains to be seen.
