Is Trump's trade agenda the breaking point for WTO?

In early 2025, world leaders gathered in Geneva to mark the 30th anniversary of the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala emphasised the WTO’s enduring role in fostering predictability in global trade, particularly at a time when protectionist policies and geopolitical tensions are straining the global economy. The event highlighted not only the WTO’s legacy but also its current existential challenges.

The uncertainty referenced by Okonjo-Iweala stems largely from US President Donald Trump’s recent reimposition of sweeping tariffs, dubbed “Liberation Day” tariffs, which include a 10 per cent blanket duty on all US imports and “reciprocal tariffs” targeting specific countries.

These protectionist measures, the most aggressive by the US since the 1930s, have triggered retaliatory tariffs, disrupted supply chains, and, according to an article by Al Jazeera, also sparked new disputes within the WTO—raising the effective US tariff rate to historic highs.

The WTO was founded in 1995 to liberalise global trade and replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Over time, it also became part of the so-called “Washington Consensus,” which promoted privatisation, trade liberalisation, and balanced budgets across the developing world. But the WTO has long faced criticism—from workers in the West angered by job losses to developing nations frustrated by rules they see as biased toward wealthier countries.

Trump has amplified this criticism by arguing that the WTO undermines American workers and allows China, in particular, to benefit unfairly. He has pointed to China’s $7 trillion trade surplus since joining the WTO in 2001 and accused Beijing of exploiting “special and differential treatment” as a developing country.

While China claims compliance with WTO rules, critics argue it uses subsidies, quotas, and other tools to distort global trade. Trump’s tariffs and anti-WTO rhetoric have placed enormous strain on the institution’s credibility.

WTO's long trail of opposing voices

But the publication recalls that opposition to the WTO long predates Trump. In 1999, massive protests erupted in Seattle in light of a WTO ministerial meeting hosted in the US coastal city. Tens of thousands of demonstrators—trade unionists, NGOs, farmers, and activists—voiced opposition to corporate influence, environmental degradation, and labour exploitation linked to global trade rules. Many argued that WTO agreements prioritised multinational corporations like Nike and Microsoft while undermining protections for workers and the environment.

According to the article, TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) has been one of the most controversial WTO agreements, which made intellectual property globally enforceable. Critics say it entrenched Northern pharmaceutical monopolies and blocked developing countries from accessing key technologies and medicines.

At the same time, wealthy nations have continued to subsidise their own agriculture and manufacturing sectors, disadvantaging poorer countries. Economists like Jayati Ghosh argue that developing nations have had little room to protect “infant industries,” despite the fact that rich countries historically grew their economies through protectionism.

This double standard has left many developing countries disillusioned. The WTO, designed as a neutral platform to resolve trade disputes and enforce rules, is now increasingly seen as failing both North and South.

The United States, once its chief architect, has undermined the dispute resolution mechanism by blocking new appointments to the Appellate Body. As a result, countries now find it easier to violate WTO rules without facing legal consequences.

In 2022, the WTO ruled that Trump’s earlier tariffs on steel and aluminium violated its rules. The Biden administration rejected the ruling and refused to reverse the duties, signalling bipartisan US resistance to WTO authority. With unresolved appeals piling up and enforcement weakening, Al Jazeera warns that the future of the rules-based trading system is in jeopardy.

While some hope for reforms that would better balance the interests of both developed and developing countries, the article notes how deep geopolitical rifts and a lack of US leadership cast doubt on meaningful change. Until a more stable multipolar world emerges, the article suggest the WTO may “limp along”—far removed from its original vision as a driver of global economic cooperation.

By Nazrin Sadigova