There are signs of the downfall of the old system of international economic relations.
After Donald Trump’s inauguration as 47th president of the United States in January 2025, rumors began to spread about a possible US withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This happened amid the refusal of the US leadership from further participation in the World Health Organization.
In April 2025, a joint resolution on the US ‘WTO withdrawal measure’ was introduced in the House of Representatives of the US Congress.
In March, the United States suspended financial contributions to the WTO, which caused concern among leaders of other countries and economists around the world. The budget of the WTO, based in Geneva, Switzerland, was 205 million Swiss francs ($232.1 million) at the beginning of 2025. The United States was supposed to provide about 11% of the budget, tied to its share in world trade.
Even earlier, economists of neoliberal stock had expressed concerns that the WTO would soon come to an end, as the world’s major economies could well withdraw from the organization.
Back in 2016, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the question was raised about whether the United States could exit from the WTO and what this could lead to.
If one pays attention to the dates of the peaks of such anxiety, it is easy to notice that they are associated with Donald Trump’s entry into the White House. And if this failed to get achieved during his first term, now it is more realistic. Moreover, the introduction of his tariffs does not comply with WTO rules.
Although under Biden, the United States also talked about the crisis of this organization, which was associated with a drop in global trade index due to the coronavirus pandemic, they hoped for its recovery.
Timely, the previous WTO’s stagnation has coincided with the rise of regional trade agreements (RTAs), such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
However, now the rhetoric that the WTO is outdated and does not meet modern realities is becoming stronger in the United States. Moreover, the US State Department and the White House said that Beijing is using the WTO to undermine US economic interests. Therefore, it would be logical to walk out from this organization and follow their own rules, which is what Trump is doing now, based on his slogan “America first.”
Indeed, China has repeatedly filed lawsuits against the United States through the WTO, pointing to Washington’s violations of the rules of this organization. In 2023, it was noted that “the excessive violation of WTO rules by the US and its trampling on free trade, has already posed severe damage to the normal global order, harming world peace and stability. That has also harmed the reputation of the US itself, as countries around the world, especially developing economies, all want fairness and just and rebut hegemonism… If the US expects to change world trade rules, it should resort to negotiations and respect interests of others, instead of bypassing the multilateral system and forcing rules that cater only to its own interests onto others.”
Washington–based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) pointed out that “China’s status as a “developing” country has likewise heightened tensions within the WTO. About two-thirds of all WTO members, including China, designate themselves as developing economies in order to receive “special and differential treatment.” This provides developing members with several benefits, such as extended windows for implementing WTO commitments and assistance with handling disputes and technical matters. Several advanced economies have pushed back against China’s self-designation as a developing country. In February 2019, the US proposed reforms to the WTO that would create stricter eligibility requirements for this designation. China responded by teaming up with India and seven other developing members to refute the US proposal and voice support for the WTO’s practice of allowing members to self-designate their status.”
In fact, this suggests that the WTO has become the platform where most countries have found the opportunity to exert pressure on both the United States and other states from the Group of Seven (G7). This is confirmed by the actions of Brazil, which in August 2025 also filed a lawsuit with the WTO against the United States over the introduction of 50% of tariffs.
What can this lead to? American experts have previously noted that the consequences of the US withdrawal from the WTO may be as follows:
Economic Impact: Advocates argue that withdrawal would enable the U.S. to impose tariffs more freely, ostensibly protecting American industries from foreign competition. Conversely, critics warn of potential retaliatory tariffs from other nations, which could harm U.S. exporters and drive up consumer prices.
Trade Relationships: The U.S. has built extensive trade relationships through WTO agreements. Withdrawal could jeopardize these ties, leading to decreased foreign investment as the U.S. might appear less attractive to international businesses.
Global Trade Dynamics: The U.S. plays a crucial role in global trade; its withdrawal could shift the balance of power in international negotiations. Other nations may strengthen their trade agreements without U.S. involvement, undermining America’s influence.
Legal Ramifications: The WTO provides a legal framework for resolving trade disputes. Without these protections, American companies may struggle to navigate international trade conflicts effectively.
In other words, the WTO’s dysfunction is hitting the international trade system that the United States itself has been building. And although Donald Trump is trying to compensate for changes in the market with harsh tariff measures, this approach is unlikely to be in Washington’s favor in the long run. Because this creates another crisis of confidence in the United States and will accelerate the processes of de-dollarization and the search for various alternatives in international economic relations.
Michael Froman, President of the influential globalist organization the Council on Foreign Relations, sums it up:
“The global trading system as we have known it is dead. The World Trade Organization has effectively ceased to function, as it fails to negotiate, monitor, or enforce member commitments. Fundamental principles such as “most favored nation” status, or MFN, which requires WTO members to treat one another equally except when they have negotiated free-trade agreements, are being jettisoned as Washington threatens or imposes tariffs ranging from ten to more than 50 percent on dozens of countries. Both the “America first” trade strategy and China’s analogous “dual circulation” and Made in China 2025 strategies reflect a flagrant disregard for any semblance of a rules-based system and a clear preference for a power-based system to take its place. Even if pieces of the old order manage to survive, the damage is done: there is no going back…
If Washington continues on its current course—defined by unilateralism, transactionalism, and mercantilism—the consequences will be grim, especially as Beijing continues on its own damaging course of subsidized excess capacity, predatory export policies, and economic coercion. The risk of the United States and China playing by their own rules, with power the only real constraint, is contagion: if the two largest economies in the world operate outside the rules-based system, other countries will increasingly do the same, leading to rising uncertainty, drags on productivity, and lower overall growth.”
Froman urges to prepare for serious upheavals. And not only for the global economy, but, first of all, for the United States itself, which has received significant privileges from the WTO over the past 30 years. And if the proponents of neoliberal globalism are so pessimistic about this structure, according to the principle of reverse logic, the collapse of the WTO can be useful with an approach that focuses on regional development, that is, with a course towards multipolarity.
As for Russia, given the sanctions imposed by the collective West, Moscow should not be particularly concerned about the WTO’s declining role and possible termination. Within the framework of BRICS and other organizations, Russia is more interested in developing a new system with equal opportunities for all players and without the exclusive influence of any one force.
However, with the collapse of the WTO, a more important question arises – what will happen to the UN, which has also been in an institutional crisis for many years? Perhaps it is time to think not only about the deep reform of this organization (this issue is also regularly raised, especially by countries that are not permanent members of the UN Security Council), but also the development of a new platform for conducting joint affairs of world politics based on a plurinversal approach and respect for all parties.
Comments