Donald Trump’s presidency marked a significant departure from the long-standing US approach toward global trade. Traditionally, the U.S. had positioned itself as a chief architect and guardian of a liberal international economic order rooted in multilateral institutions and free trade. However, Trump’s decision-making in the arena of global commerce, most notably through his “America First” agenda, led to a marked shift in this stance. Rather than upholding the world trade order, his administration’s policies — characterized by protectionism, the imposition of tariffs, the withdrawal from multilateral trade agreements, and an aggressive reorientation of bilateral trade relationships — effectively disrupted, or “unfroze,” the status quo of global trade governance.
One of the most notable moves that epitomized this unfreezing of the world trade order was Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in January 2017, just days after taking office. The TPP had been conceived as a landmark multilateral trade agreement involving 12 Pacific Rim countries, aimed at strengthening economic ties, setting high standards on labor and environmental issues, and countering China’s growing economic clout in the Asia-Pacific region. By pulling out of the TPP, Trump not only disbanded years of U.S.-led negotiations but also signaled a retreat from the global stage in terms of shaping trade norms and rules. This withdrawal left a vacuum in leadership and created uncertainty for other members, many of whom later proceeded with a reworked version of the agreement, the CPTPP, without the U.S.
In tandem with his skepticism toward multilateral agreements, Trump launched an aggressive campaign to renegotiate existing trade deals, arguing that they were skewed against American interests. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) became a primary target. Trump insisted that it had cost American jobs and led to trade deficits, particularly with Mexico. Through tense negotiations, he ultimately replaced NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2020. While USMCA retained many elements of its predecessor, it included updated provisions on digital trade, labor rights, and environmental standards. Nonetheless, the manner in which the renegotiation occurred — marked by threats, brinkmanship, and the use of tariffs as leverage — reflected Trump’s broader approach of disrupting established trade relationships to extract perceived benefits for the U.S.
Nowhere was this combative stance more visible than in the trade war with China. Accusing Beijing of unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and currency manipulation, Trump’s administration imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with its own tariffs on U.S. exports, leading to a tit-for-tat escalation that roiled global markets and created widespread uncertainty in international supply chains. The tariffs affected not just the two largest economies but also had ripple effects throughout the world. Companies were forced to reconfigure supply chains, consumers faced higher prices, and farmers and manufacturers in the U.S. experienced both market losses and government bailout dependency due to reduced exports. Although the Trump administration did reach a “Phase One” trade deal with China in early 2020, many underlying issues remained unresolved, and the broader implications of this conflict underscored a decoupling trend between the U.S. and China — a dramatic departure from decades of deepening economic interdependence.
Trump’s approach also targeted the World Trade Organization (WTO), the cornerstone institution of the post-Cold War multilateral trade regime. The U.S. under Trump increasingly accused the WTO of being ineffective, particularly in handling disputes with China, and obstructed the appointment of judges to its Appellate Body. By paralyzing this critical mechanism, the Trump administration rendered the WTO’s dispute resolution system effectively inoperative. This not only weakened the institution’s credibility but also challenged the rules-based order that had underpinned global trade for decades. The U.S., once a champion of global trade governance, had taken on a more antagonistic role, further destabilizing the very architecture it had helped construct.
Trump’s trade policies were underpinned by a broader ideology of economic nationalism. The premise was straightforward: America had, in Trump’s view, been taken advantage of by trading partners for too long, resulting in job losses, factory closures, and a hollowed-out middle class. His solution was to reject globalism in favor of national sovereignty, fair trade over free trade, and transactional bargaining over institutional commitment. While this narrative resonated with many voters, particularly in Rust Belt states that had suffered from deindustrialization, critics argued that it oversimplified the complex causes of economic decline and overstated the benefits of protectionist policies.
The economic impact of Trump’s trade decisions was mixed and remains the subject of ongoing debate. Some sectors, like steel and aluminum, saw temporary boosts due to protective tariffs. Others, such as agriculture and technology, suffered from retaliatory measures and lost market access. The uncertainty generated by shifting trade policies also caused hesitation in investment planning, particularly among multinational corporations reliant on global supply chains. Furthermore, while the trade deficit with China narrowed somewhat during Trump’s tenure, the overall U.S. trade deficit remained persistent, suggesting that structural imbalances were not easily rectified through unilateral measures.
On the international stage, Trump’s actions prompted a reevaluation of trade alignments. Traditional allies such as the European Union and Canada responded to U.S. tariffs with retaliatory measures of their own. Moreover, as the U.S. stepped back from multilateral engagement, other powers — notably China and the EU — sought to fill the leadership void. The EU pursued new trade agreements with countries like Japan and Mercosur, while China advanced initiatives like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which included many of the nations originally involved in the TPP. These developments signaled a potential shift toward a more multipolar trade landscape, with the U.S. no longer occupying its once-dominant position.
Trump’s unfreezing of the world trade order, while disruptive, also exposed some of the genuine shortcomings of the pre-existing system. Critics of globalization had long pointed to issues such as labor displacement, environmental degradation, and the exploitation of loopholes by authoritarian regimes. By challenging the orthodoxy of free trade, Trump opened space for a more nuanced discussion about how global commerce should evolve in a way that is both economically beneficial and socially equitable. Some of the ideas introduced — like re-shoring critical industries, reducing dependence on strategic rivals, and reforming international institutions — have since been echoed by policymakers across the political spectrum, including his successor.
Yet, the manner in which Trump pursued these changes — often unilateral, confrontational, and lacking in long-term strategic coherence — arguably did more harm than good to U.S. credibility and influence. Allies found it difficult to coordinate with an unpredictable partner, while rivals took advantage of the U.S.’s inward turn. The erosion of trust in multilateralism and the weakening of institutions like the WTO have had lasting effects, even as the Biden administration has tried to re-engage with allies and rebuild a rules-based trading order.
In essence, Trump’s presidency did not so much destroy the world trade order as it did thaw its seemingly frozen architecture, shaking long-held assumptions and exposing both strengths and vulnerabilities. The unfreezing created space for rethinking trade norms and priorities but also introduced volatility and fragmentation. While the future of global trade remains uncertain, one thing is clear: the Trump era marked a turning point in how the United States, and by extension the world, conceives of and conducts international economic relations.
Leave a Reply