Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the current free-trade system should be discarded in favor of a new trade order [1].
This proposal suggests a fundamental shift in how the United States engages with global markets. By moving away from traditional free-trade agreements, the U.S. could prioritize national sovereignty and domestic industrial health over the unrestricted flow of goods and services.
Speaking in an interview for "The Foreign Affairs Interview" series, Lighthizer said the existing regime is unbalanced [1]. He said that the current framework lacks the transparency necessary for fair competition and fails to protect the interests of the American workforce [1, 2].
Lighthizer's vision for a replacement system focuses on three primary pillars: balance, sovereignty, and transparency [1]. He said the current model undermines the ability of the U.S. government to control its own economic destiny—a dynamic he believes must be corrected to ensure long-term stability [1, 2].
According to Lighthizer, the shift is not merely about adjusting tariffs but about scrapping the underlying philosophy of the free-trade era [1]. He said the new order should allow for more flexible, bilateral arrangements that can be adjusted based on the actual behavior of trading partners [1].
This perspective aligns with a broader movement toward economic nationalism. Lighthizer said that transparency in trade practices is essential to prevent other nations from using unfair subsidies or state-directed economic policies to gain an advantage [1, 2].
His call for a new order reflects a belief that the global economic architecture created in the late 20th century is no longer compatible with the geopolitical realities of today [1].
“The current free-trade system should be discarded”
Lighthizer's advocacy for a new trade order signals a move away from the neoliberal consensus that dominated global economics for decades. If implemented, this approach would likely lead to an increase in protectionist measures and a preference for bilateral deals over multilateral agreements, potentially increasing volatility in global supply chains while giving the U.S. more leverage in diplomatic negotiations.
