16 June 2025, NIICE Commentary 11290
Dr. Md. Abdul Latif & Shirin Sultana
President Donald Trump’s updated “America First” strategy, known as Trumpeconomics 2.0, extends well beyond tariffs and subsidies. It transforms allies into adversaries, diminishes the role of multilateral institutions, and treats global public goods as bargaining chips for domestic gains. This inward shift conflicts with the post-1945 principle of shared responsibility, which asserts that nations must collaboratively safeguard collective goods like climate stability, public health, peace, and inclusive prosperity. This principle expects major emitters to shoulder more climate costs, wealthy creditors to alleviate debt burdens, and the United States to maintain stable trade rules—essential elements for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. By reaping the rewards of leadership while offloading responsibilities to others, Trumpeconomics 2.0 challenges all aspects of this agreement.
This op-ed examines the limits of the international system under strain and assesses the tools Washington may utilize for immediate domestic benefit, along with their potential repercussions for climate finance, debt sustainability, and global governance.
Core Objectives of Trumpeconomics 2.0
Trumpeconomics 2.0 emphasizes national sovereignty over global efficiency, leveraging tariffs for revenue, selective decoupling, and domestic resource expansion to stimulate growth and security through a populist perspective. Its goal of reshoring production and advancing a "Make It in America" initiative aims to build a strong industrial base and enhance U.S. competitiveness. This policy seeks to decrease the merchandise trade deficit, which reached $1.2 trillion in 2024, especially in sectors like electronics, machinery, and vehicles. It prioritizes economic security by reducing reliance on China via stricter export controls, investment screenings, and procurement bans in high-tech and critical minerals. Furthermore, it supports increased fossil fuel production and infrastructure to lower domestic energy prices, boost oil and gas exports, and reduce OPEC and Russia's geopolitical influence. Lastly, it promotes renegotiating "better deals" by wielding economic power for broader geopolitical aims.
Global Shared Responsibility
The saying "shared world, shared responsibility" highlights that existential risks and opportunities are inherently global. Global shared responsibility entails that countries, institutions, communities, and individuals collectively bear ethical and practical obligations for cross-border issues like climate change, pandemics, financial stability, and the management of shared resources such as oceans, the atmosphere, and outer space. These challenges are interlinked, and a commitment to shared responsibility arises from enlightened self-interest rather than mere altruism. In our increasingly interconnected world, global shared responsibility is both a moral and practical imperative. Unilateral actions are inadequate; effective collaboration relies on the “weakest link.” Such cooperation fosters resilience, prosperity, and security unattainable by any single nation. This concept often requires balancing the interests and capabilities of various countries: developing nations may need greater flexibility and support in implementing global agreements, while developed nations might assume a larger share of financial responsibilities. Therefore, obligations should be allocated based on capacity, contribution to the issues, and benefits derived from solutions, in accordance with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” established in international environmental law.
How Trumpeconomics 2.0 Challenges Global Shared Responsibility
By dismantling critical environmental protections, Trumpeconomics 2.0 externalizes the true costs of economic growth onto the global commons, impacting vital elements like the carbon budget, shared water resources, and transboundary air quality, thereby jeopardizing the collective responsibility paradigm central to contemporary climate, biodiversity, and pollution treaties.
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
The United States, the largest historical contributor to carbon dioxide emissions, currently accounts for about 11% of global greenhouse gases, according to reports from National Public Radio (NPR) and Deutsche Welle (DW). This comes amid extreme environmental events, including significant wildfires in Los Angeles and destructive hurricanes across Florida and North Carolina, set against the backdrop of the hottest year on record.
A key element of Trumpeconomics 2.0 is the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which alters the country's commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Accord aimed to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and strive for a cap of 1.5 degrees—crucial targets for mitigating climate change impacts. By withdrawing, the U.S. essentially nullifies its obligation to meet Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), vital for global climate efforts.
This decision sends a concerning message to other nations, possibly leading them to reassess and lower their own climate commitments. It reduces pressure on major emitters like China to strengthen their reduction efforts and raises global discount rates for low-carbon technology investments, as fluctuating U.S. policies create uncertainty for investors.
Discontinuation with WHO
Financially, the United States has historically been the largest contributor to the World Health Organization (WHO), donating approximately $1.284 billion during the 2022–2023 biennium. However, following the beginning of Trump’s second term, directives were issued for the CDC to halt collaboration and communication with the WHO. Notably, withdrawal from the WHO requires a one-year notice, highlighting the seriousness of this decision. The WHO is essential for detecting, monitoring, and responding to emerging health threats, covering not only infectious diseases but also various health issues critical to improving global health outcomes, including vaccine development and essential drug distribution.
Withdrawing from the WHO could impose significant costs on both the American public and the global community. The repercussions extend beyond financial contributions, posing serious risks to U.S. security and long-term economic and political stability. A reduced role in global health governance could impair the country's ability to manage international health crises, increasing vulnerability to outbreaks that may affect the U.S. population. Furthermore, this withdrawal would likely strain the global community. Collaborative health initiatives are vital for addressing challenges such as pandemic preparedness, vaccine distribution, and health threat monitoring. Ultimately, reduced international health cooperation and resources may lead to poorer health outcomes for both Americans and people worldwide.
Paused Contribution to WTO
The United States has halted its contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO), as reported by trade sources to Reuters. This decision aligns with the Trump administration's push to reduce government spending. The U.S. was anticipated to contribute about 11% of the WTO's $232.06 million budget for 2024, based on its share of global trade. The Office of the Secretary of State is reviewing U.S. funding for all international organizations, with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) collaborating with the State Department on WTO matters. This evaluation follows President Trump’s imposition of 25% tariffs on most imports from Canada and Mexico, creating uncertainty about the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) ahead of its renewal in July 2026.
These developments significantly impact multinational corporations that depend on stable trade regulations and reliable dispute resolution. The uncertainty around U.S. contributions and tariff policies heightens the risk of supply chain disruptions, as tariffs and non-tariff barriers can change suddenly. The lack of structured dispute resolution mechanisms and the unpredictable imposition of tariffs have caused tangible financial losses for businesses in volatile environments.
The "America First" strategy of Trumpeconomics 2.0 is viewed as a withdrawal from international cooperation. Unilateral exits from multilateral institutions indicate a shift away from established global trade norms, often prompting reciprocal actions from trading partners and straining diplomatic ties. This trend weakens international collaboration, essential for addressing global security and humanitarian issues. Furthermore, focusing on domestic priorities may lead to neglect of humanitarian obligations and reduced participation in international aid. While prioritizing national interests might offer short-term benefits, long-term disengagement from global trade frameworks could hinder U.S. economic growth and diminish its capacity to influence international trade standards. Ultimately, the pause in WTO contributions heightens tensions and uncertainty in a global trading system that requires collaboration and trust among nations.
Conclusion
By focusing on immediate domestic concerns—like tariff revenue, fossil-fuel jobs, and symbolic displays of sovereignty—the proposed agenda distorts principles of fair burden-sharing and shared responsibility into a zero-sum game. This shift undermines the idea that nations should act as co-trustees of the global commons. If Trumpeconomics 2.0 is fully enacted, it would weaken the world's ability to effectively address crucial issues such as climate change, public health, trade, and debt relief when interdependence is most critical.
Sustainable sovereignty requires proactive use of national power to support systems that protect both the commons and national interests, rather than retreating behind tariff barriers or unilaterally exiting international agreements. Collaborative engagement on global challenges not only stabilizes the international order but also enhances domestic welfare, creating a cycle of mutual benefit. In our interconnected world, true strength lies in fostering cooperative relationships to tackle shared challenges, ensuring a secure future for both the nation and the global community.
Dr. Md. Abdul Latif is the Additional Director at Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management (BIGM), Bangladesh, & a Global Ambassador & ADB-JSP Scholar & Shirin Sultana is a Research Associate at the Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management (BIGM), Bangldesh.
