Lighthizer urges new US trade order

Robert Lighthizer is calling for the United States to scrap the postwar trade model and build what he calls a “new trade order.” (foreignaffairs.com) In an essay published April 21 in Foreign Affairs, the former U.S. trade representative said the old system should be replaced with rules built around “balance, transparency, and sovereignty.” Inside U.S. trade circles, the piece was quickly read as a blueprint for the next phase of Trump-style trade policy. (foreignaffairs.com) (insidetrade.com) Lighthizer’s blunt line was that “there is no going back.” He argued that trade policy should be judged less by abstract efficiency and more by whether it protects domestic production, limits chronic deficits, and preserves U.S. decision-making power. (insidetrade.com) (ielp.worldtradelaw.net) His case rests heavily on the U.S. trade balance. The Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the U.S. goods trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion in 2024, while the overall goods-and-services deficit reached $918.4 billion. (census.gov) (bea.gov) That deficit data has become a central talking point for Trump allies who argue the United States has accepted too much import dependence and too little industrial leverage. Lighthizer’s essay pushes that view further by treating trade deficits as a structural transfer of wealth and productive capacity abroad. (foreignaffairs.com) (politico.com) The timing matters because Lighthizer’s former chief of staff, Jamieson Greer, is now the U.S. trade representative. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office says Greer is prioritizing “balance and reciprocity,” language that closely tracks Lighthizer’s long-running argument. (ustr.gov) Lighthizer has been making the same case in public appearances for months. In a December 2025 McKinsey interview, he said the global trade system was broken and urged companies to regionalize supply chains and reduce exposure to China. (mckinsey.com) Critics say his framework overstates what trade deficits mean and understates the costs of tariffs. Simon Lester of the International Economic Law and Policy Blog argued this week that Lighthizer focuses too narrowly on goods imbalances and leaves out the role of U.S. budget deficits and consumer demand. (ielp.worldtradelaw.net) What Lighthizer has put on paper is not a narrow tariff defense. It is a case for a trade system in which Washington openly writes rules to favor U.S. production, even if that means more friction with allies and less faith in the old global consensus. (foreignaffairs.com) (insidetrade.com)