H.J. Res. 93 would withdraw the United States' approval of the World Trade Organization Agreement, as defined in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
The resolution does not itself alter other U.S. laws but, if enacted, would revoke the approval that enables U.S. participation in WTO rules and dispute settlement. Because the WTO Agreement governs trade disciplines, withdrawal would shift U.S. trade policy toward unilateral and potentially bilateral approaches and could affect tariff commitments, market access terms, and the stability of international trade relationships.
At a Glance
What It Does
The measure explicitly withdraws U.S. approval of the WTO Agreement as defined in URAA Section 2(9), using the authority of URAA Section 101(a). The action is a single operative clause that, if enacted, ends U.S. approval of WTO obligations under the URA.
Who It Affects
The action would affect USTR and other federal trade agencies responsible for implementing WTO commitments, U.S. exporters and importers who rely on WTO rules, U.S. trading partners, and lawmakers who oversee trade policy.
Why It Matters
This marks a fundamental shift in U.S. trade posture, signaling a move away from multilateral rules toward unilateral or bilateral arrangements and potentially altering how disputes are resolved and market access is governed.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill does one thing: withdraw the United States’ approval of the World Trade Organization Agreement as defined in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. It uses the URAA’s sections to anchor the withdrawal in law, and if enacted, would terminate the U.S.’s commitments under the WTO Agreement.
The effect would be a reorientation of U.S. trade policy away from multilateral obligations toward more unilateral or bilateral approaches. The immediate legal consequence is that the United States would no longer be bound by the WTO framework as it currently operates for the WTO Agreement, with downstream implications for dispute settlement, tariff discipline, and market access terms.
Implementing this withdrawal would likely require follow-on policy steps by the Executive Branch and Congress to manage relations with trading partners and to realign domestic laws that currently reflect WTO duties. Finally, the move could provoke changes in how other countries view and interact with U.S. trade policies, potentially affecting tariff levels, export controls, and resolve-to-relate mechanisms in ongoing or future trade negotiations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill withdraws the United States' approval of the WTO Agreement under URAA Sec 101(a).
The operative authority is the WTO Agreement as defined in URA Sec 2(9).
Withdrawal would remove U.S. obligations under the WTO framework unless Congress acts again to restore them.
The action would reshape the risk and structure of U.S. trade policy toward unilateral or bilateral tools.
Introduced on April 10, 2025 in the 119th Congress by Rep. Tom Tiffany and presently at the introduced stage.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Withdrawal of WTO Agreement approval
This section provides that Congress withdraws its approval of the WTO Agreement, defined in URAA Sec 2(9), as provided under URAA Sec 101(a). The practical effect is to terminate the United States’ approval to be bound by the WTO Agreement’s disciplines and dispute mechanisms. The subsection is the sole operative provision of the joint resolution, and its enactment would alter the basis for U.S. participation in multilateral trade rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Trade across all five countries.
Explore Trade in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Congress as the policymaking body gains clear authority to orient U.S. trade policy away from multilateral commitments.
- Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and related trade agencies gain policy flexibility to pursue non-WTO or bilateral approaches without a WTO framework.
- Sectors favoring unilateral flexibility could benefit from potential freedom to adjust tariffs, quotas, or other measures outside WTO constraints.
- Trade policy analysts and legal counsel gain clarity in the posture and potential avenues for renegotiation or new deals.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. exporters and importers facing greater regulatory and market-access uncertainty under a less predictable, non-WTO regime.
- Foreign trading partners accustomed to the WTO dispute-settlement system may face less predictable U.S. responses and greater friction in dispute resolution.
- Federal agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing trade policy could incur higher administrative burdens and transitional costs as policies shift.
- U.S. consumers and supply chains could experience price volatility or access changes due to potential shifts in tariff and trade practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the United States should preserve a predictable, multilateral rules-based system by remaining in the WTO framework or regain greater unilateral flexibility at the cost of multilateral stability and predictable trade relationships.
The withdrawal of U.S. WTO obligations creates a significant tension between restoring unilateral policy flexibility and preserving the stability of a rules-based global trade system. The bill does not specify transitional mechanisms or how existing WTO-related disputes or commitments would be handled post-withdrawal, leaving a broad policy space for future action.
Critical implementation questions include how to address pending or potential disputes, how remaining domestic laws would interact with the new posture, and how to manage bilateral negotiations that may replace multilateral rules. The broader consequence is a shift in the international trading environment, where partners will recalibrate their expectations, retaliatory dynamics could emerge, and the United States would need a coherent, unilateral strategy to manage market access and compliance moving forward.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.