The U.S. Executive Order to Leave the OECD: Implications and Impacts for Global Trade and Taxation

On January 22, 2025, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order that has sent ripples across the global economic landscape. The order announced the United States’ withdrawal from the OECD’s global tax deal, a groundbreaking initiative designed to address tax challenges in the digital economy and establish a minimum global corporate tax rate. This departure marks a significant shift in U.S. trade and tax policy, aligning with Trump’s “America First” agenda, which prioritises bilateral agreements and national sovereignty over multilateral frameworks.

The OECD’s global tax deal, often referred to as BEPS 2.0, was a monumental step in creating a more unified and equitable international tax system. Its two pillars aimed to address the taxation of digital services and to implement a global minimum tax rate of 15%, ensuring multinationals paid a fair share of taxes regardless of their operating jurisdictions. By rejecting this framework, the U.S. has set the stage for a fragmented and potentially contentious global tax environment.

What the Executive Order Means for Global Trade

The U.S. withdrawal from the OECD tax deal significantly disrupts the fragile consensus that was painstakingly negotiated by over 140 countries. This consensus was not just about taxation; it symbolised a shared commitment to addressing global economic inequalities in a digitalised world. The U.S. exit undermines this cooperation, creating uncertainties that could reshape international trade dynamics for years to come.

The immediate impact is an increased risk of trade disputes. Countries like France, which already have digital services taxes (DSTs), may feel emboldened to expand these measures, particularly targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Apple. Without a multilateral agreement to regulate such actions, unilateral tax policies could proliferate, leading to retaliatory trade tariffs and further economic fragmentation.

Moreover, the U.S.’s decision to prioritise bilateral trade agreements over multilateral frameworks introduces a degree of unpredictability. Smaller nations may find it challenging to negotiate favourable terms with an economic powerhouse like the United States, potentially exacerbating global economic inequalities. This approach could also weaken international institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), which rely on collective efforts to address trade and tax disputes.

Implications for U.S. Multinationals Operating Abroad

U.S. multinationals are among the biggest stakeholders in this unfolding scenario. The withdrawal from the OECD framework leaves these companies vulnerable to fragmented tax policies and increased compliance burdens. For instance, under the OECD’s two-pillar approach, U.S. multinationals would have benefited from a streamlined tax system that allocated profits to jurisdictions where they generated revenue. Without this framework, companies now face the risk of double taxation and inconsistent rules across different countries.

Take, for example, a U.S.-based tech giant like Microsoft, which operates extensively in the European Union. The EU has already been at the forefront of implementing DSTs, and the U.S. withdrawal from the OECD deal could prompt European nations to expand these taxes further. Microsoft might find itself taxed on digital services revenue in multiple EU countries, leading to a significant increase in its overall tax burden. This could also result in higher compliance costs, as the company would need to navigate a patchwork of national tax rules rather than adhering to a single global standard.

Additionally, U.S. multinationals may face market access challenges. Countries that adhere to the OECD framework could impose stricter rules or deny certain benefits to U.S.-based firms, potentially eroding their competitive edge. For instance, a U.S. pharmaceutical company exporting to Europe might face delayed regulatory approvals or additional scrutiny due to the perceived lack of U.S. commitment to global tax standards.

Implications for Non-U.S. Multinationals Operating in the U.S.

The executive order also has profound implications for foreign multinationals with operations in the United States. These companies now face the prospect of navigating a tax environment that is increasingly divergent from global norms. The U.S. government’s decision to reject the global minimum tax rate could lead to the introduction of tax policies designed to favour domestic businesses, putting foreign competitors at a disadvantage.

Consider a Japanese car manufacturer like Toyota, which has significant investments in the United States. The withdrawal from the OECD framework could prompt the U.S. to introduce protectionist policies, such as higher tariffs on imported vehicles or tax incentives that favour American manufacturers. Toyota might find its U.S. market share shrinking as a result of these measures, potentially forcing the company to rethink its investment strategy in the region.

Additionally, the lack of alignment with OECD principles increases regulatory uncertainty. Non-U.S. multinationals may struggle to plan long-term investments in the United States, given the unpredictable nature of tax policy changes. This uncertainty could deter foreign direct investment, undermining the U.S.’s position as a global economic leader.

Broader Impacts on International Taxation

The U.S. withdrawal from the OECD tax deal does not just affect trade; it fundamentally alters the trajectory of international taxation. The OECD’s two-pillar framework was designed to address the challenges of taxing digitalised economies and ensure a level playing field for all nations. By stepping away from this agreement, the U.S. risks fostering a fragmented tax environment where individual countries pursue their own interests rather than working towards a unified solution.

One significant consequence is the potential rise of regional tax frameworks. For example, the European Union may strengthen its tax directives to address the gap left by the U.S. withdrawal, creating a framework that prioritises EU member states’ interests. Similarly, developing economies in Africa and Asia might turn to the UN Model Tax Convention, which places greater emphasis on source-based taxation, to address their revenue needs.

The absence of U.S. participation also increases the likelihood of cross-border tax disputes. As countries implement unilateral tax measures to protect their interests, the risk of double taxation and legal conflicts rises. For instance, a U.S. tech company operating in India might face higher corporate tax rates under India’s domestic laws, while also being taxed on the same income in the United States. Without a multilateral agreement to resolve such disputes, these conflicts could escalate, creating significant challenges for multinationals.

Regional Considerations

The impact of the U.S. withdrawal varies across regions. The EU is likely to double down on its tax directives, using the absence of U.S. competition to strengthen its influence. African nations, which have long advocated for source-based taxation, may pivot towards the UN Model, aligning with their revenue needs. Meanwhile, Asian economies face a balancing act, maintaining ties with the U.S. while adhering to OECD principles to remain competitive in global markets.

Related Articles

Czech Republic vs RR Donnelley Transfer Pricing Case

The case Czech Republic vs. RR Donnelley Czech s.r.o. revolved around a transfer pricing dispute concerning the application of Section 23(7) of the Czech Income Tax Act (ITA). The core issue was whether RR Donnelley Czech s.r.o. had correctly applied the arm’s length principle in a transaction involving the purchase of hard disk drives (HDDs) on behalf of Banta Ireland, a related entity.