UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVE

American media cover MC14 with limited interest, multilateral trade no longer being a Washington priority under the Trump administration favoring bilateral deals. The Wall Street Journal notes that the United States observes the conference without strong commitment, having not implemented its own carbon border adjustment mechanism. The article highlights the paradox: Washington criticizes European CBAM as protectionist while imposing its own steel and aluminum tariffs.

The New York Times offers broader framing, presenting MC14 as a test of whether the multilateral trade system can survive the geopolitical rivalries era. The Washington Post emphasizes African voices and notes that holding the conference in Yaoundé is symbolically important—the first MC on African soil—but that real power remains in Geneva, Brussels, and Washington.

CNN briefly covers the subject, framing it within US-China competition: China is using CBAM opposition to strengthen Global South influence. Fox News largely ignores the event, multilateral trade being a non-issue for its electoral base. The bipartisan reading is less structuring than usual—multilateral commerce is a niche topic in the United States.