This chapter examines the failure of the Doha Round and the ongoing debates about WTO reform, with a particular focus on the Dispute Settlement Understanding. The author critiques the dominant literature that frames WTO law as a constitutional experiment in international economic relations. To support this critique, the author highlights WTO law’s inability to address “constitutional crises” due to the absence of an “original power” or its equivalent, an essential feature of modern constitutionalism. In times of crisis, resolutions must come from outside the organization, driven by the actions of its most powerful members. The argument concludes with an analysis of the Obama administration’s trade policy, specifically its preference for plurilateral agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. By emphasizing the geopolitical motivations behind these initiatives, this chapter underscores the irony of the United States’ role in shaping its relationship with the multilateral trade regime.