When Donald Trump entered the White House last year, he vowed to rip up existing trade agreements and use his singular deal-making skills to strike new, better deals for the U.S. Such convictions led him to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his third day in office, and to force Canada and Mexico into a contentious round of negotiations regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, which have become so untenable that Canada has resorted to an eleventh-hour hugging campaign. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has soldiered on, agreeing on Tuesday to sign the T.P.P. in March without the U.S.’s participation—a move that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a “victory” for “progressive” trade.

But Team Trump professes to be unbothered. When asked about Trudeau’s comments, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told reporters in Davos that the administration is a fan of “bilateral trading agreements” and that “anyone who wants to do trade on a reciprocal basis [with the U.S.] is free to do it,” which is a bit like hinting that if your high-school crush wants to tolerate your rude, condescending personality, you’ll happily take them to the prom.

Trump’s obsession with bilateral deals is not hard to grok. Multilateral agreements are complex, nuanced, effete. Trump’s brand of deal-making is all about man-to-man dominance, not intricate negotiations between multiple partners. Trade experts, however, view bilateral pacts as something of an anachronism. Last November, longtime trade official Wendy Cutler, who is now the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told The Washington Post that “none of the trading partners, particularly in Asia, seem to be enthused about such a prospect.” Their disinterest likely has something to do with the fact that, as the Brookings Institution’s Ryan Hass commented last year, the Trump administration’s M.O. on trade “doesn’t reflect modern trade patterns,” such as the fact that a smartphone may contain parts from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea that are shipped through China before being exported to the U.S. and Europe.

Trump’s legendary deal-making skills haven’t exactly helped—in March, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was forced to gently explain to Trump, “without exposing [his] ignorance,” that Germany, as a member of that thing called the European Union, is unable to strike its own agreement with the U.S. (The tutorial reportedly went over Trump’s head.) Thus far, no additional agreements appear to be forthcoming . . . when asked on Tuesday for an update on any pending deals, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn had a whole lot of nothing to share:

So where has Trump’s bluster gotten the U.S.? Not only has T.P.P. moved on without us, but Japan is now positioning itself as a free-trade champion that’s more than happy to take on a vacant leadership role. “Now in some parts of the world, there is a move toward protectionism, and I think the T.P.P.-11 is a major engine to overcome such a phenomenon,” Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said on Tuesday, calling the deal “epoch-making for Japan, as well as for the future of the Asia-Pacific region.”

What’s more, many believe that the pact could serve as a blueprint for a new NAFTA deal in the event that the Trump administration torpedoes the current one. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Senior Mexican officials see the T.P.P. agreement as an indication that the free-trade train is rolling forward with regional pacts, with or without the U.S. aboard, as NAFTA is being renegotiated.” If Trump does make good on his threat to withdraw, other countries will likely surge to the forefront, giving “European and Asian exporters . . . preferential access to the Canadian market that U.S. companies would lack.”

While the administration comes up empty-handed on one-on-one agreements, Trump appears to be satisfying himself with punitive trade measures like the solar and washing-machine tariffs, both of which were announced this week. Those, experts have noted, will likely cost U.S. jobs.