Donald Trump. Marc Piscotty/Getty Images

The meteoric growth of the US as an economic power with a thriving middle class was founded on the notion of pursuing America’s national interest first. For nearly two centuries, few formal trade agreements were legislated and trade administration was not outsourced to international tribunals. Instead, American policy makers crafted trade policies to advance America’s own priorities.

Yet, over the last 70 years or so, trade policy shifted. Instead of furthering America’s national interest, our approach to trade has been scripted by the thematic headline of “globalization.”

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the modern “globalization” framework of free trade agreements and the international agencies that govern them were actually established to promote US foreign policy interests following World War II, not the interests of America’s domestic economy. Today, these foreign strategic objectives and the policies that advanced them are no longer relevant. The Marshall Plan is ancient history. Bretton Woods collapsed in the early 1970s. There hasn’t been a successful GATT round in over 20 years. The rebuilding of Europe and Japan are long completed. And fear of the Soviet Union is a distant memory.

The world has changed, but globalization’s original architecture has failed to keep pace. As a result, the multi-lateral trade agreements and the massively complex bureaucratic institutions that govern them have become clouded, convoluted and impossible to interpret.

America’s outdated trade architecture is unsettling American workers, who are fed up with what they interpret as elitist rhetoric of professorial cost-benefit analysis. In the face of outsourcing, offshoring and currency manipulations, American workers believe that only foreign countries, major multinational corporations and the wealthiest one percent benefit from current trade policy. The problem is compounded as central banks intervene with negative interest rates and governments accumulate mountains of new debt, while economic growth languishes, real wages stagnate, and inequality rises.

Tom Barrack Trump campaign The depth of confusion is overwhelming even for well-versed experts. Literally hundreds of domestic and international agencies, congressional committees, executive branch trade representatives and legacy institutions shape every trade decision. The need to achieve multilateral consensus makes it far more difficult to advance US interests and dilutes decision making to the “lowest common denominator.”

Add to this an ineffective immigration policy and imported terrorism threatening America and we now have the perfect storm of discontent and fear. America is the largest and most powerful market in the world, but our strength and power are meaningless if we do not use them. Decades of poorly negotiated trade deals have caused irreparable injury to working Americans and sown doubts about our resolve.

America requires a modern policy architecture dictated by our 21st century national interests, not the diplomatic and foreign affair demands of the postwar era. NAFTA, WTO, TPP, TTIP and other recent trade agreements are becoming dinosaurs and the institutions that administer them will stand as the museums that perpetuate them. In its current form, “globalization” will remain a theory and not a reality. We need a new approach to trade agreements that puts our national economic interest first. Suggestions include:

Fortify and Strengthen TPA: Enhancement of TPA would be a major step forward in re-molding and expediting trade policy. President Obama formulated a good predicate which needs re-working. An extension of TPA’s leadership is not an extension of TPP, even though TPA has been treated as a proxy for bad trade deals. Communication with Congress is critical. We must re-initiate better, earlier and more customary Ways and Means and Finance committee hearings on the President’s trade policy agenda.

Enhance TAA: Even though Congress allocates over a billion dollars per year to the TAA program, this spending appears to do little to improve the employment prospects or the wages of displaced workers. TAA’s budget is insufficient and laced with gimmicks, while its eligibility requirements are confusing. This needs to be improved.

Negotiate Bilateral Agreements: America’s interests get swamped when we join multilateral agreements. For those that exist, we must enforce sanctions against nations that violate the terms. But America should favor separate one-on-one arrangements instead. Each nation’s economy is unique, and the US can better advance our interests through bilateral agreements.

No Trade Bureaucracies and Definitive Responsibilities: Trade agreements that transfer economic decision-making to international bureaucracies, whose dictates are at odds with US laws, are bad politics and bad business. That’s the lesson of the Brexit vote, which grew out of frustration with the Brussels elites who increasingly controlled Britain’s destiny. America is the largest consumer in the world and we should control and enforce our own destiny. Trade policy must be simplified and made more transparent and a consolidation of the hundreds of agencies that monitor and address these issues is imperative. Labor, environmental, climate, human rights, and military concerns from home and abroad all weigh into the equation, but they should not.

Soften Geopolitical Agendas to Favor Economic Policy: Today’s trade agreements should be aimed at advancing America’s economic interests, not advancing foreign policy goals. Professional businessmen and expert negotiators should lead negotiations and be supported by political and analytical staff. The USTR should maintain a constant, “advise and consent” relationship with only Congress and the President. Various other government agencies involvement must be secondary.

No Currency Manipulations: The US should pursue trade sanctions against a country that our Treasury deems a manipulator. While concerns over China have receded, the Treasury has identified other countries through rigorous analysis that require deterrence.

Globalization” is an unavoidable force, yet it can be beneficial if honed correctly. Under “globalization’s” current architecture, American workers understandably believe their interests are being compromised in favor of foreign workers, trade bureaucracies, multi-national corporations and the world’s wealthiest one percent. This needs to change. A new approach to trade need not – and should not – trigger a return to Smoot-Hawley protectionism. Instead, the US should use the rich prize of access to our markets in order to negotiate trade agreements that advance the economic interests of Americans up and down the pay scale.

Tom Barrack is an International Financier and an Economic Advisor to the Trump Campaign. He is also the Executive Chairman of Colony Capital, a global investment firm.