Tariffs, Trade, and the WDC’s Growing Influence

Avi Krawitz
May 6
3 min read

Updated: 12 hours ago

An intriguing press release arrived in our inboxes Monday from the World Diamond Council (WDC), calling on the US administration to exempt natural diamonds from its proposed tariffs.

The message itself was compelling — but just as noteworthy was the source. The WDC deserves credit for speaking up. Still, why did it do so? Is this kind of trade advocacy within the council’s mandate? (See the statement: “$117 Billion U.S. Jewelry Industry at Risk in Diamond Tariff Review.”

The WDC was established in 2000 to represent the diamond and jewelry industry at the Kimberley Process (KP), with a core mission of preventing conflict diamonds from entering the global supply chain. That remains its primary mandate. But it seems to have broadened its scope in the last few years under the presidency of De Beers executive Feriel Zerouki.

That shift was already evident in the council’s advocacy around the G7’s approach to Russian diamonds — and it resurfaced in Monday’s press release.

Whether by coincidence or coordination, the same day saw the Financial Times publish an article quoting De Beers CEO Al Cook, who echoed the WDC’s call for a tariff exemption.

“The head of the world’s biggest diamond company has expressed his confidence that the US will remove tariffs on the precious stones that he believes are of ‘no benefit’ to the country,” the piece opened, before referencing the WDC’s statement.

This feels a little beyond the WDC’s traditional focus on supply chain integrity, transparency and responsible sourcing. It all suggests a widening of the WDC’s reach into more direct engagement with trade policy.

That’s not necessarily a criticism. If anything, it highlights the absence of clear and coordinated messaging from other industry bodies. The void became particularly evident on April 7 when the Israel Diamond Exchange (IDE) announced it was suspending its membership in the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB), citing the WFDB’s failure to respond meaningfully to the tariff issue. IDE noted it would instead work with the WDC to help address the challenge.

The WDC may ultimately be better positioned to take on that role — not least because it is registered in the United States, unlike the WFDB, which is headquartered in Antwerp. In any case, the WFDB is itself a member of the WDC, further underscoring the council’s positioning as a broader representative of the trade.

Arguably, Jewelers of America (JA) is best positioned to take the lead on this issue. The organization exists to represent the US industry in Washington and has provided guidance on how members can engage — though only accessible through a members-only area of its website. The Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) has also stepped in, offering its own advice to members navigating the potential impact.

Still, the moment raises important questions about the WDC’s evolving role — and whether its agenda is beginning to stretch beyond its original scope.

“The WDC always speaks on behalf of its members, who represent companies and organizations that span the entire natural diamond value chain,” Zerouki noted in response. “The prospect of tariffs by the US government is by far the most important issue facing our members today.”

It’s true that the proposed tariffs have left many in the industry feeling powerless. Given the sweeping nature of the directive — impacting multiple sectors and countries — what, realistically, could be done? The WDC’s leadership has offered welcome direction in this moment of uncertainty.

But as the council moves beyond its core mission, questions of alignment and accountability will inevitably follow. On contentious issues, the WDC’s position may not always reflect the broader industry consensus. Its growing influence demands greater clarity around whose interests it represents — and how far it should go.

Hot Off The Diamond Press