The reform of subsidy rules has been an important issue in WTO reform. However, due to the diff erent positions of the members, it is diffi cult to reach a consensus, and the reform is still in delay. In order to satisfy their own interests, the Europe Union and the United States have successively realized the expansion of the application in the fi eld of countervailing subsidies through two paths including interpretation and creation of rules. Through the path of interpretation based on behavioral attribution, the EU and the US aim to transform the behavioral pattern of subsidies, break through the geographical restriction of subsidy provision, and thus make the regulation of transnational subsidies close to the traditional countervailing path shaped by the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Through institutional expansion based on rule transplantation, in reference to the traditional path, the EU has unilaterally created the Foreign Subsidies Regulation by integrating the State Aid Control System, while the US has used the form of regional trade agreements to realize the proliferation of non-commercial assistance rules. However, the rules or practices following by the two above paths have violated the present multilateral disciplines a lot. The path of institutional expansion has even overemphasized competition law thinking and weakened the trade remedy attributes of countervailing rules which leads to a tendency for the relevant rules to be applied in a discriminatory manner. In the face of the expanding application of countervailing rules in the EU and the US, Chinese government should insist on responding at the level of the WTO and regional trade agreements. At the same time, China should standardize subsidy procedures both in granting and receiving subsidies to foster a positive image in the global marketplace.