Not really. Under WTO rules, countries are allowed a certain amount of "trade distorting" subsidies for agri products. This is called the "amber box" limit.
Countries may also provide additional "minimally distorting" subsidies. These "de minimis" subsidies are not counted towards the "amber box" limit.
In the late 1990s / early 2000s, US agri subsidies did hit $25 billion per year, but "only" about $18 billion of that were considered "trade distorting" subsidies. That's well below the WTO amber box limit of around $21 billion per year at the time.
Since 2001, the US amber box WTO limit is $19.1 billion. However, currently US agri subsidies are way down, to only about $4 billion per year in amber box subsidies, far below the WTO limit.
As a comparison, in the same late 1990s/early 2000s timeframe the EU spent roughly €50 billion in amber box subsidies, more than double the US. But currently the EU provides only about €6 billion per year, so like the US also a sharp decline and well under EU's WTO limits.
Most countries in Asia, Latin America, etc (even Canada) have no right to complain. China, India, Thailand, Brazil, etc., are currently spending hundreds of billions $ of subsidies above their amber box limits.
So if anything, the EU and the US could ask the WTO to impose punitive tariffs on Asian and Latin American countries. But of course, the EU and the US routinely violate other WTO rules, so it's not in anyone's interest to start a massive trade war. (Trump excepted).