Recently, US elected President Trump threatened that when he takes office one of his first orders will be a 25% import duty on all goods coming from MX into the US. The intention is to put pressure on Mexico to stop the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants.
On October 23, 2024, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls published proposed changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) affecting exports of spacecraft and launch vehicles and related activities. Subsequently the department extended the comment period from Nov. 22 to Dec. 23, 2024. The Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS) of the Department of Commerce published corresponding proposed changes to the Export Administration Regulations on Oct. 23, 2024.
This article examines the constitutional authorities and various statutes that reserve tariff authorities for Congress and some legal authorities in which Congress has delegated tariff authorities to the President. The U.S. is a party to numerous multilateral and regional trade agreements that have binding tariff commitments that will be impacted as well.
Historically, trade agreements have focused on reducing barriers to trade—such as tariffs and quotas—while encouraging economic integration and growth. Environmental protection was often considered a separate issue, addressed primarily through national regulations or multilateral environmental agreements like the Paris Agreement. However, recent developments suggest that trade and environmental concerns are converging, with many new trade agreements incorporating specific environmental provisions.
President-elect Trump has repeatedly stated that he will increase tariffs. While it is unclear to what extent, while campaigning he proposed a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports and an additional 60% or more on goods from China.
One of the most anticipated decisions of the Supreme Court’s recent term was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. While the specific underlying dispute in Loper Bright isn’t relevant to the trade community—did fishermen have to pay for government-mandated observers on their vessels?—the Court used this case to overturn the broadly applicable judicial deference test established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
By: Judy Davis, Senior Trade Advisor, Braumiller Consulting Group In the global trade universe, where time holds huge importance, weak security practices in your international
Several tribunals and courts were established at various periods of America’s history to resolve trade-related litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels, and even the Supreme Court has played a significant role in these disputes. The jurisdiction and structure of these courts evolved as the complexities and volume of trade disputes grew.
On September 15th, 2024, the Mexican Congress published on the Diario Oficial de la Federacion (Mexican Official Gazette) a decree to amend, add, and abolish several provisions of the Mexican Constitution regarding the Judicial Power. This reform, as it is being called, is one of the major changes to the Mexican Judicial System and has been met with heated debates by opponents who fear it will put the balance and separation of power at risk as it will result in a weakened and deteriorated judicial system overpassed by the legislative and executive powers.
This is the second of a three-part series about the USMCA joint review process, focusing on China, Mexico, and competing visions of a “worker-centered” trade policy. Part one introduces the USMCA joint review process and explores how US trade policy would likely operate during Trump’s second term. Part two outlines some of the major trade issues that will be on the table during joint review, focusing on the Mexico-US relationship, and anticipates Harris’s likely approach to trade policy.
It comes as no surprise China has been a major focus point of the second Trump administration. One of the key reasons for this focus is the increasing national security concerns over technology. In particular, the smuggling of AI chips, which China intends to use in developing advanced AI systems for military purposes and surveillance.
Question 1: How are you advising businesses in your jurisdiction when protecting themselves from the impact of trade wars and sanctions, and what strategies can professional services firms offer to mitigate these risks?
If I heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times, China is the sourcing capital of the world. I’ve also repeated this statement at least 400+ times in many conversations over the years regarding global trade. China, it’s also where the global market goes for rare earth minerals, among thousands of other necessary elements for a veritable plethora of life’s essential things.
On April 2, 2025, President Trump announced reciprocal tariffs, setting a baseline rate of 10% on imports from all countries, with higher rates on dozens of countries which the United States (U.S.) runs trade deficits. Specifically, Trump imposed a 34% tariff on all Chinese imports in response to China’s 67% tariff and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports, aiming to address what he sees as an unfair trade imbalance.
Since Trump’s first term, tensions between the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, have been on the rise. President Trump ran for his second presidential term on a promise to reduce reliance on China – and promise kept. In one of his first Presidential actions, President Trump issued an “America First Trade Policy” memorandum dedicating an entire section to trade relations with China. Since then, several tariffs have been imposed on Chinese goods and the duty-free de minimis treatment for goods valued at $800 or less ended.
In a recent Federal Register notice the Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS) of the Department of Commerce announced that “On May 1, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of commercial aircraft and jet engines, and parts for commercial aircraft and jet engines. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (Section 232).” The investigation may take up to 270 days but it can be concluded sooner.
Since Bitcoin’s creation in 2008, cryptocurrencies and traditional assets have largely existed in parallel. In our previous exploration of Real World Assets (RWAs) (Assessing the Benefits and Challenges of Tokenizing Real World Assets, February 7, 2024), we identified how the lack of reliable bridges between on-chain and off-chain ecosystems has constrained the transformative potential of blockchain technology.
Several lawsuits challenging the legal validity of the tariff actions taken by President Trump since he took office on January 20, 2025, are in process of moving through the federal courts. They raise a variety of important jurisdictional and constitutional questions and seem poised to lead to challenges in federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.
On May 8, 2025, the United States and United Kingdom (UK) unveiled the new trade terms of an “economic prosperity” deal. This deal comes after President Trump imposed a 10% reciprocal tariff on all products from the UK and additional tariffs on steel and aluminum, and automobiles and automobile parts. While the 10% reciprocal tariff will remain in effect, the two countries were able to agree on alternative arrangements for steel and aluminum, automobiles, and other strategic sectors.
On May 28, 2025, the United States’ Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down the President’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. This includes tariffs imposed on Canada, China, and Mexico in response to the fentanyl crisis at U.S.’ borders and reciprocal tariffs imposed on almost all foreign imports on April 2, 2025. The Government immediately appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).