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.
A quiet but significant power shift has been unfolding across Latin America. While the United States has long been the dominant economic and political influence in the region, its recent inward turn under the “America First” doctrine has created openings that China is eager to fill.
A few weeks ago, at the Trade and Cargo Security Summit, held in New Orleans, we learned that CBP (Customs and Border Protection) WAS NOT going to discuss the current administration’s policy during the conference. (Cue the dramatic music). Will you feel better if I tell you the groan across the audience was conspicuously audible? No? Well, I tried.
Many of our basic freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution. Speech, press, assembly, religion: these are all accepted as sacrosanct rights by reasonable people across the political spectrum. But should we not have the same freedom when it comes to the economy?
The first quarter of 2025 has reshaped the U.S. trade landscape with a flurry of executive actions by the Trump administration, introducing a new wave of tariffs on imports from almost all U.S. trading partners. The Trump Administration has also levied broad duties on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, on the basis of emergency powers of the Executive Branch, citing national security, border control, and illicit drug interdiction.
As a broad stroke of tariffs are now levied against various countries to close the trade deficit gap, without truly examining the reason(s) for the imbalance, there will most likely be automatic retaliatory tariffs in a lose-lose situation. The White House stated that currently 50 countries are on the phone with the President, but that is hard to confirm. US consumers will ultimately pay the price, as well as SME’s.
On April 3, 2025, during the presidential daily morning briefing, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum responded to the import tariffs announced the day before by President Trump, which targeted several countries. She emphasized that, of all the nations affected by these new duties, Mexico was the least impacted. She attributed this to the strong bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. She also reiterated that, since Mexico does not impose tariffs on U.S. goods, it is unfair for the U.S. to impose tariffs on Mexican products.
As is well known the US has imposed duties of 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico. This means that those imports will take the regular duty plus 25%. For example, a switchgear assembly classified under 8537.10.91 made in Canada or Mexico will take a duty of 2.7% plus the special tariff of 25% for a total rate of 27.7% of the value.
On March 3, 2025, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the 2025 Trade Policy Agenda and 2024 Annual Report on the Trade Agreements Program. The report outlines the rationale of the Trump Administration for its trade policy goals and actions. It complements and expands on the America First Trade Policy Executive Order and also encompasses the massive imposition of tariffs by the President on April 2 in his so-called “Liberation Day” Executive Order and Fact Sheet.
Donald Trump’s first term in office pursued an aggressive foreign policy toward China, imposing tariffs, restricting technology transfers, and accusing Beijing of unfair trade practices. However, one unintended consequence of this hardline approach has been China’s accelerated expansion into Latin America—a region traditionally within the U.S. sphere of influence.
Liberation Day passed with the promised reciprocal tariffs touted by the Trump administration. The president, surrounded by workers in the Rose Garden on April 2, executed a number of tariffs promising to Make America Wealthy Again. How did they calculate these tariffs? Well, there’s speculation.