Let’s rewind to December 6, 2024. A deal more than 25 years in the making, covering over 700 million people and a combined GDP approaching $22 trillion, became realized. Since then, the agreement has made notable institutional progress while encountering renewed legal and political resistance that will shape its path to implementation. What’s happened recently?
Has BRICS finally produced an alternative to the “petrodollar” after twenty years? And does it live up to the hype? Depending on where you look online, key details are being left out. So, let’s slow down and review what’s actually happening.
As of 1/27/2026, India and the EU have finalized a free trade agreement described by both sides as the “mother of all deals” that slashes tariffs, opens markets, and creates a combined economic region of roughly two billion people. This FTA stands as one of the most consequential global trade realignments in years, driven in part by U.S. tariff pressure and a shift in strategy toward diversifying one’s supply chains.
For whatever reason, if you missed the spectacle created by President Trump on the world stage recently in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum, you really need to pay close attention now to the fall out. Top business executives in global economies were watching and probably also wondering just who the hell was going to stand-up to the U.S. pressure campaign, and that’s where Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stepped up to the mic and delivered a speech that sent shockwaves across continents.
On any given morning so far in 2026, looking around the globe, one could easily surmise that chaos rules, and the world of trade as result is on fire. The global landscape is filled with trade barriers, tariffs, sanctions, and export controls, from microchips and dairy to lumber, steel and aluminum. We have seen where geopolitical disputes often escalate into trade wars, where countries impose tariffs or targeted restrictions on each other’s goods, but an actual invasion, that’s on a totally different level regarding how it affects trade and global economies.
The exit of a country, such as the U.S., from the USMCA, well, that’s just crazy, right? Afterall, it’s a powerhouse of a trade agreement between the three nations. According to the U.S. International Trade Administration, the United States conducts over $1.3 trillion in annual trade with Mexico and Canada under the USMCA framework and supports roughly 17 million jobs across North America.
The legality of the Fentanyl IEEPA tariffs and the Reciprocal IEEPA tariffs is currently pending in the Supreme Court. A decision is expected in January, although it could come sooner, though the Court may not directly address refund mechanics. Instead, it could remand the issue to the Court of International Trade (CIT), which would delay guidance for several months.
Could BRICS break the dollar’s grip? The answer is coming into sharper focus, and it’s more complicated than either the optimists or skeptics predicted. Since our previous analysis, BRICS has made concrete moves toward de-dollarization while simultaneously confronting harsh economic and political realities. The gap between ambition and achievement has never been clearer.
In the Chinese zodiac calendar, 2025 is the year of the snake. The snake is said to represent wisdom and strategy. As it occasionally sheds its skin, it is also said to represent a change or an inflection point. Whether American trade policy in the year of the snake exemplifies wisdom and strategy depends on one’s political perspective. Whether it exemplifies a major transformation and inflection point is unquestionable.
On November 14, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order exempting certain agricultural products from the reciprocal tariffs. The exemptions for certain agricultural products went into effect on November 13, 2025.
Punctuation matters. I’ve always remembered a poster on the wall of a co-worker’s office—this was back in the 80s—that showed baby seals dancing at a disco under a four-word caption: STOP CLUBBING, BABY SEALS. The poster (which has become an internet meme forty years later) cleverly showed how something as seemingly minor as a comma can change the meaning of a phrase or sentence. If a comma can flip the meaning of a four-word sentence, is it hard to imagine the effect that punctuation, or lack of punctuation, might have on our interpretation of a law or regulation?
In today’s complex global marketplace, businesses are increasingly confronted with the challenges of supply chain disruptions, rising costs, and fierce competition—all exacerbated by trade remedy tariffs. While many of these tariffs are already in play, President-elect Trump has promised to impose new tariffs and increase old ones.
After 25 years of negotiations, the European Union and the Southern Common Market, commonly known as Mercosur, comprised of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, signed a free trade agreement. I think this, among many more regional deals to come was suddenly expedited due to the anticipated land mines with the upcoming Trump 2.0 administration and trade policy regarding tariffs for all.
The United States has a long history of using tariffs. The first significant tariff legislation was the Tariff Act of 1789, signed by President George Washington. Tariffs have been used for various purposes over the years, including protecting domestic industries, generating government revenue, and negotiating trade agreements. The use of tariffs however has evolved, with significant changes during different historical periods, such as the high tariffs of the 19th century and the shift towards free trade in the mid-20th century, as well as the current U.S. trade war with China, and possibly soon to be with Mexico and Canada.
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.