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.
The Trump Administration has demonstrated a willingness to apply new tariffs to goods entering the U.S. as a viable tactic under its America First strategy to achieve greater fairness in its dealings with other countries. The application of tariffs is authorized under a number of standard legal procedures, such as trade remedy investigations to mitigate dumping of goods at less than fair value into the U.S. market or eliminating the unfair price advantages of government subsidies, and use of section 301 duties to respond to unfair trade practices by other countries. However, the broad-brush use of tariffs to coerce our trading partners to make concessions in non-trade areas to resolve a domestic crisis is relatively new.
I can’t help but reflect on a negotiation seminar I took in law school, where we studied the Madman Theory, popularized by Richard Nixon. The theory suggests that acting unpredictably or being willing to take extreme actions can create leverage. If your opponent believes you might “blow it all up,” they may feel forced to make concessions. This strategy clearly echoes Trump’s approach to trade policy.
President Donald Trump made headlines when he announced an External Revenue Service (ERS) agency to collect tariff incomes. The announcement sparked a heated debate among trade experts, economists, and business leaders. But, what exactly would be the purpose of the agency? Well, we can take the words spoken from his inauguration address as an answer.
China has significantly expanded its economic and geopolitical footprint in Latin America, particularly through the acquisition and development of critical infrastructure such as ports, airfields, and railways. This strategic move has raised questions about the long-term implications for regional sovereignty, global trade routes, and the future of the Panama Canal, a linchpin of international maritime commerce.
If you have a company that imports chemicals – whether they are used as raw materials or components for onward manufacturing, or finished goods containing chemical components – you have been facing significant challenges over the last half-dozen years. Some of these challenges include the trade wars with China (I’m looking at you, Section 301) and the disruptive impact of COVID-19 to global supply chains. In response to these challenges, you have maybe modified your supply chain to reduce your dependence on Chinese chemical imports. Or perhaps your supply chain was not largely affected by Section 301 tariffs (if so, consider yourself lucky – and may your luck hold!).
A customs broker license is issued to a person who has successfully passed a grueling licensing exam (after paying the exam fee), submitted a license application (along with another fee), and passed the subsequent FBI background investigation. The open-book exam, which lasts 4½ hours and comprises 80 multiple-choice questions, is ostensibly intended to measure one’s knowledge about various customs-related regulations and practices yet experience or employment in a customs-related job is not a prerequisite.
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.