Key takeaways:

• • • Only IEEPA‑based tariffs are up for refund — Refunds will flow electronically to importers of record through ACE, the government’s digital import/export system, but only once CBP’s process is finalized.

    • Liquidation and protest timelines are now critical — An organization’s tax concepts that directly influence which entries are eligible and how long companies have to protect claims.

    • Tax functions must quickly coordinate with other corporate functions — In-house tax teams need to coordinate with their organization’s trade, procurement, and accounting functions to gather data, assert entitlement, and get the financial reporting right on any tariff refunds.

WASHINGTON, DC — When the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling on President Donald J. Trump’s authority to impose mass tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February it set the stage for what it to come.

The Court ruled the president did not have authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs that generated an estimated $163 billion of revenue in 2025. In response, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling in requiring the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue refunds on IEEPA duties for entries that have not gone final. That order, however, is currently suspended while CBP designs the refund process and the government considers an appeal.

At��the recent , tax experts discussed what this ruling means for corporate tax departments, outline what is and isn’t a consideration for refunds and the steps necessary to apply for refunds.

As panelists explained, the key issue for tax departments is that only IEEPA tariffs are in scope for refund — many other tariffs remain firmly in place. For example, on steel, aluminum, and copper; Section 301 tariffs on certain Chinese-origin goods; and new of 10% to 15% on most imports still apply and will continue to shape effective duty rates and supply chain costs.

So, which entities can actually get their money back?

Legally, CBP will send refunds only to the importer of record, and only electronically through the government’s digital import/export system, known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system. That means every potential claimant needs an with current bank information on file. And creating an account or updating it can be a lengthy process, especially inside a large organization.

If a business was not the importer of record but had tariffs contractually passed through to it — for example, by explicit tariff clauses, amended purchase orders, or separate line items on invoices — they may still have a commercial basis to recover their share from the importer. In practice, that means corporate tax teams should sit down with both the organization’s procurement experts and its largest suppliers to identify tariff‑sharing arrangements and understand what actions those importers are planning to take.

Why liquidation suddenly matters to tax leaders

As said, the Atmus ruling is limited to entries that are not final, which hinges on the . CBP typically has one year to review an entry and liquidate it (often around 314 days for formal entries) with some informal entries liquidating much sooner.

Once an entry liquidates, the 180‑day protest clock starts. Within that window, the importer of record can challenge CBP’s decision, and those protested entries may remain in play for IEEPA refunds. There is also a 90‑day window in which CBP can reliquidate on its own initiative, raising questions about whether final should be read as 90 days or 180 days — clearly, an issue that will matter a lot if your company is near those deadlines.

Data, controversy risk & financial reporting

The role of in-house tax departments in the process of getting refunds requires, for starters, giving departments access to entry‑level data showing which imports bore IEEPA tariffs between February 1, 2025, and February 28, 2026. If a business does not already have robust trade reporting, the first step is to confirm whether the business has made payments to CBP; and, if so, to work with the company’s supply chain or trade compliance teams to access ACE and run detailed entry reports for that period.

Summary entries and heavily aggregated data will be a challenge because CBP has indicated that refund claims will require a declaration in the ACE system that lists specific entries and associated IEEPA duties. Expect controversy pressure: As claims scale up, CBP resources and the courts could see backlogs. If that becomes the case, tax teams should be prepared for protests, documentation requests, and potential litigation over entitlement and timing.

On the financial reporting side, whether and when to recognize a refund depends on the strength of the legal claim and the status of the proceedings. If tariffs were listed as expenses as they were incurred, successful refunds may give rise to income recognition. In cases in which tariffs were capitalized into fixed assets, however, the accounting analysis becomes more nuanced and may implicate asset basis, depreciation, and potentially transfer pricing positions.

Coordination between an organization’s financial reporting, tax accounting, and transfer pricing specialists is critical in order that customs values, income tax treatment, and any refund‑related credits remain consistent.

Action items for corporate tax departments

Corporate tax teams do not need to become customs experts overnight, but they do need to lead a coordinated response. Practically, that means they should:

• • • confirm whether their company was an importer of record and, if so, ensure ACE access and banking information are in place now, not after CBP turns the refund system on.
    • map which entries included IEEPA tariffs, identify which are non‑liquidated or still within the 180‑day protest window, and file protests where appropriate to protect the company’s rights.
    • inventory all tariff‑sharing arrangements with suppliers, assess contractual entitlement to pass‑through refunds, and align with procurement and legal teams on a consistent recovery approach.
    • work with accounting to determine the financial statement treatment of potential refunds, including whether and when to recognize contingent assets or income and any knock‑on effects for transfer pricing and valuation.

If tax departments wait for complete certainty from the courts before acting, many entries may go final and fall out of scope. The opportunity for tariff refunds will favor companies that are data‑ready, cross‑functionally aligned, and willing to move under time pressure.

You can find out more about the changing tariff situation here

Key insights:

• • • Different tools, different impacts— Tariffs raise costs but allow business to continue; sanctions create legal barriers that can make transactions impossible, with severe penalties for violations.

    • Scale brings scrutiny— Expansive US sanctions risk diminishing returns as targets develop workarounds and alternative financial systems.

    • Strategic or reactive use?— The core challenge isn’t whether sanctions work, but whether they’re deployed as part of coherent strategy or simply as visible action that avoids harder diplomatic or military choices.

In the foreign policy arsenal of the United States, economic sanctions have become a widely used weapon. As their use expands, so does the debate about how effective they actually are, what additional risks they create, and what unintended consequences they may bring.

Tariffs vs. sanctions: What’s the difference?

In wartime or during high-tension economic crises, both tariffs and sanctions can significantly impact businesses, but the two methods work in different ways.

Tariffs are a form of economic pressure. Governments use them to reduce an adversary’s export revenue, raise the cost of critical imports, signal disapproval of countries that continue doing business with the target, and generate funds for their own efforts. For companies, tariffs usually create friction rather than a full stop. Businesses can often continue importing, but at a higher landed cost. And that can compress margins and force decisions around topics such as renegotiating pricing, passing costs to customers, or shifting to lower-tariff suppliers.

Sanctions are closer to an economic blockade. They aim to isolate the target by banning broad categories of trade, restricting strategic sectors, blacklisting specific entities and individuals, and sometimes pressuring third parties through secondary sanctions. The business impact is often binary. For example, if a counterparty or its majority owner is sanctioned, trading partners generally cannot make the deal work by paying more. The transaction becomes illegal, and violations can trigger severe penalties.

How the difference shows up in operations

Consider a European manufacturing company in March 2022 that is trying to manage the crisis situation caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

If policymakers respond to the crisis with tariffs, such as a steep duty on Russian aluminum and timber, the primary challenge for this manufacturer is financial and operational planning. Costs rise, and then the company must decide whether to absorb the increase, reprice contracts, or switch suppliers, even if alternatives are more expensive.

Check out for more on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision here

If policymakers respond with sanctions, however, the situation can escalate quickly. Restrictions on major banks and key import categories, combined with aggressive designations of targeted companies and individuals can disrupt the entire supply chain. Payments can freeze, and goods can be delayed or seized. Even indirect connections to the sanctioned party can create problems, including for banks, shippers, insurers, and in some cases for logistics providers or warehouse owners. Indeed, what looked like a routine transaction can become non-compliant without warning.

The scale of sanctions use

Over the past several decades, the US has increasingly relied on economic sanctions as a core foreign-policy tool. In fact, by the early 2020s, US sanctions programs were targeting more than 30 countries and thousands of individuals and entities, with the sanctions primarily being administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). That trend has not only continued but accelerated under the current administration, which has turned to sanctions more frequently amid a volatile political environment. As the use of sanctions has expanded on a massive scale, their breadth and effectiveness have come under growing scrutiny.

Indeed, the phrase economic warfare reflects how modern sanctions often operate.

Many sanctions now target entire sectors, not only military goods. Secondary sanctions can threaten foreign companies that do business with sanctioned parties, effectively using access to the US financial system and the dollar as leverage. Critics argue that sanctions can also cause harm to civilians through inflation, shortages of essential goods including medicine, and broader economic damage. While targeted sanctions are intended to focus on elites, broader measures can affect entire populations.

What makes sanctions risky

The overuse of sanctions can create several problems. Yet sanctions can be politically attractive because they offer visible action without direct military risk, which may increase the temptation to use them even when they are unlikely to work.

As sanctions become routine, however, their impact may weaken as countries and companies develop workarounds, find alternative payment channels, and establish sanctions-resistant trade networks. Broad pressure from US sanctions can also encourage efforts to reduce reliance on the dollar-based financial system. China, Russia, and others have invested in alternative payment mechanisms such as cross-border interbank payment systems (CIPS) and systems for transfer of financial messages (SPFS) and expanded the use of non-dollar currencies. Over time, this response can reduce US financial leverage.

Sanctions can also provoke retaliation, including cyber activity, support for US adversaries, or wider regional instability. Sanctions also may harden diplomatic positions and make negotiation more difficult. In some cases, shared sanctions pressure can push sanctioned states closer together, strengthening the very coalitions that the US is trying to disrupt.

The argument for a middle ground

Supporters of sanctions argue that they provide an option between doing nothing and using military force. They can impose real costs on harmful actors, signal resolve, and respond to domestic demands for action, while still preserving diplomatic channels and avoiding full-on armed conflict.

The central question, however, is whether sanctions are being used as a substitute for strategy rather than as a single tool within a broader strategy. As sanctions continue to expand, it is worth weighing their benefits against their limits and long-term consequences. For policymakers and businesses alike, understanding these dynamics is critical to making informed decisions and managing risk.

You can find out more about here

Key insights:

• • • ESG is becoming more operationalized — ESG is being conducted with a lower public profile while also playing an increasingly strategic role in supplier governance frameworks.

    • Data collection remains widespreadand robust — Companies continue to collect comprehensive ESG data from their suppliers.

    • Technology usage in ESG is increasing — Greater investment in automation demonstrates continuing commitment to effectively managing ESG.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues have played an increasing role in global trade operations in recent years. As the United States government sharply pulled back its role in encouraging ESG in global trade in 2025, concerns were raised over whether that would impact ESG efforts globally.

However, ESG-related efforts in global trade have not diminished, although they are evolving in form and positioning, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2026 Global Trade Report. In fact, the report’s survey respondents said that ESG data collection from suppliers is now largely structurally embedded in trade operations, although at the same time, it is being carried out with a lower public profile than in previous years.

ESG management remains a core trade function

Managing ESG remains one of the most widespread responsibilities among trade professionals. Almost two-thirds (62%) of those surveyed said their role includes ensuring ESG compliance throughout the supply chain. That represents a higher percentage than for other responsibilities, such as procurement and sourcing, supplier management, trade systems management, risk management, customs clearance, and regulatory compliance. The only more widespread role being done by those global trade professionals surveyed is business strategy for global trade and supply chain.

More importantly, ESG remains integral and nearly universal when it comes to the supplier selection process. All respondents in the Asia-Pacific region (APAC), Latin American and the European Union-United Kingdom, as well as 99% of US respondents, report that ESG considerations remain moderately important, important, or very important in influencing their decisions around using a supplier. And overwhelming 78% say it is an important or very important consideration.

Clearly, as the report demonstrates, ESG remains a core component of the trade function for most businesses.

ESG moves toward structural governance frameworks

Only a very small proportion of respondents — 3% in the US and 4% globally — said they stopped ESG-related data collection entirely in 2025. Meanwhile, ESG data collection has increased across several major metrics.

As companies move to embed ESG expectations directly into their supplier governance frameworks, they are shifting these efforts from being a publicly declarative initiative to becoming operationalized as a permanent compliance and sourcing discipline alongside other operational considerations.

Businesses are focusing on supplier information in areas that have direct operational relevance. For example, companies collecting data on Free Trade Agreement (FTA) eligibility status for ESG purposes can also leverage the data to reduce costs, ensure supply chain security through Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) participation, and better maintain compliance with country-of-origin requirements. Similarly, Country of Origin (COO) and Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) status are both classified under ESG but are also highly trade operations specific. These metrics merge the lines, representing areas in which ethical considerations intersect with practical trade strategy.

Supplier data collection is shifting to operational relevance as well. Indeed, the scope of supplier data being gathered remains broad and reflects a holistic view of the supply chain. The most common areas for ESG data collection in 2025 were: i) environmental metrics, such as water usage, waste management, energy management, and carbon emissions, including Scope 3 emissions; ii) social metrics, such as health and safety, labor standards, human rights including modern slavery or indentured service, and diversity in employees; and iii) governance and compliance, including data privacy, business ethics, and anti-corruption.

Data collection from suppliers

Meanwhile, ESG data collection has been scaled back in areas such as trade evaluation, AEO/CTPAT status in some jurisdictions, diversity in ownership, and anti-corruption assessments. The most cited reason for the pullbacks was insufficient cost-benefit return for collecting data in areas in which customer scrutiny was minimal. This trade-off reflects a rational reprioritization: companies are focusing their ESG diligence in areas in which regulatory risk is more material rather than reputational.

Integrating ESG into broader trade workflows

The report also shows that businesses are leveraging ESG to make it more operationally effective, drive greater efficiency, reduce costs, and add greater value for the organization. ESG is becoming less of a marketing and brand building exercise, and more of a compliance and sourcing discipline that factors into strategic decision-making — it is subject to the same analytical rigor as financial or operational risks.

To this end, organizations are less prone to make a string of bold public goals and commitments, or issue standalone ESG reports, updates, or scorecards that tout their progress. Instead, ESG data is being seamlessly embedded into supplier evaluation and selection alongside non-ESG business metrics and other considerations. As such, organizations are using ESG to quietly build the structural frameworks, data infrastructure, and management approaches they’ll need for more strategic planning.

ESG is shifting to strategically supporting business growth and away from reputational focus

Helping this shift along, the report shows, is that the use of technology to manage ESG has accelerated significantly in 2025. One-third of respondents said their organizations use automated ESG solutions, a major increase from only 20% in 2024. This provides a clear indication that more organizations are not only continuing but strengthening their commitment to effectively managing ESG.

And this provides a boost, because greater automation can improve the efficiency and ability of trade professionals to manage ESG efforts, further enhancing the integration of ESG data into other operational workflows as organizations incorporate ESG data to drive greater value.

What lies ahead for ESG

ESG practices and organizations’ embrace of them remain near-universal across trade operations. This continuation presents a clear indication that there is no widespread retreat from ESG management. For trade professionals, ESG is here to stay and is evolving into an operational discipline to help grow their business.

For organizations to have continued success in this evolving ESG environment, they should take several steps that require strategic thinking, including:

• • • Identify which metrics truly matter — Connect ESG metrics that affect trade operations, particularly those that impact supply chain cost, efficiency, and reliability.
    • Invest in the technology infrastructure — Improve efficiency in tracking and analyzing key ESG metrics.
    • Articulate ESG value — Develop the ability to demonstrate the value of ESG to the trade function and communicate it in business terms to senior management.

The shift of ESG towards operational trade management may represent a more sustainable long-term path forward than the earlier wave of ESG enthusiasm — embedding ethical considerations into core business processes rather than treating them as separate compliance exercises. By focusing on metrics that genuinely matter to business operations, companies are building practices that will persist regardless of any political winds or public relations trends.

Those corporate trade departments that can skillfully navigate this evolving environment will be positioned to more effectively leverage ESG considerations as a strategic asset and competitive differentiator. And in an increasingly complex and volatile global trading landscape, they will find themselves playing a more central role in their organizations’ success.

You can download a copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 Global Trade Report here

Key insights:

• • • Tech adoption is rising, but critical gaps remain — Adoption of technology has surged over the last year but several important trade functions are still not widely automated.

    • Satisfaction levels with technology remain low in some areas��— Trade leaders are generally satisfied with the gains they see from their use of technology, but lack of integration is hindering supply chain visibility efforts.

    • Organizations are increasing their technology investments — Technology budgets are expected to continue to grow this year.

The recently published 2026 Global Trade Report, from the Thomson Reuters Institute, discussed how the use of technology is rising across corporate trade departments, with trade professionals much more likely this year to report that their departments have deployed automated tools. In addition, many were even exploring the use of advanced technologies such as AI and blockchain.

In the report, the percentage of trade professionals that characterized their departments as being early adopters or behind the curve (meaning they’re still using manual systems) dropped significantly.

However, amid the rapidly growing adoption of technology, key challenges and gaps remain, the report showed.

Urgency to improve efficiency

Increasing efficiency in trade operations is a high priority, as workloads continue to increase. More than half (56%) of respondents said that workloads and overtime requirements have grown over the last year as a result of increased tariff activity and trade complexity. Respondents also cite more complex reporting and documentation requirements. And an even higher percentage said they expect those pressures to increase over the next year. As a result, nearly half (49%) of trade professionals surveyed report increased stress on their teams.

In addition, trade departments are taking on a more strategic role in their organizations, as detailed in the report, which noted that with the heightened trade and tariff volatility, trade professionals are more involved in executive decision-making and are expanding their scope of responsibilities, including having greater influence over procurement decisions. However, these added roles and responsibilities also mean that trade departments must take on additional workflows.

Fortunately, technology can be a critical force multiplier to help manage these changes. While about half of respondents said they expect increased budget allocations to hire additional staff over the next year, trade departments are increasingly looking to technology to help automate workflows and increase efficiency. In addition, automating routine tasks for compliance and reporting can free up staff time to focus on more complex tasks such as using advanced analytics and engaging in strategic planning.

It’s not surprising then, that while most respondents (52%) anticipate more budget for additional headcount this year, an even higher percentage (65%) said they expect more resources to be budgeted for technology solutions. This positions trade departments to reap the best of both worlds — more staff and greater use of technology to improve efficiency across the department.

Continuing technology gaps

Most trade departments, according to respondents, have now adopted trade and supply chain data analytics, automation for enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, and supply chain visibility. However, significant technology gaps remain, with relatively few respondents saying their departments have deployed tools and platforms to allow for global trade management (32%), managing tariff changes (7%), and managing classification changes (4%).

As a result, satisfaction with tech capabilities often remains modest at best. Fewer than one-in-five respondents report being very satisfied with the impact of technology on workflow efficiency for trade and supply chain management, keeping up with regulatory changes, or improving their ability to glean insights from trade data in order to drive business decisions.

One major contributing fact is that four-in-ten respondents said they are not yet satisfied with their organization’s level of technology integration. This lack of integration hinders the ability of the trading team to maximize their use of existing systems to track and analyze data across various functions and geographies. This is increasingly important as businesses seek to improve visibility across their entire supply chain.

Thus, it’s not surprising that system integration is the top technology investment priority for the next year. An overwhelming 83% of respondents said this is a high- or medium-priority to help support informed decision-making.

Only about a quarter of trade departments have visibility across regions����

— Thomson Reuters Institute, 2026 Global Trade Report

Modernizing trade technology

With 40% of organizations exploring emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain, and satisfaction levels remaining modest across currently deployed capabilities, a significant technology transformation opportunity exists. However, successful technology deployment requires strategic focus rather than adoption of the latest technologies simply for their own sake.

Trade leaders should focus their technology investments in several key areas:

Supply chain visibility platforms — Real-time tracking enables proactive rather than reactive management. Automated exception alerting, comprehensive visibility across multi-tier supply chains, and integration with other systems can create a solid foundation for data-driven decision-making.

Data analytics and predictive capabilities — The jump from 8% to 58% in the last year in respondents saying their organizations adopted and used trade and supply chain data analytics indicates widespread recognition of data’s strategic value. Organizations should invest in platforms that not only collect data but generate actionable insights through advanced analytics and machine learning. Predictive capabilities can anticipate disruptions before they occur, enabling preventive action rather than damage control.

AI-assisted product classification — Product classification is time-consuming, error-prone when done manually, and yet, critical for compliance. AI systems have the potential to dramatically improve both efficiency and accuracy while freeing trade professionals to focus on more strategic work rather than routine tasks.

More technology investments ahead

The recent surge in technology adoption is positioning corporate trade departments to increase efficiency and expand their capabilities. Despite numerous gaps depending on specific technology use, about half of trade leaders indicate they are already at least somewhat satisfied with the overall gains they are seeing because of their use of technology.

Despite the recent gains, however, significant gaps in technology adoption still remain. Fortunately, organizations are recognizing the importance and urgency of increasing their investments in technology, coupled with adding to trade department headcount.

While workloads and pressures continue to grow, the elevation of the trade department as a strategic partner to the business — along with growing involvement in decision-making at the executive level and increasing recognition of the trade function’s value to the business — suggests that organizations are likely to continue accelerating their investments in technology as an integral part of their growing commitment to supporting their in-house trade professionals.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 Global Trade Report here

Key insights:

• • • Trade teams are becoming strategic business partners — Trade is no longer an administrative, reactive function but rather a driver of business strategy and operational resilience.

    • Tariff mitigation strategies — Many organizations are absorbing tariff costs as a tariff mitigation strategy.

    • Technology adoption is surging — Organizations are rapidly adopting automation to improve efficiency and supply chain visibility and are exploring AI and other advanced technologies.

For decades, corporate trade departments have operated in relative obscurity, being viewed largely as cost centers that manage compliance and transactional paperwork. Over the past 12 months, however, there’s been a dramatic change. Corporate trade departments are emerging as a strategic business function within their organizations, due mostly to the unprecedented wave of tariff volatility that is forcing businesses to fundamentally rethink how they view trade management, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 Global Trade Report.

Jump to ↓

2026 Global Trade Report

As a result, organizations are looking to their trade leaders to analyze, strategize, and execute key realignments of supply chains, markets, operations, facility locations, and more. “The financial burden caused by tariffs led our company to reorganize our supply chain and production footprint in order to reduce tariff exposure and preserve profitability,” notes one trade professional in the report.

From back office to boardroom

For trade professionals, this change represents both validation and opportunity. Indeed, the numbers tell a compelling story, especially for vanguard organizations that are proactively leading the strategic elevation of their trade functions. About 40% of global trade professionals surveyed for the report say they’ve seen enhanced influence over procurement decisions and greater involvement in executive decision-making over the past 12 months. Many also note the increased visibility of their function’s value across the organization as well.

And forward-thinking organizations are backing this shift with more resources. Many survey respondents say their organizations are increasing budget allocation for hiring, technology solutions, and training and development. And survey respondents also report increased cross-functional collaboration with other in-house departments, such as Finance, Operations, IT, and Procurement/Supply Chain.

The tariff reality check

What’s driving this transformation? According to the report, tariffs have fundamentally recast the entire global trade environment. Almost three-quarters (72%) of trade professionals cite US tariff volatility as the most impactful regulatory change they’re facing, which is up dramatically from just 41% who said this a year earlier.

However, it’s not just about the tariffs themselves. The cascading effects of tariffs touch every corner of business operations, leaving companies to grapple with increased regulatory compliance burdens, as well as significant cost pressures on imported materials and components.

One of the most striking findings in the report is the dramatic acceleration in trade departments’ technology adoption, as trade professionals seek to increase efficiency and improve visibility across the supply chain. About 40% of respondents say their departments are exploring emerging technologies like AI or blockchain for trade management, up from just 6% in 2024 — a nearly sevenfold increase.

Even more revealing is that only 2% of trade professionals now consider their department to be in the early stages of technology adoption, a huge drop from 40% previously. It appears the industry has collectively decided that manual processes and legacy systems are no longer viable in today’s volatile environment.

As a result of the tariff disruption, many organizations are scrambling to adopt strategies that will both minimize the immediate impacts of the tariffs and also position them for a global trade environment that has fundamentally shifted long-term.

Particularly sobering is the fact that 39% of respondents say their organizations are absorbing or considering absorbing tariff costs rather than passing them to customers — triple the 13% who said that a year earlier. This dramatic shift speaks volumes about competitive pressures and the threats that tariffs pose to profitability.

Shifting priorities

Not surprisingly, the ripple effects from tariffs have dramatically reshaped strategic priorities. These aren’t routine worries about supply chain optimization — indeed, they represent fundamental concerns about systemic resilience amid volatility that has reached unprecedented levels.

Supply chain management has surged as the top concern for trade professionals, cited by 68% of respondents — nearly double the percentage from a year earlier. Regulatory compliance has similarly intensified. “Customs paperwork and adjustments to tariff categorization are making trade compliance and operational planning more difficult,” explains one trade professional.

The path forward

The opportunity for trade professionals is to capitalize on this newfound influence and operationalize their heightened strategic organizational involvement through formalized processes and policies that create enduring competitive advantages, including more collaboration, leveraging increased boardroom visibility, and more.

As the report shows, trade today is moving beyond simply managing risks from supply chains and compliance and toward becoming increasingly central to strategic business planning. And those organizations that recognize trade as a strategic function worthy of investment and executive attention, and view technology as a force-multiplier for human expertise will gain significant advantages.

The strategic elevation of the trade function is already underway, making the question not whether it will continue, but rather which organizations will take full advantage of it.

You can download

a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s “2026 Global Trade Report” by filling out the form below:

Key insights:

• • • Understand risks, act fast — Stay ahead of tariff shifts and assess financial impacts quickly.

    • Diversify supply, cut costs smartly — Rethink sourcing, leverage trade zones, and protect profits.

    • Automate, partner, and win globally — Use tech and strong partnerships to stay competitive worldwide.

The rise of economic nationalism, geopolitical tensions, and the constant changing of international agreements requires any organization that engages in global trade to have a well-structured, proactive trade response program. To be proactive, organizations need to have in place a system that can be nimble enough but not fleeting to be adaptive.

Indeed, having a response guide for managing trade and tariffs changes can offer a strategic roadmap to help businesses mitigate their risks, protect their margins, and remain competitive.

Understanding the global trade and tariff landscape

The foundation of any effective trade response is knowledge — companies must stay current with the regulatory and geopolitical environments that influence tariffs and trade policies. This requires every global trade department head to stay informed by monitoring trade news and developments using reliable sources. The sources selected must be able to provide real-time updates and should include government websites — such as customs agencies like the United States’ Customs & Border Protection or the European Union’s Taxation & Customs Union, both of which can offer timely insights.

Once informed, each trade professional must evaluate what this means for their organization and assess the possible exposure, financial and otherwise, as well as identify what percentage of a company’s imports or exports is vulnerable to tariff changes.

From there, an organization’s trade professional should conduct scenario planning, asking, for example, what a 25% increase in duties on a key component would mean for their organization. Or, asking how the company could handle the increase, and whether it would have to absorb that cost or consider changing prices — and, in either scenario, what would be the impact on margins and profits?

Understanding what’s taking place in the industry and how it will impact an organization can help set the stage for creating a strategic plan around trade and tariffs.

Strategic planning and adaptation

Proactive planning is the next step in building a resilient response framework. This involves having in place both short- and long-term tactics to help mitigate the impact of tariffs and more importantly, protect the organization’s profitability.

Since the global pandemic in 2020, many companies were faced with how reliant they had become on one region or one country for sourcing — a situation that was no longer viable. Many businesses began to look at ways to shift their supply chains and identify opportunities for sourcing from alternative countries. In fact, 72% of respondents to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2025 Tariff Survey said their organizations were already changing or considering changing their sourcing patterns.

After supply chains changes are made, companies will next want to look at how to manage their costs. Not surprisingly, an increase in tariffs often creates an increase in businesses’ operational costs; and, according to the Tariff Survey, most of the respondents expressed their concerns over the likelihood of increased operational costs as a result of tariff increases. To mitigate this challenge, companies need to evaluate how to manage these increases, whether through supplier negotiations, price adjustments, or absorbing costs in certain markets. Bulk purchasing agreements, hedging, and strategic supplier contracts can help stabilize pricing and reduce uncertainty.

Also, companies need to utilize trade zones to help manage costs. Leveraging allows companies to defer or reduce duty payments. Similarly, origin and classification engineering — processes by which the product is slightly modified or reclassified — can sometimes result in a lower tariff rate, provided the modified product complies with all regulations.

There are several other steps global trade professionals and their organizations can take to better navigate today’s trading environment, including:

Leveraging technology and data

Technology is the most critical tool for managing global trade and creating an effective response tool. With the right software systems, advanced technology solutions can allow companies to gain visibility, forecast changes, and act quickly. Indeed, the Tariff Survey underscores this point, noting that two-thirds of respondents said their companies are using technology that provides analysis of trade lanes, and more than half said their companies are using technology solutions to identify potential risk factors and determine strategies, including locating less costly trade routes, scenario-planning, and mapping supply chains.

It is worth noting that companies have to ensure they are keeping up with regulatory compliance, making it a necessity for compliance to be automated. Manual compliance processes are inefficient and error-prone, and automating certificate of origin verification, eligibility checks for Free Trade Agreements, and document management ensures consistency and reduces the risk of penalties. Automation also frees up compliance professionals to focus on more strategic and value-added activities.

Pursuing strategic partnerships

No man is an island to himself, and that goes for trading organizations as well. Companies should look to build or strengthen their relationships with strategic partners like customs brokers, trade attorneys, software vendors, and managed service providers. These alliances allow companies to expand their capabilities without expanding headcount. These partners also can provide expertise in classification, documentation, and compliance best practices.

Driving internal coordination and communication

A successful global trade response isn’t confined to the supply chain team. It requires cross-functional coordination and support from senior leadership across the entire organization.

Global trade department leaders must establish a cross-departmental tariff response team that includes professionals from corporate procurement, logistics, legal, finance, and sales teams. Indeed, these teams should meet regularly to review tariff updates, evaluate financial impacts, and align strategies.

Implementing the trade response guide: A practical framework

Once an organization considers the steps outlined above, a simple and practical framework for a global trade response guide begins to emerge. While the list below can get a company started, over time the guide can be expanded to become more robust as needed, changing to reflect what’s newly needed or what is no longer needed.

1. 1. 1. Assess exposure — Identify vulnerable goods, suppliers, and markets.
      2. Form a cross-functional team — Involve stakeholders from the organization’s compliance, logistics, legal, finance, and sales teams.
      3. Map and diversify the supply chain — Reduce dependency on high-risk regions.
      4. Leverage trade programs — Take full advantage of FTZs, Free Trade Agreements, and tariff engineering opportunities.
      5. Invest in technology — Use AI, trade platforms, and automation to gain speed and insight.
      6. Communicate internally — Keep leadership and departments aligned and informed.
      7. Review and adapt regularly — Conduct biannual reviews and remain agile in strategy.

Tariffs are no longer an occasional disruption — they are a structural feature of today’s global trade environment. Companies that treat tariffs as such and invest in robust, tech-enabled, and cross-functional response programs will be better positioned to mitigate risk and seize upon opportunities whenever possible.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2025 Tariffs Report here

This time, we’ll shift focus to the other side of the ledger: the powers and regions that choose patience over provocation, structure over spectacle. From China’s quiet deepening of regional ties to the European Union’s methodical expansion and Africa’s ambitious trade integration, these actors are demonstrating that long-term stability, not drama, may be the true source of competitive advantage in today’s global economy. And as we turn away from the noise of the disruptors, we examine what it looks like when the builders, not the breakers, set the pace.

Stability profits as disruption proves costly

If the past decade taught us that disruption can be a powerful political tool, 2025 is teaching us something else: economically, stability wins. The loudest actors on the trade stage — those countries that tore up agreements, imposed sweeping tariffs, or promised new deals at every podium — are now grappling with the aftershocks of their own volatility. Meanwhile, nations and blocs that prioritized continuity, scale, and long-term cooperation are quietly reaping the rewards.

As we turn away from the noise of the disruptors, we examine what it looks like when the builders, not the breakers, set the pace.

The US and the UK, current and former respective champions of shaking up the system, are discovering the costs of their endeavors. American manufacturers are contorting their operations just to stay afloat. For example, there’s been a surge in US firms to try to delay tariff payments on Chinese goods amid mounting uncertainty. British exporters, still navigating Brexit’s long tail, find themselves hemmed in by patchwork agreements with little to show for their Global Britain strategy. Indeed, they’re more a before. Even May’s new UK/EU deal, meant to reset relations and reduce friction, felt more like a belated course correction than a strategic breakthrough.

By contrast, China is doubling down on regional integration, finalizing an with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that expands cooperation into digital and green sectors. The deal’s substance reflects a broader strategic pivot: while Western leaders chase headlines, Beijing is investing in trade predictability. Similarly, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) , with nearly 50 countries ratifying the agreement and using it to lay the groundwork for intra-African trade stability, independent of Western volatility.

Even within the transatlantic sphere, . It has maintained cohesion, weathered global shocks, and moved steadily to secure new trade partners. In this context, it’s not just size that matters — it’s steadiness. Capital flows to the predictable, and investment favor reliability. And while the disruptors get airtime and expensive cease-fires, the builders get the contracts.

Past trade failures leave lingering scars nearly a decade later

If stability is now proving its worth, the costs of earlier disruptions are coming into sharper focus — none more so than Brexit. Sold as a chance for the UK to seize control of its economic destiny and strike bold new trade deals, Brexit instead triggered a cascade of economic strain. The UK’s decision to break from the EU gutted its most important trade relationships and left exporters to navigate a fragmented global landscape without the leverage or infrastructure needed to thrive.

What followed was a decade of compounding crises. The initial Brexit shock rolled directly into the COVID-19 pandemic, which was quickly followed by the energy crisis spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and then compounded by the global inflationary shock. These blows landed hardest on a nation already adrift. And while this May marked a flurry of long-delayed trade activity, including renewed ties with the US, EU, and India, there’s little evidence that these efforts will meaningfully reverse the long-term damage.

If stability is now proving its worth, the costs of earlier disruptions are coming into sharper focus — none more so than Brexit.

Public sentiment also has turned sharply. Only 24% of Britons still support being outside the EU, according to a , which reflects a staggering collapse in confidence. The deals struck in May might be politically useful, but economically, they resemble damage control more than triumph. The India deal may offer the best terms, but it arrives too late to serve as a panacea for Britain’s stalled growth and sagging investor confidence.

Nearly a decade since Brexit’s inception, the lesson is clear: while disruptions may begin as ideology, their ultimate test is in the domain of economics. And as the UK is currently exemplifying, the cost of failure may be brutal.

There is a defender’s advantage

One underappreciated reality of today’s trade environment is that disruption favors the defender. In times of chaos, the players with already-built supply chains, entrenched market share, and deep domestic subsidies can weather the storm far better than upstarts and disruptors.

Nowhere is this defender’s advantage more evident than in the US/China trade standoff. While both countries have suffered, the pain has not been symmetrical. Chinese firms, already supported by extensive state-backed infrastructure and increasingly diversified trading partners, have managed to reroute exports, absorb losses, and shift into friendlier markets. By contrast, many US companies, especially smaller manufacturers and retailers that may be reliant on predictable cost structures, have been caught flat-footed. Their defensive capabilities lie not in subsidies or centralized coordination but in adaptability — a trait that’s much harder to exercise amid constantly shifting policy terrain.

The same pattern plays out globally. The UK’s sluggish recovery from Brexit has made it less of a player and more of a proving ground for just how punishing trade realignment can be. The EU, despite internal frictions, remains one of the only major blocs capable of playing both defense and offense simultaneously — shielding its members with internal consistency while expanding market access abroad.

In geopolitical terms, this is the defender’s advantage: the strategic strength that comes from having established positions, clear expectations, and fewer self-inflicted wounds. While aggressors burn time and political capital in tit-for-tat escalation, defenders quietly build networks, deepen ties, and move forward.

The irony is that, in trade — an arena once dominated by bold deals and sweeping liberalization — the most competitive stance in 2025 may be the one that changes the least. Stability has become the new disruptor.

For more on the current trading environment, check out the Thomson Reuters Institute’s��2025 Tariff Survey��here

In May, major trade deals were inked between the United States, the United Kingdom, China, the European Union, and India. Additionally, there were ongoing developments in global negotiations from Asia and Africa that have been long in the making and appear to be finally reaching the finish line, if not are already in effect.

The specifics of all these agreements vary significantly, ranging from extensive documents that could fill entire volumes to broader announcements that resemble agreements in principle rather than formal trade arrangements. Still, there are significant details that can offer insight into where global trade may be headed, both in the second half of 2025 and beyond.

When dealing with the US, relief does not mean resolution

Foremost in terms of implications for the near future was the de-escalation agreement between the US and China. President Donald J. Trump’s global trade war, a brutish fight with allies and rivals alike, resulted in a pitched battle of escalation, especially with China. Tarriff rates started obscenely high out of the gate and then exploded into the triple digits as a result of tit-for-tat responses. In May, both countries announced an agreement not so much to end the conflict as to de-escalate it for 90 days, along the lines of similar cessation of tensions agreements between the US, Mexico, and Canada.

On its face, the 90-day tariff truce between the US and China was a positive development. The agreement offered a temporary pause in escalating trade tensions, walking back tariffs both generally and on more specific products. However, nobody should kid themselves that this is anything close to a long-term solution.

Under the agreement, US-imposed from 145% to 30%, while China lowered its tariffs on US imports to 10% from 125%. This short-term relief still leaves massive barriers to trade still in place. While 30% and 10% appear small in comparison to the absurd levels of escalation that had effectively resulted in an embargo, these tariffs remain far above the danger levels that have led to economic calamity in the past. Indeed, US consumers are already appearing skittish, and inflation expectations have jumped to their .

The US/Chinese deal’s true benefit seems to be that the tariffs are low enough for companies to bring in enough imports to perhaps , a welcome relief to be sure, especially when compared to the previous near certainty of empty shelves. However, this added level of endurance may only enable further US aggression and a reignition of the conflict after the pause. Even at the lower level, the 30% tariff on Chinese goods is also guaranteed to hit consumers and thus the broader economy if maintained.

Special relationships mean special disappointment

Developments in the Atlantic are as informative as those in the Pacific. For all the symbolic weight of a US/UK trade agreement, the final product is strikingly underwhelming. What was once pitched as the crown jewel of post-Brexit strategy has arrived years late, half-formed, and burdened with tariffs that say more about economic leverage than strategic partnership.

In fact, the trade deal maintains a 10% tariff on most UK goods, a rate notably higher than pre-trade war levels and far higher than for what the UK government was hoping, given their initial optimism and glowing welcoming of the Trump administration. The deal also has the UK opening more of its market to US agricultural goods, while the US lifted tariffs on UK-made vehicles, steel, and aluminum. Still, a continuation of tariffs will likewise blunt any US gains beyond perhaps its agricultural sector, an area itself already by the conflict with China and Europe.

For an agreement with the largest nominal economy in the world, the deal is nowhere near what U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, or the parade of previous PMs were envisioning when they left the EU in 2020 with an eye towards closer trade relations to the US. Five years after their own disruptive maneuver, the UK seems to have gained little more than regret.

None of these deals involving the United States — whether struck with China, the UK, or others — . They are ceasefires, fragile and reversible, shaped more by political expedience than strategic consensus. Already, the Trump administration has hinted that even these limited truces could be if domestic conditions shift or foreign partners are deemed insufficiently deferential. After all, a US government that has offers little assurance that today’s handshake won’t become tomorrow’s threat.

In that light, the current deals don’t represent an end to the trade wars. Rather, they merely mark an intermission, one that could end the moment it becomes politically convenient to reignite the flames.

Looking towards trades deals without the US

So far, the story of May’s trade deals is one of disruption and relief that stops well short of resolution. For the US and UK, for example, the pursuit of leverage through maneuvering and changing the status quo has yielded volatile gains at best and lasting damage at worst. These latest agreements offer little in the way of structural change, and even less in terms of confidence that the agreements themselves will hold.

However, that’s only half the story — because May was a bustling month for trade deals, many of which did not involve the US. In my next piece, we will shift focus to the other end of the spectrum. From Asia’s quietly expansive dealmaking to Africa’s continental ambitions, we’ll examine how consistency, integration, and long-term planning are beginning to define the next era of global trade.

For more on the current trading environment, check out the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2025 Tariff Survey here

However, as global trade continues to grow — both in volume and complexity — there are growing concerns whether existing skills and training are keeping pace with today’s needed requirements of the profession.

The double-edged sword of technology

Technology is helping organizations deal with the growing complexity — automating numerous tasks that are otherwise laborious and time-consuming, and handling everything from the voluminous paperwork involved in shipping, logistics, and customs to drafting contracts and translating documents. And this has enabled businesses and organizations to greatly improve their efficiency, even as global trade complexity increases.

However, Rowden says she is worried that the growing use of technology could be eroding some core skills needed by global trade professionals. Many senior trade professionals gained their experience over recent decades during which global trade grew tremendously, providing them with critical grounding and foundational knowledge of how the current trade systems and policies evolved into their current state.

Citing customs as one example, Rowden explains that while specific details and policies may differ between countries, the primary building blocks are generally similar. This is largely because many of the key attributes — such as place of origin, classification, valuation, bills of lading, intellectual property ownership, etc. — have been defined, measured, and tracked literally since the dawn of cross-border trade centuries ago by caravan and sea. While processes have grown more sophisticated over time, the fundamental concepts remain largely the same.

“It’s like playing 3D or even 4D chess in order to balance and manage the multiple factors, issues and scenarios that are involved every day.”

There have been significant shifts in recent decades in how global trade professionals are trained, however, Rowden says. One catalyst was the aftermath of the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which prompted a renewed emphasis on security. “While both understandable and necessary, given the circumstances, the increased orientation around security oftentimes came at the expense of core training on many of the basics,” she adds.

Another growing trend has been the emergence into the profession of digital natives — people born after the birth of Internet — a transition that is still taking place. Rowden says she is concerned that the new generation of global trade professionals may be overly reliant on technology and are not as accustom as previous generations to thoroughly validating everything from record-keeping to decision-making. She says she believes it’s critical for today’s trading professionals to understand and question the underlying data, calculations, assumptions, and scenarios rather than simply relying on the outputs contained in a spreadsheet or other application.

“Trade is a highly data-intensive field,” explains Rowden. “I teach global trade as an adjunct professor, and I’ve increasingly noticed that many students can’t discern between different sources of information and have difficulty validating information.

“You may have heard the phrase ‘there is but one truth,’” she adds. “For trade, you want there to be one truth: the system of record. Validation is a critical part of the process for ensuring the integrity of data within the system of record. And not having the necessary expertise for carrying out that validation could pose serious problems. I see this as a growing exposure for both government agencies and private sector companies.”

Need for global trade education

Academia can play a key role in bridging these skills gaps, she says, noting that academic programs may be best equipped to develop the multi-disciplinary curriculum that will be needed. Indeed, today’s global trade environment requires that professionals possess a comprehensive range of skills to tackle the growing complexity of the field.

“There’s an incredible number of moving parts in global trade,” says Rowden. “It requires sophisticated understanding of economic, tax, and trade policies and how they interact, as well as technical skills such as data analytics and management. Developing curriculum to cover all of these fields and integrate them into a global trade discipline will be challenging.” Further, Rowden says she believes that certification programs will be essential to improving and expanding global standardization of trade practices. Currently, however, the industry generally lacks certification programs that are dedicated specifically to global trade.

Looking ahead, the continued adoption of generative AI into trade operations will change how global trade work is conducted, what skills trade professionals will need, and what educational tools will be available and most effective. For Rowden, that is all the more reason why improved education and certification are essential ways to ensure that global trade professionals are in a position to successfully manage global trade as it continues to grow in complexity.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s����here

Regardless, business must go on — and for the makers of products and the providers of services that require goods to move across borders, sleepless nights maybe more a reality than it should.

Indeed, the impact of tariff wars on supply chains is profound. Increased tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, forcing businesses to decide whether they can or would absorb the costs or pass them on to consumers — and either option can lead to a reduction in profit margins. The Thomson Reuters Institute’s underscores the complexities and concerns around corporate supply chains. The report noted that supply chain disruptions remained a constant concern among trading professionals surveyed, and the complexities of managing these problems were significant. And for the majority of the survey respondents, it was their number one strategic priority.

Strategies for readying your supply chain

The coming months and years may continue to be a wild ride, and strategies such as burying one’s head in metaphoric sand isn’t an option (or at least not a good one) or hoping things will soon settle down (it very well might, but business cannot afford to stop and have a wait-and-see moment).

To navigate the challenges of global trade today and the future, proactive strategies that enhance supply chain resilience and flexibility is necessary. And while most business strategies include considerations of such external factors such as geopolitical tensions and trade wars, these concerns necessitate strategies that must be somewhat malleable. As businesses now attempt to successfully navigate the current uncertainty, there are several main considerations for managing supply chains, including:

Diversification of suppliers — One of the most effective ways to mitigate the risks of tariff wars is to diversify your supplier base. By sourcing from multiple countries, businesses can reduce their vulnerability to trade disruptions in any single region. For example, consider suppliers that are in countries with lower tariffs or aren’t subject to tariffs at all.

Go local — On-shore whenever possible. For many businesses, the cost of using locally sourced materials has made it less feasible to use those materials; however, it is worth comparing local sourcing to the rising cost of continuing to get materials abroad amid tariffs disputes.

Agility & flexibility — Having supply chain suppliers that can be flexibility is critical. Suppliers that are amendable to renegotiating contracts, possible absorbing some of the costs resulting from tariffs, and more should be favored. Whenever possible, consider pre-ordering or stocking up on materials and products in advance of possible tariffs increases. Further, if possible, consider if your products could to utilize different materials.

Collaboration & partnerships — Unusual times call for unusual alliances. Having strong relationship with suppliers, logistics providers, and even competitors can increase supply chain resilience. Collaborative efforts can lead to shared resources, combined knowledge, and further innovations that may improve overall supply chain performance.

Investment in technology — Leveraging technology is critical for supply chain management. Using technologies that can provide advanced analytics can assist with predicting and providing models for navigating tariffs and working with suppliers. The rapid speed of changes in tariff policies and regulations requires utilizing technology that can assist with risk management strategy, which often involves identifying potential risks, assessing their impact, and implementing contingency plans. Scenario-planning and stress-testing can help businesses prepare for various trade war scenarios and ensure continuity of operations. Businesses also need technologies that provide real-time government alerts to stay current on trade-classification changes and regulatory trends as well.

Conclusion

In this foreseeable future, it is clear that the global trade environment will continue to present challenges. Tariff wars and protectionist policies are likely to persist, making it essential for businesses to adopt resilient and adaptable supply chain strategies. In a time of tariff wars and increasing complexity, readiness is important. Businesses that invest in supply chain resilience and adaptability will be better equipped to overcome the challenges ahead.

You can find more about how companies can best manage their supply chains here