Strategy & Horizon Scannning

Christopher Salmon

Chief Executive

Brief Overview

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments that challenge the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA by President Trump. These duties, levied on a range of imports, have disrupted global supply chains, created uncertainty for international businesses, and raised real questions about the limits of presidential trade authority. 

In Q4 2025, this article includes key context, potential outcomes, and practical steps for boardrooms and trade teams.

When a U.S. president declares a national emergency which includes placing sweeping duties on imports from almost every trading partner – supply chains globally pay attention. That is precisely the situation today (November 2025).

The road to now: how we got here

  • Earlier this year (2025), President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and many other trading partners. 
    • → Unlike sanctions – broader trade restrictions to achieve political objectives – these were tariffs: taxes on imported goods specifically intended to raise costs and directly influence trade flows. 
    • Consequently, a raft of executive orders imposed duties running into tens of billions of dollars, covering a wide variety of goods.
    • Many interpreted the use of IEEPA in this way as stretching a law originally designed for serious national emergencies into a trade policy weapon, and a legal challenge was put forward. 
    • Lower U.S. courts pushed back against the Trump Administration, with multiple judges ruling that the tariffs exceeded presidential authority. 
      • Nonetheless, the tariffs have largely remained in force while the legal challenge has made its way up the judicial ladder.

      On 5 November 2025, the Supreme Court heard verbal arguments in a case that could determine not only the fate of the tariffs themselves, but also set a precedent for the larger limits of presidential trade powers. With Courts ready to “fast-track” the resolution, outcomes remain uncertain; and for cross-border businesses, long-standing assumptions around trade with the U.S. are in flux. 

      Why this matters

      Global supply chains are finely tuned – tariffs of this scale introduce immediate cost pressures and strategic uncertainty. From planning imports and managing pricing to forecasting supply chain resilience and investor communications, boardrooms should prioritise understanding the practical consequences of each potential outcome.

       

      Borders for the Boardroom:

      Sean Miner on US-China talks and the Supreme Court arguments

      Listen now on Apple and Spotify → 

      What the court is weighing

      At the heart of the case is the question: 

      Did Congress, via the IEEPA, delegate to the President the authority to impose sweeping tariffs? Or did the White House overreach?

      During over two-and-a-half hours of argument, justices from both conservative and liberal positions expressed doubts about the administration’s position, as well as the inherent legality (or lack thereof) of the tariffs. 

      A central issue is the “major questions” doctrine – a principle that the Court has applied in recent years to curb executive-branch claims of broad authority, where clear congressional mandate is absent. Several justices suggested IEEPA’s generic language (“to regulate importation,” for instance) is a poor fit for President Trump’s sweeping duty impositions. 

      Other key considerations include:

      • Whether tariffs imposed under IEEPA are “taxes or duties” (a legislative function) or permissible “regulatory measures.” The solicitor general contended tariffs were purely regulatory; some justices weren’t convinced. 
      • The potential ripple effects for trade policy: if the ruling constrains the President’s tariff authority, the administration may turn to alternative statutes: creating a new phase of regulatory and strategic volatility. 
      • Timing and outcome remain open, as there is no fixed judgment date, meaning that the uncertainty will persist for the foreseeable business-planning future. 

      In short, the Court is not simply deciding upon this specific tariff regime, but drawing new boundaries for presidential trade power. 

      Reading the court signals

      So far, the most telling signals from the hearing are the questions being asked. Justices from both sides repeatedly challenged the administration’s argument that tariffs imposed under the IEEPA qualify as “regulatory” rather than “taxing” measures. 

      Moreover, prior use of the “major questions” doctrine by the Court suggests that sweeping executive actions lacking explicit congressional authorisation may face serious headwinds. 

      In practical terms, the path of least disruption is planning for both outcomes (continuation of tariffs and potential rollback), rather than assuming any status quo will hold.

      Key facts 
      1. Oral arguments held, 5 November 2025.

      While no ruling date is set, businesses should regard this hearing as the beginning of the final legal phase, and expect uncertainty to persist for weeks or months. 
      1. The IEEPA statute doesn’t mention tariffs; only “regulation of importation.”

      If the Court holds that imposing tariffs is fundamentally a tax‑raising or legislative power, not regulatory, then exposure for broad tariffs increases. Trade teams should review tariff‑dependent supply chains for contingency. 
      1. Collection under the tariffs totalled roughly US$89 billion by late summer 2025.

      A ruling against the tariffs could trigger complex ‘refund’ obligations, delayed recovery, or contested claims. Companies budgeting based on cost-certainty may need a strategy revisit.
      1. Justices from both conservative and liberal wings expressed scepticism of the broad authority claimed.

      This cross‑bench scrutiny suggests real risk to the statute’s use for tariffs. Global exporters should consider worst‑case planning.
      1. The administration has already pointed to fallback authorities (Trade Act 1974, Section 232) in case IEEPA is struck down.

      Whatever the ruling, we’re unlikely to see a return to “business as usual.” Trade teams should model both continuity and transition to different tariff regimes.
      1. Tariffs remain in force while litigation continues; no immediate relief for importers.

      For now, business decisions must assume tariffs apply. Delaying contract renegotiation or costing reviews is risky. Planning should assume elevated duty exposure + possible margin stress.

      Commercial implications: what this means for cross‑border businesses

      Margin pressure and duty visibility

      With tariffs still in force while the legal process plays out, businesses face three direct cost challenges: 

      1. Higher landed cost of imported goods
      2. Unpredictability in duty exposure
      3. Potential need to renegotiate supplier and customer contracts

      Companies operating with global supply chains must assume that margins will come under pressure; either because duties increase or because cost buffers need to be built in. Questions for the leadership level include: are we modelling scenarios with elevated duties? Have we stress‑tested key product lines and sourcing routes for material cost impacts?

      Supply chain disruption and sourcing optionality

      The uncertainty created by the case forces organisations to reassess whether their supplier base is resilient. If the Court upholds the tariffs, sourcing from higher‑cost regions may become the new baseline. If the tariffs are struck down, the regulatory landscape may shift unexpectedly. 

      In either case, flexibility becomes a strategic asset. Firms should be actively exploring diversified supplier geography, alternate routing, dual sourcing contracts, and term renegotiation, before the ruling lands.

      Compliance, documentation, and customs risk

      Tariff regimes (once seen as cost‑management issues) are now govern­ance and strategic issues. Whether the outcome increases tariffs, nullifies them, or leaves the status quo in limbo, compliance teams must be prepared for re‑classification, refund claims, audit exposure, and retroactive liability. Customs brokers, internal trade teams, and legal departments need to ensure that HS codes align; contracts reflect duty‑pass‑through; supply‑chain metadata is correctly mapped; and the business is ready to answer questions from regulators or auditors pertaining to issues like these.

      Investor and reputational signalling

      Boardrooms can sometimes underestimate how a major trade‑policy case like this becomes a proxy for broader risk: geopolitical exposure, regulatory unpredictability, and operational disruption. 

      A clean ruling in favour of the administration may reinforce confidence; a ruling against it – or even a narrow, ambiguous ruling – could alarm investors and reshape market sentiment. 

      What comes next?

      Below are three plausible outcomes from the hearing, and what each would mean for cross‑border trade.

      Scenario 1: Court upholds the tariffs

      • Outcome: The tariffs remain in place under IEEPA authority.
      • Impact: Elevated duties become standard, not exception. Companies may face sustained higher input costs, prolonged sourcing inflation, and increased barriers for export-driven operations. Firms should convert contingency into investment: lock in supplier contracts that anticipate higher duties, reassess off‑shoring vs on‑shoring, reset pricing strategies.
      • Action: Revise global sourcing blueprint, increase margin risk provisioning, embed new duty‑assumptions in forward‑looking plans.

      Scenario 2: Court rejects the tariffs

      • Outcome: The Court finds that IEEPA (or its application) was invalid for imposing broad tariffs.
      • Impact: Possible refunds or rebates might arise; but more likely a transition to an alternative tariff regime or new legislative framework. Businesses must prepare for policy whiplash: existing duty burdens may ease, but compliance complexity may increase as new rules fill the gap. Supply chain stability may return, but with new caveats.
      • Action: Initiate duty‑exposure audit, prepare for refund protocols, and re‑contract with suppliers/customers quickly, monitor new regulating statutes and readiness for rapid change.

      Scenario 3: Narrow or procedural ruling

      • Outcome: The Court issues a limited decision (e.g., procedural or remands back to lower court) rather than a full substantive ruling.
      • Impact: Tariffs stay in place for now, but legal uncertainty extends. This outcome may actually represent the worst of both worlds: cost is maintained, but clarity is withheld. Organisations will face protracted uncertainty and must prepare for both upward and downward trajectories.
      • Action: Adopt live‑monitoring of legal updates, maintain flexible sourcing protocols, keep communications ready for both upward and downward shifts, and ensure governance structure is designed for scenario switching without delay.

      The last word

      Much more than an isolated legal dispute, the case marks a fork in the road for how trade policy, executive power, and global supply chains interact. For boardrooms and trade leaders, the situation signals a shift from “tariffs as cost shock” to “tariffs as governance risk.”

      Action now matters. Modelling scenarios, revising sourcing strategy, strengthening compliance frameworks, and embedding technology to monitor changes are some of the actions future-first businesses are already taking.

      Ultimately, a resolution is coming – though we don’t know when – but the Court says “soon”. For now, assume change and be prepared. The organisations that act proactively won’t just protect margins. In turn, they’ll preserve confidence and create in-built optionality, for whatever direction trade policy takes next.

      Contact clearBorder today for expert, independent trade horizon scanning → 

      Other interesting reads

      Visit Our Insights Hub
      Strategy & Horizon Scannning

      Steel and Aluminium at a Crossroads: Supply Chains, Tariff Wars, Business Impacts

        TLDR 2025 reshaped steel and aluminium supply chains. U.S. tariffs, EU uncertainty, and Chinese overcapacity have all driven structural rerouting, pricing instability, and compliance pressure. Businesses elevating metals sourcing to a strategic capability – with stronger origin assurance, supplier governance, and scenario planning – typically outperform competitors in terms of resilience, cost control, and market access. Firms will need to adapt to preserve their position and competitiveness. 2025 saw the sharpest escalation in metals-trade interventions since the original, President Trump-era Section 232 measures, in 2018. What began as a series of “targeted” moves early in 2025 has evolved into a multi-jurisdictional reset, touching tariffs, origin rules, industrial policy, and supply chain governance. For global businesses reliant on steel and aluminium, this will represent a fundamental shift in operations and market position. Steel and aluminium are systemic commodities. They underpin every major industrial value chain: automotive, aerospace, defence, energy infrastructure, construction, household appliances, and large consumer goods. When trade conditions tighten around these materials, the shockwaves propagate quickly: rising input costs, margin compression, delayed production cycles, and forced redesign of sourcing strategies. Several trigger events collided in 2025: In May 2025, the U.S. raised tariffs to 50% on a wide range of steel and aluminium categories, materially altering the economics of imports. By Q4, Washington introduced tightened melt-and-pour origin rules, significantly raising the bar for compliance and due diligence. Meanwhile, the EU remained locked in slow-moving negotiations with the U.S. on tariff-rate quotas, while simultaneously confronting the long-running challenge of Chinese overcapacity depressing European prices. China’s own pricing volatility (driven by subsidised overproduction and domestic demand swings) continue to distort global markets. Taken together, developments like these show that steel and aluminium supply chains are not experiencing a temporary disruption – they are undergoing a deeper, structural reorganisation. Businesses will need to adapt to preserve their position and competitiveness. Why this matters Global metals policy is moving faster than most supply chains can adjust. The 50% U.S. tariffs, melt-and-pour rules, EU safeguard activity, and China’s continued overproduction are reshaping sourcing and pricing across entire industries. For manufacturers and importers, this is not just a cost issue; it’s a governance, compliance, and competitiveness issue. How firms respond will determine whether they stay ahead of regulatory pressure, or become ensnared in a rapidly tightening enforcement environment. Expert guidance on international trade Contact clearBorder today →  How tariffs reshape global flows The 50% U.S. tariffs  Under the administration of President Trump, the U.S.’s move to increase tariffs to 50% on a wide range of steel and aluminium products marked a pivot in metals trade. The measures affect core inputs such as semi-finished steel, rolled products, extrusions, and several aluminium categories. Downstream products such as cars, domestic appliances, and industrial machinery are increasingly examined for the embedded origin of their metal content. The tariff shock has created three immediate consequences: Domestic inflation in U.S. metals markets. Manufacturers face significantly higher input costs, prompting either price rises or margin erosion. Redirected flows from Asia to Europe. Exporters seeking to avoid U.S. duties have diverted excess supply toward the EU, exacerbating oversupply conditions and placing further pressure on European producers. A new compliance burden for global exporters. The tightened melt-and-pour rules raise the risk of inadvertent non-compliance. Trans-shipment scrutiny has increased; origin validation is now a core operational requirement. EU’s dilemma The EU finds itself between a rock and a hard place. On one side are slow, uncertain EU–U.S. negotiations on tariff-rate quotas and metals cooperation frameworks; on the other is intensifying pressure from the steel lobby to protect European producers from diverted Asian supply after the U.S. tariff shock. European manufacturers face irregular and unpredictable input costs, complicating price setting, inventory planning, and long-term contracting. The EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan adds further complexity, as imported metals are essential for its energy-transition ambitions, yet those same imports now threaten domestic competitiveness. The overcapacity question China’s long-standing overcapacity issue remains the gravitational centre of global metals instability. Production levels continue to exceed domestic demand, pushing subsidised excess onto global markets and driving renewed price volatility. This places other jurisdictions in a defensive posture. European and U.S. producers have reported intensified undercutting; Asian and Latin American manufacturers face narrowing margins; and developing economies risk deeper dependence on low-cost Chinese supply. Beijing may consider retaliatory measures, or deepen its alignment with Global South partners (such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand in Southeast Asia, or members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) to mitigate against Western trade interventions. Either path would add new layers of complexity to an already fragmented global steel and aluminium market. Re-routing, re-pricing, re-risking How supply chains are responding The reshaping of steel and aluminium trade is visible in operational patterns, with supply chains reorganising at pace. Businesses are re-routing in order to defend margin and meet compliance thresholds. According to emerging reports, Asian-origin metals that previously flowed into the U.S. are being diverted toward Europe, Turkey, and the Middle East. European manufacturers, in turn, are exploring alternative inputs from India, Brazil, and the Gulf to avoid the tariff spillover effects. This repositioning may also trigger changes in logistics: greater use of east-west routes into the EU, potentially more inventory buffering, and in some sectors (such as automotive and machinery) a shift toward nearshoring for critical components. Cost structures are being re-priced globally. The U.S. tariff shock has lifted domestic prices sharply, while excess supply has depressed segments of the European market. Producers in China and Southeast Asia have adjusted export strategies in real time, offering deeper discounts to maintain throughput. For buyers, this creates a two-speed market: inflationary in the U.S., deflationary or erratic elsewhere. Long-term contracts are harder to negotiate, and index-linked pricing is seeing a resurgence. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are being re-risked. Compliance is now inseparable from commercial decision-making – a cheap tonne of steel that ultimately fails melt-and-pour verification is a liability, not a saving. Manufacturers are mapping exposure at a deeper level than before, tracing inputs back to smelters (not mills), and stress-testing for tariff escalation or port inspections. Insurance markets are responding too, with new language around origin risk and misdeclaration liability appearing in trade credit and marine cargo policies. Rising compliance complexity The enforcement of the U.S. melt-and-pour rule is proving to be one of the most consequential compliance developments. By requiring origin to be established at the smelting stage – not the final manufacturing stage – regulators have effectively redrawn the documentation burden for the entire value chain. Finished goods manufacturers, especially in automotive, appliances, construction products, and machinery, must now evidence multi-layered provenance to avoid penalties or shipment holds. This comes alongside broader tightening: The EU is advancing anti-circumvention probes and designing new safeguard mechanisms around diverted Asian supply Tariff-rate quota negotiations with the U.S. remain uncertain, complicating long-term planning The UK faces a hybrid challenge: exporters into the U.S. or EU must meet foreign origin standards and navigate domestic decarbonisation requirements shaping the future of UK steelmaking For business boardrooms, this translates into elevated expectations around: Proving origin at smelter level Supplier vetting across multiple jurisdictions End-to-end documentation capable of withstanding audits Horizon scanning for tariff escalation and market fragmentation Avoiding unintentional trans-shipment exposure, especially in multi-country routing models Implications for business Cost structures will remain unstable for the near term. U.S. tariffs have created inflationary pressure domestically; Europe is facing oversupply; and Chinese volatility continues to inject uncertainty into global reference prices. Businesses should anticipate continued dual-market dynamics throughout 2026. Compliance risk has moved from operational to existential. The melt-and-pour rule, EU safeguard mechanisms, and intensified anti-circumvention enforcement mean that the regulatory exposure of a single misclassified input far exceeds the cost of the input itself. Boardrooms increasingly view origin assurance as part of corporate governance, not logistics. Supply chain strategy is entering a redesign phase. Nearshoring and multi-regional sourcing are gaining momentum Dual or triple sourcing for steel and aluminium is becoming standard in automotive, engineering, and construction Inventory models are shifting from just-in-time to strategic buffering Quality and compliance maturity are becoming as important as price when selecting a supplier Commercial positioning is changing, too. Companies that can evidence clean origin, stable sourcing, and strong governance are positioned to outperform competitors in tenders – particularly with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) facing strict regulatory exposure of their own. For some sectors, metals compliance is now a competitive differentiator. The last word Steel and aluminium have always been essential industrial inputs, but in the current climate, they’ve become a barometer of global economic and geopolitical tension. Tariffs, origin rules, and enforcement actions are all actively reshaping supply chains, capital allocation, and competitiveness. The businesses equipped to succeed in this environment treat metals not simply as commodities to be purchased, but as strategic exposures to be governed. This means that decision-makers have visibility deeper than tier-one suppliers; they can evidence origin at smelt stage. They plan for tariff escalation; not react to it. And they embed compliance into commercial decision-making. Early, proactive movement will help protect against price shocks, audit interventions, and market-access constraints, as the next phase of trade policy unfolds. For manufacturers, importers, and exporters, the question is not whether to adapt, but how quickly. The former era of (relatively) stable and predictable metals flows is over – strategic readiness is now the defining commercial advantage. For trade advisory tailored to your business and its operations Contact the clearBorderteam today → 

      Steel and Aluminium at a Crossroads: Supply Chains, Tariff Wars, Business Impacts
      Strategy & Horizon Scannning

      Introducing our new podcast series ‘Borders for the Boardroom’

      “Borders for the Boardroom” is a podcast series brought to you by the team at clearBorder. In these short episodes, we introduce you to all things trade and borders providing an insight and understanding that you may not have had before. We hope that this means when you return to your business you have a greater knowledge of the impact and challenges borders and trade will have on your organisation, as well as the opportunities available to perhaps do things differently, reduce risk and continue to grow. Each podcast introduces a new topic, led by one of the clearBorder team of experts. We hope you enjoy it. If you want to continue the conversation or have any questions then do get in touch with us at info@clearborder.co.uk. We’ll see you next time. Produced and edited by Yada Yada. Listen here: Spotify  |  Apple

      Introducing our new podcast series ‘Borders for the Boardroom’
      Strategy & Horizon Scannning

      A fragile reset? What the US–China tariff truce means for cross-border trade strategies in 2026

      In late October 2025, a diplomatic thaw between Washington and Beijing produced a narrowly scoped trade “pause” – a tactical (and temporary) easing of the headline tensions which have dominated the trade-sphere in recent months.  The agreement trimmed select U.S. tariff categories (for example, halving certain fentanyl-related duties), and opened the door to resumed Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans; while Beijing signalled a conditional scaling back of some export controls on rare earth elements.  For boardrooms, this pause buys time for resilience-building; what it does not do is remove structural levers that can reignite escalation. China retains decisive market power over rare earths and refining capacity, and Beijing’s export restrictions – introduced and then expanded in October 2025 – remain a latent threat to industries from EV batteries to defence suppliers. Financial and commodity markets treated the announcement as tentative: rare-earth prices and equities briefly eased, but analysts warned supplies and stocks could re-tighten if the geopolitical headwinds shifted.  Meanwhile, political and legal fault-lines persist in Washington. The administration’s tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is the subject of active judicial scrutiny at the U.S. Supreme Court; justices heard oral arguments on 5 November 2025 and raised serious questions about executive reach. A negative ruling could remove a major instrument of U.S. trade policy – or force the administration to pivot to other statutory levers. That legal uncertainty compounds the truce’s fragility.    Why this matters The US–China tariff truce offers a temporary pause, not lasting certainty. For boardrooms and global supply chain teams, understanding the risks, monitoring key signals, and proactively planning for multiple outcomes is critical to maintaining stability, protecting margins, and mitigating the operational and strategic impacts of potential renewed escalation.   More on the U.S., China, South Korea, and what trade talks mean for you: → Borders for the Boardroom: Sean Miner on the US-China trade deal Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music What changed in October 2025… and what didn’t What changed Targeted tariff adjustments and commitments. In the late-October negotiations, U.S. officials said certain tariff lines tied to fentanyl precursor chemicals would be halved – from 20% to 10% – lowering the headline U.S. tariff burden on Chinese imports by a reported few percentage points overall. The talks also included commitments for a sizeable uptick in Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans (Treasury officials cited a figure in the region of 12 million metric tonnes for the season). It’s likely these moves were partially influenced by the U.S. administration’s desire to appease what it sees as a core voter base of workers and farmers. A temporary easing of export control pressure. Beijing signalled it would pause, or at least temper, certain enforcement actions tied to rare-earth export controls, helping to calm thin but critical supply lines for some manufacturers. Markets interpreted the message as conditional rather than permanent, and subsequent industry commentary urged caution.  Regional tariff alignment moves. The U.S. also reached or reaffirmed tariff understandings with regional partners (notably arrangements that set some levies for Japan and South Korea at lower bands), reshaping near-term trade exposure for particular sectors such as autos and shipbuilding. Those regional moves probably form part of a broader attempt to compartmentalise tensions and avoid a wider regional fallout.  What didn’t change The strategic rivalry remains. The truce is tactical. China’s longer-term industrial strategy – including control over mining, processing and refining of many rare earths – has not been reversed. Beijing’s October 2025 expansion of export controls (adding multiple elements and equipment to control lists) shows the country still possesses structural levers that could be re-deployed if negotiations sour.  Legal and policy uncertainty in Washington. The Supreme Court review of IEEPA-based tariff authority introduces a material policy risk. If the Court constrains presidential power to impose broad tariffs, the administration may have to pivot to other mechanisms (e.g., Section 232, Trade Act tools) with different political, legal and operational implications. In short; the legal basis that enabled the rapid imposition of duties early in 2025 is not guaranteed to persist.  Domestic market realities limit quick wins. Beijing’s promise to increase U.S. soybean purchases was electorally useful for the U.S. administration, perhaps, but agricultural market signals suggest China’s immediate buying capacity may be limited by inventory and crush-margin dynamics. Reuters reports flag a soybean stock overhang that may constrain near-term purchases.  The net effect At least in the immediate future, the October ‘tariff truce’ reduces the near-term political temperature: selected tariff lines were eased, some procurement resumed, and short-term market volatility abated.  But – the structural levers that create systemic risk (rare-earth dominance, legal uncertainty over tariff authority, and the political incentives that drive tit-for-tat measures) remain very much alive.  For business leaders, the best operational position is not one of détente, but of time-boxed respite. That means acting quickly to shore up optionality, and avoid being caught in a reactive posture when the pause ends.  H2: Why the truce Is fundamentally unstable The agreement was engineered as a tactical and temporary de-escalation, not as a lasting settlement. While headline tariff lines were softened, the levers of critical economic power remain deeply asymmetrical. First, China’s rare-earth export controls remain a potent strategic weapon. Despite signaling an easing of enforcement, Beijing retains control over key mining and refining capacity. Prior expansions of export restrictions demonstrate that it is fully capable of re-tightening. Second, President Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA is in question. The U.S. Supreme Court’s current review directly challenges the administration’s legal basis to impose broad trade duties.  Third, domestic and political incentives complicate sustained cooperation. Beijing is under pressure to protect strategic industries; Washington faces conflicting demands from agriculture, manufacturing, tech, and national security voices.  Finally, the temporary nature of the pause itself speaks volumes. This is not a comprehensive reset but a time-bound, finite window, subject to the ebb and flow of geopolitical risk.  Implications for global business and supply chains This tactical pause in trade hostilities brings into focus certain risks for multinational companies operating across complex supply chains. Borders for the Boardroom: Christopher Salmon on supply chain resilience → Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music Import exposure and tariff risk Existing duties remain in place, and the legal jeopardy stemming from IEEPA challenges means the entire tariff infrastructure could change. For supply chain teams, this is the moment to re-assess import exposure: which products are most vulnerable, and what alternative sources exist if the truce unravels. Supply chain architecture and sourcing The pause presents a moment for strategic recalibration. Firms that once relied on ‘China +1’ sourcing strategies should re-evaluate: ‘China +N’ is the more resilient, risk-mitigated position. Near-shoring, alternate production hubs, and regional diversification offer possible solutions, but such shifts can be costly and time-consuming. Contracting, procurement, and pricing governance With uncertainty lessening in the short term, companies may be tempted to renegotiate contracts or lock-in suppliers aggressively. However, such moves should be structured carefully. Procurement teams should build scenario clauses into agreements, allow for tariff escalation or rollback triggers, and articulate pass-through mechanisms.  Capital deployment and investment strategy For capital-intensive operators (especially in autos, semiconductors, and clean tech) the pause is a window of opportunity to recommit capital, under conditional terms.  However, investment without horizon scanning is a high-stakes guessing game. Boardrooms must ringfence capital and create “if-then” gateways triggered directly by treaty developments and legal outcomes. Navigating the tariff pause: signals, strategy, and stability Timely, although seemingly never built to last, the US–China tariff truce represents a holding pattern amid unresolved geopolitical, legal, and economic pressures. For boardrooms, CFOs, and global supply chain leads, vigilance here is critical. The coming 6–9 months will reveal whether the pause becomes a platform for stability, or a prelude to renewed escalation. Key signals to monitor: Supreme Court IEEPA ruling: a decision limiting or upholding presidential tariff authority will immediately reshape strategic options. China’s compliance: soybean purchases, REE export controls, and shifts in blacklists or procurement rules will test the truce’s integrity. U.S. domestic pressures: farmers, retailers, tech, and security interests may prompt rapid shifts in U.S. tariff policy. South Korea and Japan: developments in semiconductor deals, export controls, and bilateral concessions could influence Beijing’s response. China’s geoeconomic posture: incremental moves in investment screening or sector targeting may accumulate into material operational risk. What cross-border companies should do: Refresh scenario models with tariff, legal, and geopolitical triggers Audit supplier and import exposure under multiple outcomes Advance diversification and dual-sourcing strategies Strengthen contractual protections for tariffs and disruptions Monitor policy daily, not quarterly Preparation builds stability Geopolitical uncertainty cannot be entirely eliminated; but it can be priced, planned for, and strategically contained. The U.S.–China relationship is unlikely to revert to pre-2018 norms: structural forces – technological leadership, critical minerals, industrial security – render volatility a recurring reality for multinational organisations. Boardrooms focused on embedding resilience into governance, procurement, investment, and supply chain design will be significantly better-equipped to face future scenarios and weather their impacts.   → Borders for the Boardroom: Christopher Salmon on supply chain resilience Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music

      A fragile reset? What the US–China tariff truce means for cross-border trade strategies in 2026
      Secret Link