Strategy & Horizon Scannning

Sarah Rice

Director

As export controls grow increasingly complex, and the consequences of non-compliance become more severe, UK companies require stronger and more strategically aligned HR support. Teams need to understand the crucial role they play, from managing compliance to employment and training. 

HR teams are now being called upon – not only to understand evolving regulations and respond to geopolitical uncertainty – but also to be able to navigate government guidelines and advice, which are often convoluted and confusing. 

When combined with a general lack of awareness of export controls, this situation can be a minefield. 

For example, the multijurisdictional rules that impact UK companies sees elements of the US export control regime, which are based on nationality, out of step with our domestic anti-discrimination rules. HR teams therefore need to strike the balance between a) asking whether your new potential hire is of a nationality authorised to access controlled items, while b) avoiding discrimination, and thereby preventing conflict with UK data protection laws. This extends to being responsible for everything from the screening of visitors through to managing disciplinary action and reporting for violations.

Many of our clients don’t know they may be breaking international laws by allowing employees and contractors with dual or third county nationalities to access controlled items or technology.

This has become even more relevant with increased tensions in the Middle East, resulting in an increased focus on national and international security. Thus, export controls are currently under heightened scrutiny, enforcement measures have been increased, and rules are increasingly complex.  

The onus is on HR to stay up to date with regulatory changes and expanding sanctions and restrictions, in order to avoid severe penalties. And it is within this landscape that the team’s expertise in training, policy development, and fostering a culture of accountability proves indispensable. HR’s role in aligning people practices with international trade requirements positions it as a critical operational partner in managing regulatory and reputational risk.

How clearBorder can help

clearBorder offers proactive and reactive support to help businesses avoid the severe penalties associated with non-compliance, which can include significant fines, license revocations, goods seizure, and even imprisonment.

In essence, we act as an external expert resource that empowers UK companies (including their HR departments), to build robust and compliant export control frameworks. By providing the necessary knowledge, tools, and support, we help HR play its vital role in navigating the complex landscape of international trade regulations.

Moreover, we can also assist in developing internal compliance programmes and auditing a company’s Export Management and Compliance Programme (EMCP), which will include policies and procedures that HR must implement and enforce.

The specifics: involvement, direction and guidance from HR may include:

Political and regulatory volatility: 

Growing geopolitical tensions are continuously influencing and increasing the expansion and impact of global sanctions. This is particularly relevant with regards to the US, and “Trump’s Tariffs” creating uncertainty and a nervousness that echoes right around the trading world. US rules will be particularly challenging for HR in areas such as discrimination and data protection. 

Companies must screen visitors, staff, and business partners to avoid engaging with restricted persons or entities, and adopt a culture of compliance to keep on top of regulatory requirements – as enforcement and scrutiny are on the rise. 

For example, if new items are controlled or expanded, or sanctions/restrictions are introduced, it could mean new and/or updated screening is needed for existing and new employees. If new nationalities are consequently blocked, the hiring process may need updating, or access may be denied to certain foreign nationals working on particular projects. 

This may result in new roles or projects needing to be found, or wider personnel challenges such as redundancy – which brings in the added challenge of working within UK employment laws. HR need to be informed around all of this, through either checking control list updates themselves, or by a responsible export control specialist.

Increased fines: 

The Export Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025 have raised maximum fines for certain offenses, making robust internal controls more critical than ever before. [1]

For the HR Manager, this means they will – or at least, they should – have core Export Compliance responsibilities, and need to work alongside the Export Control Manager to ensure up-to-date and robust policies and procedures are in place, along with required and relevant training. 

Policies, procedures and training might include:

  • Ensuring the hiring process is compliant with international export controls, and screening prospective employees against Restricted Party Lists
  • Maintaining records as required by applicable export control laws, regulations, licences and other authorisations
  • Organising export control training for all employees and contractors, including refresher courses and specialist training as required, and updating handbooks and supporting documentation
  • Preparing non-disclosure statements (or equivalent) for employees to sign as part of authorisation to access UK and US controlled hardware, software, and technology

Employee awareness and training: 

As many violations stem from a lack of employee awareness or human error, HR is key in developing and delivering comprehensive training programmes. This is to ensure all relevant employees understand what, for example, constitutes a controlled item or technology, applicable regulations, how to identify red flags, and the consequences of non-compliance. 

In addition, training can significantly reduce the risk of manual errors that are often the cause of costly disruption and potential fines. 

Compliance in increasing complexity and risk:

Dual-Use Items: Many companies may not realise that their products or technologies fall under dual-use regulations. HR can help ensure that product development and sales teams are aware of these classifications.

Supply Chain Scrutiny: Increased scrutiny on supply chains requires companies to understand end-users and end-uses of their products. HR can support due diligence on personnel involved in these stages.

Reputational Damage: Beyond legal penalties, non-compliance can lead to significant reputational damage, impacting a company’s ability to attract and retain talent and business partners. HR has a vested interest in protecting the company’s reputation.

“Deemed exports” and intangible transfers: 

From an operations perspective, it’s critically important to note that US export controls include the concept of “deemed exports” – which is not present in UK regulations. 

Since US rules have extraterritorial reach and can be enforced in the UK, compliance is crucial. Therefore, HR departments must ensure that all employees are legally authorised to access any controlled information or items relevant to their work within the company.

Export controls apply to “deemed exports” (transfer of controlled technology/technical data to foreign nationals within the UK) and intangible exports (such as technical assistance). This serves to emphasise the human element of compliance. 

For example, if controlled tech is shared with non-UK staff, visitors and contractors, this is considered an export (under US regulations) to that person’s home nation – and an export licence might be needed, even though the transfer happens within the UK. Notably, sharing can happen in a variety of ways, such as via emails, access to servers, visibility of stock, meetings, site visits, and so on.

HR best practice for export control compliance

HR plays a critical role in managing “deemed export” risks through:

  • Nationality and residency tracking: collecting and maintaining accurate information on employees’ nationality, residency, and location, as these can impact access to controlled technology
  • Access controls: working with IT and management to restrict access to controlled technology for authorised personnel
  • Onboarding and offboarding: implementing processes to address export control implications during new hires and employee departures (e.g., revoking access to sensitive information)
  • Internal compliance programmes: HR significantly contributes to developing and implementing a company’s Export Management and Compliance Programme (EMCP), including:

Defining clear policies and procedures including:

  • Balancing data protection, anti-discrimination, and export control regulations
  • Establishing reporting mechanisms for suspected violations
  • Ensuring appropriate record-keeping for all export-related activities
  • Due diligence for employees and third parties: HR, often with legal and compliance teams, can assist in screening employees, contractors, and other third parties involved in export activities against denied party lists
  • Culture of compliance: HR is instrumental in fostering a strong compliance culture by communicating the importance of export controls, promoting ethical practices, and integrating compliance into daily operations
  • Responding to non-compliance: If a violation occurs, HR will be involved in disciplinary actions – from retraining to termination – and cooperating with authorities

How a clearBorder and HR partnership delivers stronger compliance

More than a strict legal requirement, export control compliance is – in many ways – a people issue. clearBorder helps turn complex regulations into clear, workable processes by assisting HR teams understand, manage, and embed best practice across their organisation.

From building bespoke training programmes to advising on nuanced areas like “deemed exports” and dual-nationality challenges, we support HR leaders in becoming confident custodians of compliance. The result? A workforce that is informed, protected, and fully aligned with international trade obligations.

Specifically for “deemed exports”, clearBorder can advise on this somewhat-confusing concept,which directly informs HR’s need to:

  • Understand which roles involve access to controlled technology
  • Collect and manage nationality/residency information appropriately and legally
  • Develop internal policies for granting access to sensitive information

We also provide bespoke training for HR and other staff, to equip them with the knowledge to:

  • Recognise export control implications during the hiring process
  • Understand the legal boundaries when asking for nationality information
  • Implement effective employee screening procedures for denied parties
  • Ensure new hires in relevant roles receive appropriate export control briefings

Beyond this, we can assist in developing internal compliance programmes and auditing a company’s Export Management and Compliance Programme (EMCP). This programme will include policies and procedures that HR must implement and enforce, such as:

  • Employee awareness and training programmes
  • Documentation and record-keeping requirements related to “deemed exports” and personnel access
  • Reporting mechanisms for potential violations

Through deep, expert analysis of a company’s export control risks, clearBorder also helps identify areas where HR policies and procedures need to be strengthened to prevent inadvertent breaches – and continue trading across borders, confidently and capably.

References

[1] The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OAFC) enforces and publicises civil fines and penalties for export and international trade compliance violations. The value of fines implemented in the first quarter of 2023 indicated that this was already a record year of monetary penalties totalling more than $33M. [https://www.descartes.com/resources/blog/cost-of-export-compliance-errors-highlights-the-need-for-robust-denied-party-screening ]

Financial and criminal penalties for US export control violations have been adjusted upwards for 2025 to account for inflation. Wilful violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) can result in significant civil penalties, which for 2025 can be up to $374,474 per violation or twice the value of the transaction. Criminal penalties can include substantial fines and lengthy prison sentences. [https://www.cmtradelaw.com/2025/01/u-s-export-controls-and-sanctions-regulatory-agencies-increase-civil-monetary-penalties-for-violations/ & https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oee/penalties]

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