In 2025, global trade is increasingly shaped by political brinkmanship, legal upheaval, and retaliatory maneuvering. The return of high-stakes tariff talk from U.S. presidential candidates, coupled with unprecedented judicial challenges, has escalated trade uncertainty to new heights.
Just this June, the OECD downgraded global economic growth forecasts, citing the resurgence of “protectionist policies and elevated trade barriers” as key drags on investment and supply chain resilience. Simultaneously, Bloomberg reports that the U.S. Supreme Court is actively reconsidering the constitutional limits of presidential authority over tariffs, opening the door to major changes in how future trade measures can be implemented, or undone.
The result? A volatile, reactive global trade environment that exposes enterprises to multimillion-dollar risks practically overnight. For companies relying on stable trade lanes, predictable duties, and harmonized classification codes, this environment of tariff uncertainty isn’t just inconvenient; it’s disruptive to operations, financial planning, and shareholder value.
Against this backdrop, IT leaders, compliance executives, and CFOs must align to make tariff resilience a core component of enterprise strategy.
Policy Whiplash
Recent U.S. trade policy proposals have reignited global economic tensions. President Donald Trump’s formerly announced plan to impose a universal 10% tariff on all imports, with additional levies of 60% or more on Chinese goods, has triggered alarm across the OECD and WTO communities. The OECD warns that such moves could reduce global GDP by up to 1.2% if widely reciprocated, citing impacts on capital flows, inflation, and consumer demand.
Adding to the tariff uncertainty, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the scope of presidential trade authority, including whether executive-imposed tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 violate the separation of powers. In Politico’s reporting, legal experts suggest that a ruling could reshape trade governance for decades, creating ripple effects for how companies plan around future tariff regimes.
Meanwhile, the aftermath of the Section 301 reciprocal tariffs pause has left U.S. importers confused about their eligibility for drawback claims under HTSUS 9903.01.25. While some analysts indicate claims are allowed for products imported before the suspension, others highlight that such claims may face scrutiny due to the CBP’s evolving position. As of now, the CBP has not issued a definitive, publicly available ruling, creating tariff uncertainty and risk for companies filing for reimbursement without clear legal standing.
Together, these dynamics expose companies to unpredictable duty rates, retroactive tax assessments, and fractured supply chains. In a recent Gartner survey, 67% of supply chain leaders identified trade policy shifts as a top-three source of business disruption, but only 18% felt confident in their organization’s ability to respond quickly.
The Supreme Court’s Role and the Major Questions Doctrine
As we’ve established, in what’s been considered a historic turn, the United States Supreme Court has become a key player in the evolving story of global trade governance, particularly through its application of the Major Questions Doctrine. This legal doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to take significant regulatory actions without explicit congressional authorization, is now directly impacting how presidential administrations impose tariffs.
Recently, it was confirmed that any significant regulatory decision, especially those with vast economic impact, must now have clear congressional backing. This change directly challenges how Section 301 tariffs have historically been enacted. As reported, President Trump’s unilateral tariff actions are now the subject of intense legal scrutiny, with constitutional challenges mounting in lower courts and likely to escalate back to the Supreme Court.
Implications for Trade Leaders
This legal shift could dramatically alter the trade compliance modernization landscape:
- Less Predictability: Businesses can no longer assume that executive tariff decisions will go unchallenged.
- Compliance Complexity: Legal ambiguity around tariff authority raises the stakes for ensuring accurate country-of-origin analysis and documentation.
- Longer Policy Cycles: Future tariff implementations may require Congressional involvement, slowing down what was once a swift executive lever.
For global trade teams and compliance officers, this legal and tariff uncertainty makes advanced ruling requests with CBP even more critical. By securing pre-clearance on tariff treatment and country-of-origin status, companies can protect themselves from policy whiplash.
Why This Matters Now
As legal analysts have noted, the Court’s growing role in tariff governance introduces a new era of checks and balances on presidential power. For companies navigating global trade, this underscores the need to future-proof their trade compliance modernization strategies, invest in dynamic trade technology, and engage strategic partners that monitor legal shifts in real time.
From Border to Bottom Line
When tariffs spike, or even threaten to, most companies react tactically: rerouting shipments, renegotiating with suppliers, or absorbing short-term costs. But this short-term thinking is no longer enough. The current trade environment demands strategic preparedness at the operational core. Here’s why:
Supply Chain Disruptions and Due Diligence
According to the 2024 Global Trade Report by Thomson Reuters, a substantial number of businesses reported that their operations were impacted by supply chain due diligence requirements. This underscores the increasing complexity and scrutiny in global trade operations, necessitating more robust trade compliance modernization and risk management strategies.
Geopolitical Tensions and Export Controls
The same report highlights that over half of the surveyed companies were affected by geopolitically charged export control laws. These regulations have introduced additional layers of complexity, requiring businesses to adapt swiftly to maintain compliance and avoid potential penalties.
Technological Gaps in Trade Compliance
Despite the growing challenges, the adoption of technology to manage trade compliance modernization remains limited. Only 8% of respondents indicated that their companies utilize technology for trade compliance and customs processes. This reliance on manual systems can lead to inefficiencies and increased risk of non-compliance.
Strategic Implications
The operational impact of tariff uncertainty is profound:
- Financial Planning: Unpredictable tariffs complicate budgeting and forecasting, affecting profitability and investment decisions.
- Supply Chain Management: Increased due diligence and export controls can cause delays and necessitate rerouting, impacting delivery timelines and customer satisfaction.
- Compliance Risks: Limited technological adoption in trade compliance modernization processes heightens the risk of errors, potential fines, and reputational damage.
Meanwhile, CBP’s renewed focus on origin tracing and substantial transformation is putting importers under the microscope. Failure to prove compliant country-of-origin documentation can result in retroactive duties, penalties, and seizure of goods, even if the product passed through prior compliance checks.
What’s more, many companies are still reliant on manual spreadsheets or disconnected systems for managing tariff codes, exceptions, and filing deadlines. This not only slows response time, it increases the risk of noncompliance, which CBP is increasingly addressing through AI-powered audits and anomaly detection tools.
Legal must coordinate with IT to ensure audit trails are intact. Finance needs visibility into landed cost fluctuations. Compliance and operations must work from a shared playbook; one that is automated, adaptive, and validated against the latest regulations.
This is where companies fall short. Trade strategy is too often confined to a silo, disconnected from the digital infrastructure and governance frameworks that could transform it from reactive to proactive.
Mitigating Risks During this Period of Tariff Uncertainty
As the Supreme Court reshapes the boundaries of presidential power and trade rulings face greater scrutiny, businesses can no longer afford a reactive stance. The cost of doing nothing (delayed shipments, misclassified goods, tariff overpayments, and regulatory penalties) has never been higher. It’s time for trade compliance modernization.
To thrive in this new environment, trade and finance leaders must take proactive steps:
- Institutionalize strategic trade planning across procurement, supply chain, and finance functions.
- Modernize trade compliance modernization operations with cloud-based global trade platforms like Oracle GTM Cloud.
- Invest in legal foresight by leveraging advanced ruling requests and classification audits to pre-empt disruption.
- Partner with experts who not only understand trade technology, but also the legal, economic, and geopolitical frameworks shaping it.
At IT Convergence, we help enterprises turn uncertainty into advantage. With Oracle GTM implementations, we support organizations in building resilient trade operations that anticipate, and outmaneuver, disruption.
Because when the rules keep changing, your response must be strategic.
Explore ITC’s Trade Compliance Services
Read The 2025 Trade Compliance Playbook
Disclaimer:
The information presented in this blog is for educational and informational purposes only. IT Convergence is a technology and ERP systems advisory firm. While we closely monitor the tax, trade, and tariff volatility landscape, we focus on helping organizations prepare their Oracle environments accordingly. We do not provide tax or legal advice, nor do we interpret tax legislation.
We recommend that all organizations consult with qualified tax or legal advisors to assess their specific obligations based on industry, entity classification, and jurisdiction.
IT Convergence supports customers in configuring, optimizing, and future-proofing their systems for compliance but does not assume responsibility for legal or fiscal determinations.
