Category Archives: Trade Regulation

10 Steps to Identify and Manage Tariff Risks and Opportunities

by Jonny Frank and Laura Greenman

Jonny Frank and Laura Greenman (photos courtesy of StoneTurn Group, LLP)

This article builds on “Tariffs Meet COSO: A Two-Way Street to Risk & Opportunity Management,” which introduces the COSO Integrated Internal Control Framework and explains how to use it to meet tariff operations, reporting and compliance objectives. Here, we present a 10-step process for using COSO’s risk assessment component to avoid tariff under- and overpayments, mitigate legal and reputational harm and identify potential opportunities for operational efficiencies.

Continue reading →

From Peanuts to Elephant-Sized Penalties: A Fresh Look at Recent U.S. Export Controls Enforcement Developments & Future Trends

by Brent Carlson

Photo courtesy of the author

Export controls penalties that were previously peanuts compared to FCPA penalties are now becoming more like elephants, with the “high probability” standard driving the stampede.

On July 28, 2025, DOJ and BIS announced a $140 million resolution with an electronic design automation (“EDA”) exporter via a guilty plea[1] and BIS settlement[2] over exports to China.

The BIS settlement turned on what the exporter had “reason to know, including awareness of a high probability” (aka the “high probability” standard), and not just actual knowledge—an escalation in BIS’s use of the full definition of “knowledge” under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).[3] Recent BIS guidance in July 2024, October 2024, and May 2025 foreshadowed this shift,[4] as did an August 15, 2025, $5.8 million settlement.[5]

For practical guidance on the “high probability” standard, see prior “Fresh Looks” posts.[6]

This recent case also warrants an update of the November 14, 2023, comparison of export controls and FCPA enforcement, which likewise leveraged the “high probability” standard.[7]

Continue reading →

Beware the Tariff DDP Trap: Managing Hidden Import Liabilities Before They Bite

by Jonny Frank and Jerry McAdams

Left to right: Jonny Frank and Jerry McAdams (photos courtesy of StoneTurn Group, LLP)

Looking to mitigate tariffs, companies are purchasing foreign products through Duty Paid (“DDP”) transactions marketed by foreign suppliers as turnkey solutions. DDPs promise efficiency but often deliver exposure. Under U.S. law, the importer—not the supplier—remains legally responsible for accurate customs declarations, tariff payments, and regulatory compliance. When suppliers cut corners or game the system, the importer inherits the fallout, including potential Customs Border Protection (“CBP”) penalties, DOJ criminal prosecution and False Claim Act (“FCA”) exposure.

Continue reading →

White House’s AI Action Plan: Winning the Race in a Patchwork Regulatory Era

By Joshua Ashley Klayman, Ieuan Jolly, Jeffrey Cohen, and Caitlin Potratz Metcalf

Left to right: Joshua Ashley Klayman, Ieuan Jolly, Jeffrey Cohen, and Caitlin Potratz Metcalf (photos courtesy of Linklaters)

On July 23, 2025, the White House published Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan (the AI Action Plan), a comprehensive effort aimed to solidify United States leadership in artificial intelligence. The AI Action Plan acknowledges the U.S.’ uniquely complex—and, at times, conflicting—regulatory landscape, including the patchwork of state-level laws that impact innovation, compliance, and policy predictability. The Action Plan calls for national leadership and seeks a unified, pro-innovation regulatory approach, with an understanding that states will continue to develop their own laws. Businesses should prepare for both the opportunities and the compliance challenges that will arise as the Action Plan is implemented.

Continue reading →

Board Priorities in a Geopolitical Landscape: Risk, Compliance, and Supply Chain Resilience

This post comes from a webinar with Bets Lillo, Edward Knight, Will A. Clarke, and Jana del-Cerro delivered on May 22, 2025. They offered a clear-eyed view of how boards and executive management must adapt to effectively lead amid a world where national security, economic policy, and supply chain resilience are deeply intertwined. Five key takeaways from their discussion are outlined below, alongside practical implications for boardroom oversight and planning.

From left to right: Bets Lillo, Edward Knight, Will A. Clarke, and Jana del-Cerro (photos courtesy of authors).

As the impact of global interdependencies becomes increasingly complex, boards and executive management are guiding and governing their companies in an unpredictable environment. That was the central theme of the recent May 2025 webinar, Geopolitical Issues Impacting Global Supply Chains and National Security, hosted by the Nasdaq Center for Board Excellence and the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at NYU School of Law.

Continue reading →

White Collar Experts Discuss New DOJ Criminal Enforcement Priorities (Part I)

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Trump Administration’s new approach to corporate criminal enforcement. In this post, PCCE invited leading white collar practitioners to discuss the new enforcement priorities and revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) outlined by Matthew Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division for the DOJ, in a speech at the SIFMA Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference on May 12, 2025.

Top left to right: Paul Krieger, Michael Chang-Frieden, Sharon Cohen Levin, and Andrew J. DeFilippis
Bottom left to right: David Massey, Jamie Schafer, Seetha Ramachandran, and William C. Komaroff
(photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

President Trump Announces Then Suspends Reciprocal Tariffs, Defers Tariffs on Certain Electronics, and Increases Tariffs on China

by Lauren Mandell, David J. Ross, Neena Shenai, Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Heather E. Hedges, and Mark Kim

Top left to right: Lauren Mandell, David J. Ross, Neena Shenai, Bottom left to right: Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Heather E. Hedges and Mark Kim (Photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)

On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order (the Reciprocal Tariffs Executive Order or Executive Order) announcing a 10% baseline reciprocal tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners, effective April 5, and an additional reciprocal tariff on 57 countries, effective April 9. Seven of the United States’ top ten trading partners are among the 57 countries the Order states will face an additional reciprocal tariff: 34% for China (including the baseline tariff and the additional tariff), 20% for the European Union, 46% for Vietnam, 32% for Taiwan, 24% for Japan, 27% for India, and 26% for South Korea. Other than exemptions for duties imposed pursuant to Section 232 actions and for certain enumerated products, the tariffs are additive.

However, on April 10, the President suspended country-specific reciprocal tariff for all countries except China for a period of 90 days, until July 8, 2025. On the same day, after days of escalation, the President increased the Chinese reciprocal tariff to 125%.

On April 11, the President excluded from the reciprocal tariffs a host of electronics, including smartphones, laptops, televisions. This relief appears to be temporary because on April 14, the U.S. Commerce Department announced new Section 232 investigations of semiconductors, as well as pharmaceuticals, that could result in tariffs.

Continue reading →

Recalibrating Compliance Programs Under Trump 2.0

by Adam Siegel, Eric Bruce, Daniel Cendan, and Emmeline Chen

Left to right: Adam Siegel, Eric Bruce, Daniel Cendan, and Emmeline Chen (photos courtesy of authors)

Nearly two months into his second presidential term, President Trump and his Administration have engaged in a flurry of activity, issuing over 80 executive orders (EOs), 20 memoranda, and a dozen proclamations, as well as making personnel adjustments and redeploying various federal resources. Together with his Cabinet members, President Trump has sought to swiftly roll out policy initiatives, many of which reflect a significant change in course from the United States’ prior approaches and create uncertainty and new risks across multiple sectors.

Continue reading →

President Trump Issues “America First Investment Policy” Presidential Memorandum

by Jeffrey P. Bialos, Ginger T. Faulk, Mark D. Herlach, and Nicholas T. Hillman

From left to right: Jeffrey P. Bialos, Ginger T. Faulk, Mark D. Herlach, and Nicholas T. Hillman. Photos courtesy from Eversheds Sutherland.

On February 21, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled “America First Investment Policy” (the “Investment Memo” or “Memo”), in which the President aims to modify the U.S. Government’s approach to inbound and outbound foreign investment to address national security threats.

The Investment Memo reconfirms the United States’ longstanding commitment to open investment to encourage domestic development of key advanced technologies and takes steps to streamline investments by trusted allies and partners. Among other things, it seeks to establish the “fast tracking” of certain investment and environmental reviews and seeks to minimize the use of “open ended” mitigation agreements.

Continue reading →