Tariff Flashpoints Importers Can't Ignore

Trade compliance teams are facing an unusually volatile policy environment this year.

Tariffs are once again being used as instruments of political leverage, regulatory clarity is lagging behind political announcements, and the courts are poised to weigh in on the future of existing trade authorities.

Several developments, in particular, are converging to create heightened risk for U.S. importers, including:

• A newly announced potential 25-percent tariff tied to countries that continue doing business with Iran
• A pending Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs
• A growing pattern of tariff threats that inject uncertainty into sourcing, pricing and compliance decisions.

Each issue has the potential to affect duty rates and landed costs, often with little advance notice. Understanding their implications is becoming essential for maintaining compliance and protecting margins.

The Expansion of Secondary Trade Risk

Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced plans to impose a 25-percent tariff on goods imported from any country that continues to do business with Iran. Framed as a response to Iran’s violent suppression of protests, the proposal adds a new trade dimension to longstanding U.S. sanctions policy.

Unlike traditional tariffs aimed at a specific country or product category, this measure would function as a form of secondary tariff. It could affect imports from major U.S. trading partners (including China, India, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Russia) that maintain commercial relationships with Iran, particularly in energy, manufacturing and industrial sectors.

Critical details, however, remain unresolved:

• What constitutes “doing business” with Iran has not been defined
• It is unclear whether tariffs would be on top of existing duties or replace them
• No formal executive order has been issued outlining scope or timing
• The legal authority for the measure has not been specified and could face court challenges.

For importers, these ambiguities matter. If layered onto existing tariffs, the policy could significantly raise landed costs across a wide range of goods. It also raises the risk of renewed trade tensions with major partners, while potentially increasing prices for U.S. consumers.

More broadly, the announcement reflects a growing trend of tariffs being increasingly announced as geopolitical signals before regulatory frameworks are finalized. Compliance teams are often left to interpret intent, assess exposure, and prepare for multiple possible outcomes in parallel.

Supreme Court Prolongs Uncertainty

Compounding these challenges is the Supreme Court's continued delay in issuing a ruling on Trump-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, with February now the earliest potential window.

The stakes are significant. Depending on the outcome, existing tariffs could be upheld, modified or invalidated. There is also the possibility of retroactive implications, affecting past imports and duty payments.

For importers, this uncertainty creates ongoing risk:

• Current classifications and duty calculations may need to be revisited
• Past import activity could be subject to adjustment
• Future sourcing, pricing, and contracting decisions must account for multiple legal scenarios.

In the absence of clarity, scenario planning becomes a necessity rather than a best practice.

Market Signals and the Cost of Uncertainty

A third and increasingly important factor for importers is the growing use of tariff threats themselves, and the uncertainty they create, even when those threats are later softened or withdrawn.

Recent weeks have offered multiple examples. The administration has floated new tariffs tied to diplomatic disputes, including warnings of steep duties on Canada due to its trade relationship with China and earlier threats directed at European countries during negotiations over Greenland.

While some of these measures have been delayed or walked back, the pattern has been consistent. Tariff announcements are made quickly, often without detailed guidance, and sometimes reversed after market or diplomatic pushback.

Financial markets have taken notice. Equity markets have shown signs of fatigue, safe-haven assets such as gold have surged, and global investors have steadily priced political unpredictability into their outlooks. For importers, these market reactions matter because they often foreshadow policy volatility that can translate into real-world cost exposure.

Meanwhile, the global trade economy is moving in multiple directions. While tariff threats dominate headlines in some countries, others are pursuing tariff reductions through negotiated agreements.

India’s ongoing trade talks with the European Union, for example, point toward selective tariff liberalization for certain sectors, even as U.S. tariffs on Indian goods remain elevated. For companies operating across multiple markets, this divergence complicates sourcing strategies and long-term planning.

The core issue for importers is not whether every tariff threat will be implemented. It is that duty exposure can shift rapidly, sometimes based on a single announcement, and static assumptions about tariff stability are no longer reliable.

Why Continuous Trade Compliance Matters

Taken together, Iran-linked tariffs, unresolved court rulings and the growing use of tariff threats reinforce the reality that trade compliance is no longer a periodic exercise. Policy is moving faster, driven by geopolitics, legal challenges and market reaction as much as by traditional trade negotiations.

To manage this environment, importers should prioritize:

• Continuous monitoring of tariff changes and trade remedies
• Accurate and consistent Harmonized System (HS)/ Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification to reduce misclassification risk
• Proactive modeling of potential tariff and legal outcomes to understand cost exposure.

Manual processes and static spreadsheets are ill-suited to this level of volatility. The ability to adapt quickly, before policy changes take effect, can mean the difference between controlled risk and costly disruption.

Preparing for What Comes Next

Whether Iran-related measures are formalized, tariff threats escalate or recede, or the Supreme Court reshapes existing trade authorities, uncertainty has become a defining feature of global trade.

For importers, the challenge is building the flexibility, visibility and preparedness for what happens next. Right now, trade policy can shift with a court ruling, a diplomatic standoff or a single announcement, and resilience in compliance has never been a more important strategic imperative.

(Image credit: Getty Images/Angelica Zander)