WITA’s Friday Exchange: The Airing of Grievances: Choke Points and Tolls, China Leverage, Canada and Big Square States
In the latest episode of the Friday Exchange, our trade insiders look beyond the headlines to examine what’s really happening on your screens and behind the scenes in trade discussions. The importance of USCMA to “big square states”; rethinking rules of origin; critical minerals, “unfair trade practices,” and trade with China. Our discussants also looked at choke points and leverage, China and critical minerals, and is there a danger of new tit-for-tat tolls on global shipping?
Introduction: Kenneth Levinson, CEO, WITA – The International Trade Association
Wendy Cutler, Senior Vice President, Asia Society Policy Institute; former Acting Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
Mark Linscott, Senior Advisor at the Asia Group and the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum; former Assistant USTR for South and Central Asia and WTO and Multilateral Affairs
Chris Padilla, Senior Advisor, Brunswick Group; former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
Kellie Meiman Hock, Senior Counselor, McLarty Associates; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University; Board Member, Inter-American Dialogue; former Director of Brazil and the Southern Cone, Office of the United States Trade Representative
Watch the Video on YouTube | Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
Recorded at 9:00 AM US/ET on 04/24/2026 | WITA
WITA at the Clayton Yeutter Institute Symposium: Perspectives from Law, Policy, and Industry
On Tuesday, April 21st, the Clayton Yeutter Institute at the University of Nebraska hosted their 2026 Symposium, “Toward A New International Trading System.” At the symposium, WITA CEO Ken Levinson moderated a panel titled “Perspectives from Law, Policy, and Industry”.
Featured Speakers:
Mike Boyle, President, Kawasaki Motors Mfg. Corp.
Kathleen Claussen, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; former Associate General Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Angela Ellard, Senior Advisor (non-resident), Center for Strategic and International Studies; former Deputy Director General, World Trade Organization
Moderator: Kenneth I. Levinson, Chief Executive Officer, WITA – The International Trade Association
Watch all Sessions of the Symposium Here
04/21/2026 | WITA
WITA at the Clayton Yeutter Institute Symposium: Perspectives from Law, Policy, and Industry
China Briefing is a publication of Dezan Shira & Associates. The author of this briefing, Arendse Huld, is an Editor for China Briefing based in Shanghai.
On April 7, 2026, the State Council released the Regulations on Industrial and Supply Chain Security (the “regulations”), which expand the Chinese government’s powers to impose countermeasures on actions that are deemed to risk the security of the country’s supply chains.
The new regulations, which came into force on the same day as their release, have caused concern among foreign companies operating in China due to their potential to entangle entities conducting investigations into China supply chains, with possible consequences ranging from investment bans to sanctions on individuals.
However, it is not yet certain how broadly the regulations will be implemented, and they may prove to be targeted only at a small group of multinationals involved directly in lobbying foreign governments to take economic actions against China. Nonetheless, foreign companies with a footprint in China should factor potential exposure to the regulations into their supply chain risk assessments.
What do the regulations say?
The regulations place any actions taken by any organization or individual that conducts investigations or other activities to collect information related to industrial and supply chains within China’s territory in violation of Chinese laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of Chinese law.
04/20/2026 | Arendse Huld | China Briefing
Trump 2.0: A Disruptive Peripeteia for International Law
Introduction
Since the United States (US) ended its isolationist policy and emerged as a great power in international relations, American presidencies have mattered a lot for the rest of the world, including the international legal order. Each US president, starting with Franklin Roosevelt, has left their mark on international law.[1] This is also because of some important executive powers that the US president enjoys, relating to international law in the American legal and political system.[2] At several junctures, such as during the US–Vietnam war in the 1960s or the US–Iraq war in the early 2000s, American presidencies have been seen as undermining and violating international law. Yet, the US has continued to participate in international agreements and institutions, and for a long time was a cornerstone of the international legal order. It has also been the principal guarantor of the post-war international legal order and has played a critical role in nurturing it.[3]
President Donald Trump’s first term (20 January 2017–20 January 2021) saw the start of an almost unprecedented level of disengagement and withdrawal from international law.[4] In January 2025, Trump was re-elected as US president, and the Republican Party, to which he belongs, now holds the majority in both the Senate and the House of Congress. A number of important decisions with far-reaching domestic and international impact were made within a few weeks of his inauguration.
This paper seeks to understand the nature of risks and the likely impact of the Trump presidency on the international legal order. It situates the discussion within the broader debate on the role of great powers and analyses the factors that make this presidency especially consequential for international law. It attempts to discern the unique facets of the Trumpian vision of international law and discusses specific risks it poses. Finally, it considers what the future may hold.
04/21/2026 | Rahul Mohanty & Prabhash Ranjan | Observer Research Foundation
The Unintended Impact of Trump’s Tariffs
Abstract
On so-called ‘Liberation Day’, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs of 20% on goods made in the EU, with similar measures for the US’s other trade partners. This policy paper asks if the new US economic policy will push Europe closer to China economically and promote a pivot towards Asia more broadly. This paper considers the contextual factors affecting the relationship between the EU and China and concludes that while the tariffs will inevitably bring them closer in terms of trade, such rapprochement is unlikely to materialise at the political level. Instead, the EU should expand its focus towards the Indo-Pacific and become a reliable partner in economic security. This would raise the EU’s profile as a geoeconomic power while minimising the costs of the US tariffs and protecting the liberal trade regime, its values, principles, and rules.
Introduction
On 2 April 2025, [EB1] US President Donald Trump announced that he would unveil reciprocal tariffs of 20% on goods made in the EU, on what he called ‘Liberation Day’.1 Trump’s tariffs would affect a large number of countries across the globe, particularly Europe, China, and countries in the Indo-Pacific region (see Figure 1). In this context, this policy paper asks: Will the US’s new economic policy force Europe closer to China economically and promote a pivot towards Asia more broadly? What are the ways to navigate this global shift in trade relations?
Due to the sharp effect the tariffs had on the US stock market, the president decided to suspend their application for 90 days, until 9 July. He committed his administration to negotiate 90 deals in 90 days, not only with the EU but also with most of the countries in the world that would also be affected by reciprocal tariffs. As trade talks were initiated between American and European counterparts, the 9 July deadline passed and President Trump extended the deadline until 1 August, even while sending a letter to the EU that threatened to impose 30% tariffs on its imports starting on 1 August if the two parties failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal.
Read the Full Policy Paper Here
04/12/2026 | Laia Comerma | European Liberal Forum
Evaluating the Impact of Tariffs on US Agriculture a Year After Liberation Day
The following is an excerpt:
Conclusion
One year after Liberation Day, the trade outlook for US agriculture remains murky. By the end of 2025, US agricultural imports were significantly lower than in 2024, to an important extent because of higher tariffs. However, fearing the adverse political and other consequences from tariffs’ effects on food prices, the administration granted exemptions from the Liberation Day and subsequent tariff increases for some agricultural commodities. Nonetheless, higher tariffs remain for numerous other agricultural and food products. The consequence is that domestic processors and groceries will pay higher prices for those imported goods and their domestically produced competitors. Thus, households will pay more for many of the foods they purchase and face higher living costs.
US agricultural exports have been hurt because of Chinese retaliation and consumer boycotts in Canada. It remains to be seen whether deals with China and other countries will provide increased market access for US exporters. This is not least because those deals contain “get out of jail” clauses to allow the US government to renege on major provisions of the agreements, leading the rest of the world to increasingly view the US as an untrustworthy trading partner.
Finally, China’s retaliatory tariffs on US exports remain, which means US access to the Chinese market is less in the hands of private buyers (as it was before the trade wars began) than in the hands of China’s state-owned trading companies. Those companies may have to comply with their government’s commitments on minimum soybean imports from the US between 2026 and 2028. However, they likely will have no economic incentives to exceed those obligations.
Finally, the Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources has questioned the status of these agreements, as most of them were negotiated under the IEEPA tariffs. We do not know what the impacts will be if the Trump “supplemental” tariffs are reinstated once the Section 301 investigations are completed. If 2025 is any guide, the path forward in 2026 seems likely to be almost as rocky for US agriculture.
04/15/2026 | Joseph W. Glauber | American Enterprise Institute
WITA – We put the community in trade community.
Information about upcoming WITA and trade community events