This episode features a conversation on trade with partners Francisco de Rosenzweig and Greg Spak. Francisco, a trade and finance partner in Mexico City, was previously deputy minister for foreign trade of Mexico. Greg, who is based in Washington, DC, has been a partner in our global trade group since the birth of the World Trade Organization in 1995. Topics covered in this episode, which focuses on Latin America, include tariffs as economic and negotiating tools and their impacts on supply chains and business costs. The partners offer insights into how businesses can navigate the evolving landscape.
Listen now
Listen and subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Music | Amazon Music
Hello and welcome to The First 100 Days, a podcast from White & Case that features our lawyers’ views on the likely regulatory, legal and policy implications of the new administration on businesses operating across the globe and in various industries. I’m Eric Leicht, a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee and a partner in our Debt Finance practice. Today, I'm joined by Greg Spak and Francisco de Rosenzweig. Greg, who’s based in Washington, DC, has been a partner in our International Trade practice for 30 years. Francisco’s a trade and finance partner in our Mexico City office. Before joining, Francisco was Mexico's deputy minister for international trade and negotiations for more than five years under two different presidential administrations. So, he is no stranger to trade policy conflicts. We'll be talking about the future of trade between the US and Latin America as the second Trump administration gets underway. Our principal focus here today will be on Mexico and its relations with the US. We’re fortunate to have Francisco, who's an expert in this area.
Thanks to both of you for joining. Trump recently announced the imposition of tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. Before we get into the latest developments, can each of you give a quick overview of your practices and areas of expertise?
Thank you, Eric. Greg Spak from the Washington office. I've been a partner here since 1995, an interesting year from a trade perspective because it's the year when the WTO came into force. It's also a year when the NAFTA came into force. So, you could very much say that I've grown up in my career here at White & Case during this period of an open trading system and one in which tariffs were minimized.
Hi Eric, Greg. I have a trade and finance background. I was deputy minister for foreign trade of Mexico with two different presidents. During those years, I was responsible to lead the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, the Pacific alliance, the expansion of the free trade agreement with the European Union. And I was responsible for many bilateral issues between the US and Mexico. During those days and years, I was able to develop certain contacts and a better understanding about how the trade policy is developing in the US.
Great. Thanks, both. It seems like you're both very well placed to help cut through what's an extraordinarily confusing time. So, let me start with a few questions. Trump went through with his promise to impose 25 percent tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada. But now he's backtracked with a 30-day suspension. Before we get into this recent change, tell me about these tariffs. What exactly do they provide for? What's the motivation behind them? Are tariffs merely a diplomatic tool for Trump or does he believe in their purported economic benefits?
On your last question, whether they are an economic tool or a negotiating tool, I think we can say as of now that they're both, and they'll probably continue to be used as both as we go forward. And part of the decision to use them or not use them will clearly depend on other objectives that are being pursued by the US administration. If I can take a step back now to the more mundane part of your question, which is, “What are tariffs?” They are, essentially, additional payments that are made at the border when goods cross the border. Some have called it a tax. Some don't like to use the word tax. But it generally goes to the revenue of the importing country. Historically, since the end of World War II, the notion was that tariff levels should be applied on a nondiscriminatory basis and that they should be negotiated to a certain level, which countries shouldn't exceed. So, as you look at the economic history since World War II, it's been a series of negotiations to bring down the level of tariffs and to apply them on a nondiscriminatory or MFN basis. Now we're seeing a bit of a departure from that.
President Trump is realizing, as he did in his first term, that tariffs were a great tool to get leverage to negotiate with certain countries. It's important to bear in mind that the US is the most important market worldwide. Canada and Mexico represent around 30 percent of total imports in the US. And if you are China, it’s close to 50 percent. And by the way, two of them have a free trade agreement since 1994, NAFTA, that was renegotiated six years ago with Trump and is called USMCA. So, the USMCA and the free trade agreements essentially imply that you will have free trade movements of goods. This means that the countries that negotiated a free trade agreement will have that benefit. So, one of the positive things of having this trilateral trade platform is that we do not pay tariffs on each other as long as we meet the level of regional content.
Let me ask just two follow-up questions on that. Number one. I understand the tariff is a tax, but what specifically is being targeted? What types of products? And then number two. I understand that Trump is looking for an exception to the free trade agreement. So, this would otherwise be a breach, but for his reliance on purported national security reasons for invoking these exceptions. Is that a fair characterization?
On the first question, the announcement on February 1st related to all imports from Canada and Mexico—except for certain energy products from Canada. So, it's interesting from that perspective because of its broad base. Many times, import duties are placed on a particular product that's been investigated, or that's causing a problem. As to the question about the exception, as I mentioned before, yes, there are international commitments to bind your tariffs, that is, put a cap on them and also to apply them on a nondiscriminatory basis. The US average tariff, that is the bound tariff, is only about three percent. So, when you say that we're going to apply a 25 percent tariff on two countries, it obviously violates those two basic principles of being nondiscriminatory and bound at a certain low rate. In every trade agreement, there are exceptions. And these exceptions are probably what the US government would use at some point to justify its action—most famously the national security exception. Also, there are several other exceptions permitted for actions necessary to keep the public order and so forth.
Thanks, that's helpful. So, Greg, I understand there's a broad-brush tariff pretty much across the board, but, for Canada, what do we import?
Well, Canada exports significant goods to the United States, including oil, for example, paper products and all the products downstream of timber and wood. Then, significantly, you have the automobile sector, right, cars and trucks and so forth, that really you have to think of as an integrated North American market. So many of these goods will cross one or both borders, the northern and the southern border, in their production. And that's a result really of the NAFTA/USMCA creation of an integrated market, in particular in auto trade. So, this goes back actually to predate the NAFTA when the US and the Canadian government had an agreement that really fostered the free flow of production and automobiles across the northern border of the United States.
Thanks, Greg, that helps make it clear. And then same question to you, Francisco. What products being offered by Mexico are likely to be impacted?
Well, most of the goods that we export into the US market are manufacturing goods. So, two thirds of our exports are related to the automotive industry. And also steel, glass, appliances, aluminum. And we are the largest exporter of avocados, berries, tomatoes. So, it will be an important set of products that, even though they are somehow concentrated in a few sectors, we are highly competitive, no? It's important just to bear in mind that in some cases, when we build a car, it crosses more than seven times the border of the US and Mexico. So, it's not only about imposing these taxes. It's how you can manage to build a manufacturing good that is jointly built, as it will be the case of any car that is with the original content of North America, meaning by that Canada, US and Mexico.
Let's pivot a bit and try to get inside Trump's head. To what do you attribute his change of heart in suspending the tariffs in Mexico?
This is a great question. It was interesting because, as mentioned before, Trump is a negotiator that loves to negotiate. And when he made clear his decision that he was going to impose tariffs on February the 1st, he let a few days to pass by, and then when he executed the executive order, he gave three days. So, with my background, I was clear that he was trying to win some time to negotiate something. So, I do believe that the challenge here is that, even though the tariffs are suspended for a month, it is not clear what are the goals or the target the Trump administration is looking for, at least in the case of Mexico. It’s clear that he wants to fight back on issues related to drugs, that he wants to reverse the trade deficit with Mexico. But at the end, something that Trump has done pretty well since his first term is that he has mixed different issues. Traditionally, Eric, the trade negotiations were an isolated track of negotiations. And with his first term he involved migratory and national security issues. So, when you have these different matters at the table it’s hard to manage and to differentiate the targets for each of them. Having time on this is positive because it gives us a better understanding of what is Trump asking Mexico. And it’s positive also for the markets, is positive for the consumers because at the end, consumers will not need to pay a tax for purchasing the same goods that they used to do until today.
Let's take it next to where the clients are. What are you hearing from your clients in both the US and Mexico about the potential impacts of these tariffs? What are their biggest concerns? And how are they trying to address them?
There's a whole host of concerns, right? And it's really not only the clients in Mexico, the United States and Canada. Really, there are clients globally who are impacted by what happens in the tariffs between these three countries. And of course, there are several who are concerned that the same thing could happen to them in the future. So, I would say that the implications have been global. Global suppliers, some of whom operate only in the Americas, but others who operate in Europe and in Asia, who are concerned about how they should plan their business based on this announcement. There are a whole host of technical issues related to the way companies do business that are impacted. And then, of course, there's another set of discussions which are more the boardroom discussions. How do we deal with the fact that the rules of the game could be changing? Potentially, it’s a redefinition of what people can rely upon. It used to be that you had about seven or eight decades of consistent liberalization of trade barriers. Now, all of a sudden, that's being questioned. And so, it's a fundamental changing of the rules. And that's getting to the Board level and the C-suite.
So, we have infrastructure in place now to collect the tariffs that you described. The three percent, roughly. Presumably the same infrastructure could be used for purposes of just collecting higher tariffs. Right?
Same infrastructure, at least for now. There is a proposal, of course, to have an external revenue service. But right now, it’s the Customs and Border Protection that collects it. And until we're told differently, they'll continue collecting it. All of which, you know, the money goes into the general account of the Treasury.
Thanks. I want to move now beyond Canada and Mexico, and talk a little bit more broadly about LatAm. Recently, Trump threatened a tariff on Colombia. He did rescind it quite quickly, but I'm wondering if there's been any fallout. What are you hearing on the ground from your clients?
I think the fallout comes with respect to this issue of predictability and stability. We've now seen, in the first few weeks of the new administration, a few times when tariffs have been threatened and then walked back. But there's always the implicit threat that they could come back again. On the general level, there's a questioning, I would say, about how to make investment and business decisions when the valve can be turned off and on. So that's one issue. With respect to Colombia in particular, and the impact of tariffs on the trade, let’s say, of flowers, of coffee, of some of the traditional exports of Colombia, it could be quite alarming, and quite difficult for the Colombian economy to deal with. Right now, I'd say there's a sense of relief, but it's also a relief that comes with a bit of caution as to what might come in the future.
Any sense as to why Trump decided to lift those tariffs on Colombia?
My sense, from nothing more than from the news reports, is that he had the sense that he won. The president of Colombia had denied access to military plane landing in Colombia with Colombians who were being returned to their territory. When he then rethought his position and allowed the planes to land, the president pretty directly removed the threat.
Discreet political objective, accomplished.
And maybe something that is important to bear in mind, China has become the first trading partner for most of the LatAm countries, except Brazil and Mexico—they are the second ones. So, China has been growing their investments and trade with most of the LatAm countries. So, I do believe that the Trump administration is seeking to take again the leadership that they used to have in the LatAm region. And it seems that Trump is paying more attention to the LatAm region than maybe some other leaders in the US did in the past. So, I do believe that this kind of approach that the administration of the US is taking with regard to tariffs is a way to bring to the table some of the leaders of some jurisdictions that are actually interesting for the Trump administration. And it's a way to try to reset the relationship under certain conditions.
Interesting. Sounds a bit like a throwback to the Monroe Doctrine, with spheres of influence being critical. Trump's made many other tariff-related comments that could impact trade with Latin America. Do any stand out as particularly significant, likely or worrisome? For example, a 100 percent tariff on cars imported from Mexico or a 30 percent tariff on goods from BRIC countries.
All of those are concerning, and they’re concerning because of the uncertainty that it injects into the daily flow of commerce and the decisions that businesses make every day as to how to structure their supply chains and their sales. Different countries are going to have to decide, at the end of the day, is the United States a reliable partner. Can we make long-term decisions based on the relationship? And I think we’d make a mistake if we thought that this was only being done for purposes of negotiating, right? There is a philosophical underpinning of this strategy. There's an economic one, but there's also a philosophical one. And that is that the United States market is an important market. And for too long, the administration would say, we've left that market open to our detriment. So, it's not as if they're doing this just because they think they can use it as a lever. That's certainly part of it. But there's also a school of thought that the rules that were established to create open economies for trade and investment served, at a certain point in time after World War II, to help recreate global trade, but that now we're at a different period and that has to be rebalanced.
I want to continue on this line of inquiry around using tariffs for non-trade reasons. You know, we talked about this earlier. It could be for immigration, could be for dealing with the export of drugs like fentanyl to the US. Two questions. One, do you think tariffs can be effective for these types of more diplomatic purposes? And tell me a little bit about the history that you've seen under different administrations, mixing trade and non-trade purposes in terms of the implementation of tariffs.
You know, it's interesting that, while we can all agree that the use of the tariff policy in the first few weeks of the Trump administration is not normal, it's not that it doesn't have a lot of historical precedents. I think it's important to recognize that trade has always been, especially with respect to Latin America, part of a bigger puzzle. In the '80s and early '90s, there was something that policymakers came to call the Washington Consensus, and liberalized trade was part of that puzzle. But it was also tax reform, fiscal discipline, creating competitive exchange rates, liberalizing inward, direct foreign investment. All of these things together were taken as a group of policies that would lead to better economic and social performance in Latin America and strengthening democracies. This was the idea of the Washington Consensus. It was no coincidence that, at the same time, the countries of the hemisphere had embarked on what was then called the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas with President Bush, the father, once declaring that there would be a free trade area from Canada to Tierra del Fuego. And again, that was part of an economic, social, political opening led by the United States, but with important supporters throughout Latin America. And if you look more broadly, also, what we do around other parts of the world, we've for many years used tariffs or the lack of tariffs as an incentive. So, for the African countries, we've had the AGOA, which is the Growth and Opportunity Act for Africa. And the notion there was if you take certain steps and if you respect labor rights and other non-trade issues, we'll give you tariff-free access to the US market. So, it would be wrong to say that tariffs have only been linked to trade. From a historical perspective, they've always been part of a bigger process and a bigger question.
I fully agree with you, Greg. And, seeking to answer your second question, Eric, I will say that tariffs for non-trade reasons are effective when the US is your main destination export market. And, I suppose, if we talk about some other countries, if they impose tariffs, definitely it’s not going to be positive for the trade flows but will not hurt the relationship and will not have any relevant influence or effectiveness.
Yeah. So, it depends on the pain point for a particular country and what level of trade it has with the US. That makes sense. You know, we've talked a bit about different trade agreements, the USMCA, CAFTA, and I think there are separate agreements with other countries like Chile, Colombia, Panama and Peru. What do you see happening to these different agreements that are in place as we look forward?
Well, this is a great question. There's been an interesting change in the approach. If we review what the US negotiated with countries like South Korea and some other economies that the US has free trade agreements, back then what was important was the consumer, the purchaser. So, it was focused on the best way to build a TV, a car at the best price and the best quality available. With the latest policies over the last ten years, that approach has shifted, in the sense that now what is important is to create jobs, to create certain opportunities for domestic workers. And this is positive from a welfare point of view but may not be positive for the regional value chains, nor for the consumers. But when we talk about CAFTA and some other bilateral agreements, not only with Chile, Colombia, Panama, Peru, with Europe and Asia, they will try to update all of these with the latest agreement in place, that is, essentially, the USMCA. So, I think that they're going to be more strict in the rule of origin and in the rules in terms of, somehow, protecting their markets.
If I could add there, it's an interesting question. And let's look at it on a more general level. These countries seek to sign trade agreements with the United States because they want some type of preferential access, right? Let's not forget that free trade agreements themselves are considered an exception to this principle of nondiscrimination. In other words, you're saying, “All right, I have this principle of nondiscrimination and MFN, but with you, my partner, I'm going to have a special deal.” And it's odd, right, that the first three countries impacted by these tariff discussions—Colombia, Mexico and Canada—are three of those partners with the United States that thought or hoped, I'm sure, that they were getting a good deal and establishing a special relationship. So, I think the cynics out there will wonder whether this is some sort of a trap, right? You sign an agreement with the United States. You start to establish a trade flow that is significant for your country. And in the end of the day, all you do is make yourself more dependent on the United States and one that could be subject to this sort of policy whim. So, I think everyone’s a little concerned right now. The notion that you had a better relationship because you had a free trade agreement is somewhat in question.
All right. I want to put some of the changes that we've been talking about into an historical context. A new administration is obviously a time of change, but the change doesn't happen in a pure vacuum. Could you put today's concerns within a historical context, particularly given that we have Trump's first term as a guide here?
I think most observers would say that trade and tariff policy in the United States haven’t seen this kind of disruption since the famous or infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of the 1920s, which raised tariffs significantly, and some would say led to the economic depression that occurred around the world. Whether that's fair or not, you'll have to judge. But I think what's been announced as possible could be a rewriting of the rules of international trade, and certainly that would qualify for being as important as that event. The second interesting question, from a historical perspective, is what do these announcements by the Trump administration mean about the exercise of power over setting tariffs and our international economic relations? The Constitution provides that Congress has the power over foreign trade, and for most of the country's history, at least until the 1930s or so, Congress was actively involved in setting the tariffs. When that became so burdensome and so unwieldy and led to predictable deadlocks, Congress sort of got out of the business of setting tariff rates and delegated the power to the president to negotiate trade agreements. And the third interesting perspective is what this means in terms of the way the trading system has evolved since World War II. We know that the notion of rebuilding the world after the destruction of World War II fell to some significant players, including the United States and Great Britain and some others. They themselves decided at the time that the world would be a better place if we tied open economic opportunities to security concerns, thereby raising the standard of living if we did this correctly. So an important part of the idea of the United Nations, and what became the GATT and the World Trade Organization, was to make sure that we put tariffs and tariff policy on a predictable trajectory toward liberalization, increasing the openness of the world economy, allowing people from all different cultures, all different continents, to produce their goods and meet in the marketplace—to make goods cross borders, not armies.
So, it looks like there's a long arc of history that has been driving trade policies for some time. Let's take it a little bit more recent. So, how did North American trade policies change under Trump 1.0? And what does that tell us about what he might be looking to do in this next administration?
Well, I think what is most significant is that he mixed migratory, national security and trade matters altogether, and he put it in the same glass. I think that we should not be afraid of this because, just in the case of Mexico, for instance, more than 300,000 persons legally cross the border. So, we have a quite intense trade relationship, workforce. And when we have an intense relationship, it’s common to have certain irritants and certain issues. I would say that it’s like any marriage, no?
What the first Trump administration was known for in Latin America was the renegotiation of NAFTA and this new agreement, the USMCA. And how did he get there? The administration, let's not forget, first threatened tariffs and threatened to restrict the market, and that forced then the negotiation. So, even then you can see that the pattern hasn't changed very much. And again, the president and his advisors are looking at the US market, a very attractive market, and therefore a good piece of negotiating leverage to get to a point where he can pursue other policy objectives. The other thing, I would say, on a more conceptual level, we saw in the first Trump administration is the beginnings of what became a reemergence of industrial policy in the United States, which was then actually furthered by the Biden administration. So, now we have discussions on which sectors ought to be protected or who ought to receive subsidies for investing in this area versus that area, something which, you know, 20 years ago the United States wouldn't do and would criticize heavily any other country that did that.
So many of our clients do business on a cross-border basis. How are companies on both sides of the border dealing with the potential risks of these tariffs being imposed? What kind of discussions are you having with your clients?
What we have seen is that some of our clients are asking us about trade preferences in other jurisdictions, exploring alternative suppliers, renegotiating trade agreements or seeing their pricing strategies. In the case of fresh produce products that are being imported on a regular basis into the US market, you need to send them under certain specific conditions. They have to arrive to certain destinations in due time. They are reviewing other markets, other trade preferences, and they are asking us to perform certain analyses on where they can reallocate those products. Of course, it is not the same sending over those products to your neighbor, then sending them to a different market that may not have the same interest or even pay the same value for fresh produce goods. Essentially, what exporters are doing is reviewing other opportunities or other markets.
So, the idea is to make a determination about how to reallocate the delivery of production from, say, the US to another country where the pricing and overall outcome is preferential from the perspective of the client.
Mexico has tried to do this many times, but you cannot just reallocate the production of certain fresh produce or just decide that tequila will be well received in other jurisdictions than in the US, no?
Yeah. The US is just such a massive market. There's just limits on what you can do.
Yeah, I would say, three types of inquiries coming from companies around the world, really. One is the nuts and bolts of international trade: How do we get our goods across the border? What can and can't be done with respect to passing on the tariff or seeking a contribution from the seller? All those kinds of questions. Second is the consumers who are also producers. In other words, there are many purchasers in the United States who import goods in order to further manufacture them here in the United States. So, they look at this, and they have to make decisions. So, this notion of nondiscriminatory application of tariffs for many years led to this sort of global supply chain that many US consumers, and read here processors and producers, came to rely upon so that they could import, process, add value here in the United States and then sell. The third is friends in the projects and M&A group. Because companies look to buy other companies all the time. They're consistently evaluating opportunities. And the reality is that many of those businesses that are being evaluated, or the projects into which investment funds are pouring, are the product of a global supply chain. So, if the target company is in the United States and is producing a product that relies on imported goods that have now been hit with a 25 percent tariff, then part of your due diligence needs to be, what are the implications of this? So, you know, I think of it sometimes sort of like the international trading system, everybody sort of got together and baked a cake, right? And now we're trying to sort of pull out the flour and the milk and the eggs and everything. And it's not such an easy process.
That's some seriously complex decision-making that's required. So let me get this straight. If I'm a US supplier and I'm relying on products from outside the US that may be subject to a tariff, perhaps in the first instance I'm passing that tariff through. But then I'm going to be making a judgment about where can I shift my source of production in order to try to cut costs. So maybe not coming out of Mexico, but I'm going to look to Colombia or Guatemala or some other LatAm country that's at that time not subject to tariffs.
That's correct. And, as Francisco correctly said, some of those products, you can't just switch. The fresh produce and agricultural goods that come in from Mexico, we can't really turn a switch in the North American winter and produce those in the United States. And whether you have good weather or not, we also need great infrastructure, right? You need great infrastructure. A lot of investment has gone into that, and it’s not easy just to switch.
Francisco, can you tell me a little bit about the NAFTA agreement? How it sits right now? I understand that there's a sunset provision in place. Where’s that going to lead us to in the coming year?
When the agreement was renegotiated, the countries’ representatives agreed on including a provision that establishes that by June 2026 the three parties must express their interest to keep in place this agreement, or otherwise they may want to raise certain issues at the initial review. There is a large discussion about if it's going to be just a review or renegotiation because it has different implications. In the view of the Canadian and Mexican authorities, the statement and the trade policy that the Trump administration has expressed in this early stage of his administration implies that Trump is not willing to wait until June 2026 to review certain specific issues. It's possible that it's going to be triggered no later than this summer, and maybe the sooner the better, no? What is interesting is that, if we're talking about a deep modification of the agreement, it may have to go again to the Canadian Parliament, the US Congress and the Mexican Congress. So, there is a high interest from, at least, Mexican and Canadian authorities to try to avoid any major modifications or amendments to the agreement because that will also represent a certain obstacle in terms of getting the approval in those countries.
As we come close to the end here, I want to focus on some of the top takeaways for our clients. And Greg, you touched on this earlier, but in doing my preparations for this session, I read that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act led to a 66 percent decline in international trade between 1929 and 1934, and contributed undoubtedly to the deepening of the Great Depression. Now, you've both seen a number of administrations come and go. First, how would you characterize the changes occurring and expected during this administration? Are they going to be revolutionary for your clients, akin to the Smoot-Hawley Act? Or might policy evolve to be more business as usual?
It's not business as usual. Clients and companies who are not clients I think are reacting, you know, with some trepidation because of the uncertainty. The hallmark of past transitions has been continuation, certainty, some predictability. Clearly, you have different policy objectives, but you move toward those gradually. That's not what is happening now. Whether or not and how we separate the stated intention and what actually happens, we don't know. But even that question of whether it will happen is creating quite a bit of instability that's unlike any other transition that I've seen in the last 30 years.
Francisco, any final takeaway for clients here?
I would like to underscore that it's clear that we are going through a reshaping of the international trade policy in the US and in many other jurisdictions. I think that Trump has been consistent with his views and the way that he believes trade should work. So, what I suggest to the relevant clients is to explore other markets, to review what are the trade preferences. But moreover, to understand what would be the best way to keep certain markets or industries in the US. Something that is important to bear in mind is that NAFTA, after 20 years, was not that popular. And that's why it has to be renegotiated. So now that we have this USMCA, the idea was to accommodate certain concerns in some industries and to try to give the opportunity to develop certain vendor suppliers in the region, I mean by that Canada, US and Mexico.
I think driving a lot of the angst that we're seeing is a concern over whether anybody knows where this is going. Because we can debate individual issues, who's going to pay and what the inflation rate might be. But there's a broader issue here, you know, all these individual decisions by businesses of, you know, where they produce, how they ship, where they process their product, where they assemble their product, how they go to market. All those individual decisions all summed up together sort of explains where we are right now. And all of those decisions were made, for the most part, during a period of predictability and sort of stability in the trading rules. We could talk about positives and negatives that resulted. Maybe some jobs left the United States and went to other countries. And there were probably benefits from that also—lower prices and availability to products and, let's not forget, the integration of the supply chains that have occurred that makes many North American companies stronger and able to compete in the world. So, we could talk about the positives and negatives. But objectively, I think we have to all recognize that the system that we know today has led to quite a bit of growth and prosperity. And what concerns me more than anything is that we just don't know what will happen if we change those basic rules.
This has been a fascinating discussion. Perhaps there's some bluffing going on here, and bluffing has to look real if it's going to work. And maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I guess we'll find out. The trade landscape is shifting so rapidly. Thanks, both.
Thank you very much. Eric, it's been a pleasure. And stay tuned.
Thanks for listening. Please subscribe in your preferred podcast app so you don’t miss future episodes. For more insights and related content from our lawyers, please visit whitecase.com. Thank you.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This podcast is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
