Connect with us

Non classé

Uncertainty surges again as SCOTUS decides and Trump responds – February 24, 2026 Update

Published

on

Uncertainty surges again as SCOTUS decides and Trump responds – February 24, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: February 24, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) decreased 3%.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) decreased 1%.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 1%.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) increased 2%.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices decreased 15%.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 9%.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices stayed level.

Analysis

The much-anticipated US Supreme Court decision arrived on Friday, striking down the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact tariffs. The president relied on IEEPA for most of last year’s tariffs, including all the country-specific tariffs and the fentanyl-related duties imposed on China, Mexico and Canada.

The move triggered a rapid response from the White House, making good on promises to reinstate IEEPA tariffs by other means in the event of a loss. Trump signed an executive order later that day introducing a 10% global tariff based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, reframing the duty as addressing a balance of payments problem. The president said on social media that he will raise the tariff to 15%, and the administration is reportedly working on an amended order, but the law went into effect Tuesday at 10%, and is valid until late July.

The ruling keeps de minimis suspended, and leaves Section 232 sectoral tariffs, and Section 301 tariffs on specific trading partners – used in 2018 for duties specific to China – intact too, but along with the long list of previous exemptions to the IEEPA tariffs. The president and other officials stated this week that they will use other means – like 232 and 301 – to restore tariffs before Section 122 expires, though these channels typically take months as they require federal agency investigations before the president can introduce duties.

The White House already has several Section 232 probes underway and is now reportedly considering opening more. And in addition to reviewing China’s compliance to the terms of its deal with the US during Trump’s first administration, it may also have opened additional China-focused 301 investigations.

The US based the many trade agreements it negotiated in the past year largely on IEEPA tariffs, raising questions as to the deals’ validity and how various trade partners will react. The administration says the US intends to honor these agreements and Trump has threatened counterparts who do otherwise. And while some countries have so far said they will stick to the deals, some high profile partners like the European Union see a 15% blanket duty as a breach of agreed tariff levels for some goods, and have paused steps to implement the agreement until they can receive clarity.

All-in-all the shift to a global 15% tariff mostly preserves the IEEPA trade barriers: Yale’s Budget Lab estimates the change reduces the overall effective US tariff rate by only two percentage points, with impacts varying by country – a five percentage point reduction for China and Vietnam, no change for the EU baseline, a five-point increase for the UK, and the most significant reduction for Brazil (down from 40%). Overall effective tariffs on China remain around 40% due to pre-existing Section 301 duties.

So while in terms of tariff levels not too much has changed for the near term – and as of now the US appears intent on restoring and maintaining tariffs after Section 122 expires too – the more significant implication may be geopolitical.

Trump relied on IEEPA during this administration because of its speed — it allowed him to credibly threaten immediate tariffs across a wide range of, often non-trade-related, issues, including the recent Greenland drama. With that leverage gone, though we’re still likely to see Trump threaten tariffs that could ultimately materialize, the pace of US trade policy changes, and the frequency of disruptions Trump has caused for freight markets over the past year, could slow significantly.

For US shippers, the immediate question – in addition to the many questions around potential refunds – is whether or not these developments justify frontloading before the July deadline.

Where the 15% rate represents a meaningful reduction — like for Brazil — we may see a quick increase in volumes. And a five-percentage point reduction for tariffs on goods out of China and Vietnam may be enough to spur frontloading by some shippers, meaning we may see some signs of increased demand as soon as manufacturing restarts post-Lunar New Year in a week or so.

But, for many shippers, the relatively modest tariff reduction for most countries including China and Vietnam may not be enough to trigger a significant pull forward. And with the White House under cost of living political pressure; facing some open Republican opposition to tariffs; and considering expanding its list of tariff exceptions – some importers may suspect that Trump will hesitate to extend tariffs at the end of July as midterm elections loom. These factors could also keep many importers from frontloading in hopes that the tariff landscape shifts in their favor.

So, we’ll probably see somewhat stronger US import volumes in the coming months, and possibly an earlier start to peak season, than we otherwise would have, but we may not see the levels of frontloading that tariff threats spurred last year.

As container rates won’t reflect any, or even a surge of, potential frontloading until after the LNY period, transpacific rates – along with Asia – Europe prices for the same reason – were about stable last week and down from their pre-LNY highs. As rates are likely to rebound on the typical post-LNY backlog bump for all these lanes, it may initially not be possible to attribute rate increases solely to trade war developments.

Carriers have prevented rates from sliding too far over the past weeks by increasing blanked sailings on these lanes, though they will restore capacity if demand materializes post the holiday. With the current demand lull, the stop and start weather disruptions in N. Europe and the resulting congestion has not pushed rates up. This week’s major blizzard in the northeastern US also shut ports, roads and airports temporarily, but may likewise not be felt in rate levels despite likely delays and congestion.

In other ocean news, some ZIM vessels in Israel are facing port labor disruptions from union workers opposed to the planned sale to Hapag-Lloyd. And Maersk and MSC have officially taken over operations at the Panama Canal ports previously run by HK Hutchinson, despite Hutchinson’s opposition.

Finally, for air cargo, the tariff turmoil could, like for ocean freight, be reflected in some increase in US bound volumes in the coming months. But with de minimis still suspended, we’re unlikely to see a big or sudden volume surge for air cargo either. As ex-Asia freight is in its LNY lull, China – US rates dipped by 15% and prices to Europe eased almost 10% last week.

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Freightos Terminal: Real-time pricing dashboards to benchmark rates and track market trends.

Procure: Streamlined procurement and cost savings with digital rate management and automated workflows.

Rate, Book, & Manage: Real-time rate comparison, instant booking, and easy tracking at every shipment stage.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Uncertainty surges again as SCOTUS decides and Trump responds – February 24, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

The Technology Gap: Why Supply Chain Execution Still Isn’t Fully Connected Yet

Published

on

By

The Technology Gap: Why Supply Chain Execution Still Isn’t Fully Connected Yet

Supply chain leaders aren’t debating whether to modernize. They are debating whether their current architecture can support modernization without breaking everything around it.

That’s the real technology gap.

It’s not ambition. It’s not budget. It’s architecture.

Execution systems were built to optimize within domains. Order management. Warehouse management. Transportation management. Each performs well inside its own boundaries. But none were designed to coordinate decisions across systems as conditions change in real time.

In today’s environment, that limitation is costly.

The architecture problem no one designed for

When a disruption hits, each system responds locally.

When a truck runs late, the TMS flags a delay and suggests a new ETA. But the warehouse labor plan doesn’t automatically adjust. Dock schedules aren’t rebalanced. Order promises aren’t re-evaluated. Each system responds correctly within its domain, yet by the time the impact is understood end-to-end, the organization is already in exception mode: calls, spreadsheets, workarounds, and expedited decisions.

That’s not an execution failure. It’s an integration and architecture failure.

Connected execution enables coordinated workflows and synchronized decisions across order, warehouse and transportation operations, so execution can coordinate across systems when disruptions occur or conditions change.

Connected execution is more than just visibility. It is the difference between seeing a disruption and coordinating the response across systems, not after the fact, but as the disruption unfolds.

What the data reveals

According to the recently released Supply Chain Execution Readiness Report, U.S. supply chain leaders revealed the two biggest barriers to adopting advanced, modern supply chain execution technology are:

(69%) data quality and integration complexity.
(63%) legacy systems and technical debt.

That’s why investment intent is strong. The top strategic priorities influencing where organizations make technology investments are operational efficiency (72%), cost reduction (54%) and business growth (47%). And 59% plan to increase spending on supply chain execution solutions over the next 12 months. The constraint is not willingness to invest. It’s whether existing architectures can support connected execution.

The buying criteria has changed

When asked what they require when sourcing supply chain execution solutions, supply chain leaders prioritized these technology features equally:

Real-time visibility (89%)
Scalability (88%)
Pricing and Total Cost of Ownership (88%)
Ease of implementation and deployment (87%)
Interoperability and integration between systems (86%)

This signals a clear preference for execution environments that reflect real-time data, deliver quick time to value and connect across functions, rather than isolated point solutions optimized for individual domains.

How to get connected without rip-and-replace

Connected execution does not require replacing every core system. It requires modernizing the seams where handoffs or decisions are made. Three practical steps can guide the transition:

Map the hand-offs that drive firefighting. Where do decisions get stuck, duplicated or delayed? Which hand-offs create recurring disruption management and manual escalation? This pinpoints where connected execution will deliver the biggest and fastest impact.
Prioritize modular, interoperable architecture. Look for solutions that can integrate within your existing environments and scale incrementally. This keeps costs predictable, reduces deployment risk and allows you to modernize without replacing every core system at once.
Choose solutions that enable coordination, not just reporting. Prioritize shared workflows and cross-system decision support that helps teams act consistently across systems, rather than tools that only surface insights and alerts.

Closing the technology gap

The next competitive divide in supply chain performance will not be visibility. It will be coordination. Execution advantage now depends on how quickly organizations can sense change, align decisions across systems, and act without manual reconciliation.

Connected execution is the foundation for speed and resilience because it builds an execution environment where data, workflows and decisions can move across OMS, WMS and TMS with minimal friction.

Start where the friction is highest: the hand-offs that create recurring firefighting. Then modernize intentionally, prioritizing modular interoperability, fast time to value, and solutions that coordinate decisions across systems, not just report on them. As those seams close, execution becomes easier to manage, disruptions become easier to contain, and teams regain capacity to focus on high-impact exceptions instead of routine reconciliation.

CTA

Download the Supply Chain Execution Readiness Report, a survey of U.S.-based supply chain senior leaders conducted by an independent, third-party research firm. Learn more about the benefits of Connected Execution here.

By Richard Stewart, Executive Vice President, Product and Industry Strategy, Infios

The post The Technology Gap: Why Supply Chain Execution Still Isn’t Fully Connected Yet appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

US Supreme Court Narrows Emergency Tariff Authority: Strategic Implications for Supply Chain Leaders

Published

on

By

Us Supreme Court Narrows Emergency Tariff Authority: Strategic Implications For Supply Chain Leaders

In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress and that IEEPA does not clearly authorize the president to impose broad import duties. The ruling invalidates the legal foundation for the administration’s emergency-based “Liberation Day” tariffs and significantly limits the use of IEEPA as a mechanism for imposing duties.

For supply chain leaders, the decision reshapes the structure of tariff risk. It does not eliminate it.

From Emergency Leverage to Statutory Process

Under the IEEPA framework, tariffs were justified through national emergency declarations. The Court rejected the argument that the statute’s authority to “regulate … importation” includes the power to impose tariffs.

What remains are established statutory pathways:

Section 232 national security tariffs
Section 301 actions addressing unfair trade practices
Section 201 safeguards responding to import surges
Temporary authorities under the Trade Act

Each requires investigation, defined scope, and procedural steps. This changes how tariff actions are initiated and implemented. It does not remove executive trade leverage.

Strategic Implications

Tariff Risk Becomes More Structured

The likelihood of broad, open-ended tariffs imposed solely under emergency authority is now reduced.

Future tariff actions are more likely to:

Target specific industries or countries
Follow investigation timelines
Include defined duration parameters

For supply chain leaders, this means greater visibility into potential actions before they take effect. Monitoring investigation announcements and regulatory developments becomes essential.

Industry Exposure Becomes a Core Variable

If tariff actions shift toward sector-specific measures, industry classification matters as much as geography.

Leaders should ensure visibility into:

Product classification under trade statutes
Exposure to industries historically subject to Section 232 or 301 actions
Revenue concentration tied to politically sensitive sectors

Trade compliance data should be integrated into supply chain planning systems, not managed as a separate downstream function.

China Risk Remains Central

The ruling does not alter geopolitical dynamics.

Competition with China continues to drive trade policy. Section 301 authority remains intact. Export controls and related regulatory tools continue to evolve.

Diversification strategies that reduce concentrated China exposure remain strategically relevant.

Scenario Planning Should Reflect Statutory Triggers

Network design and landed cost models should be aligned to structured trade interventions.

Key planning questions include:

What is the impact of a Section 232 investigation affecting our category?
How would a targeted Section 301 action alter sourcing economics?
What operational flexibility exists during investigation timelines?

Organizations that can simulate these scenarios quickly will be better positioned to respond.

Refund Litigation Adds Operational Complexity

The Court did not address the disposition of tariffs already collected under the IEEPA framework. That issue now moves to lower courts.

Potential refund processes may require:

Administrative protests
Legal review
Financial adjustments

Finance, compliance, and supply chain functions should coordinate on exposure assessment and documentation readiness.

What to Watch

While emergency authority has been narrowed, trade policy remains active.

Expect continued:

Sector-based interventions
National security framing
Formal investigation processes

The structural shift is from emergency-based tariffs to statute-based tariffs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has imposed a constitutional boundary on emergency tariff powers. For supply chain leaders, this reduces one layer of unpredictability in global trade.

However, tariff risk remains embedded in the operating environment. It is now more structured and more procedural.

The post US Supreme Court Narrows Emergency Tariff Authority: Strategic Implications for Supply Chain Leaders appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Emergency Tariffs

Published

on

By

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Emergency Tariffs

In a major decision with immediate implications for global trade, the Supreme Court today ruled 6–3 that President Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose sweeping global tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress and that IEEPA does not clearly authorize the president to impose broad import duties. When Congress grants tariff power, the Court wrote, it does so explicitly and with defined constraints. The emergency statute relied upon by the administration did not meet that standard.

The ruling invalidates the legal foundation for the administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and significantly limits the use of emergency powers as a mechanism for broad trade action.

Immediate Supply Chain Implications

Emergency tariff risk is reduced.
The Court has effectively closed the door on using IEEPA as a vehicle for sweeping, open-ended global tariffs. That removes one of the most unpredictable tools in recent trade policy.

Tariff authority shifts back to established statutes.
Presidents still retain authority under Section 201 (safeguards), Section 232 (national security), and Section 301 (unfair trade practices). However, those mechanisms require investigations, defined scope, and procedural guardrails. Future actions are more likely to be targeted by industry or country rather than universally applied.

Refund uncertainty remains.
The Court did not address what happens to more than $130 billion in tariffs already collected. That issue now moves to lower courts. For importers, potential refunds could trigger administrative complexity, financial restatements, and extended claims processes.

What Options Remain for Trump

The ruling constrains emergency authority but does not eliminate executive trade leverage. Several pathways remain:

1. Section 232 National Security Tariffs
The president can initiate Commerce Department investigations and impose tariffs tied to national security concerns. This authority has been used previously for steel, aluminum, and potentially strategic sectors such as semiconductors or critical minerals.

2. Section 301 Actions
The administration can pursue tariffs in response to unfair trade practices following investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative. This is a structured but still potent tool, particularly in disputes with China.

3. Section 201 Safeguards
Temporary safeguard tariffs can be imposed in response to import surges that harm domestic industries. These come with duration limits but remain available.

4. Legislative Route
The administration could seek congressional authorization for broader tariff authority. That path is politically complex but constitutionally clear.

5. Negotiated Trade Pressure
Even without sweeping tariffs, the executive branch retains influence through trade negotiations, export controls, sanctions, and regulatory pressure.

In short, the toolbox remains stocked, but its use now requires tighter statutory alignment.

What to Watch

While the Court narrowed emergency authority, broader trade dynamics remain intact:

Continued geopolitical competition with China
Industrial policy focused on reshoring and supply chain security
Sector-specific tariff actions tied to strategic industries

Expect more targeted measures rather than universal tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court has imposed a constitutional boundary on emergency tariff powers. That reduces one layer of unpredictability in global trade.

But tariff risk is not disappearing. It is shifting toward structured, statute-based actions that follow investigations and defined processes.

For supply chain leaders, the operating environment remains policy sensitive.

The volatility is not gone.

It is evolving.

The post Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Emergency Tariffs appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending