Escalating North American Tensions: What Canada’s EU Bid and Rising Tariffs Mean for Importers As trade alliances shift and tariff pressures mount, U.S. importers face compounding supply chain costs and tough financial decisions. Summary: Recent proposals for Canada to join the European Union as an associate member have drawn sharp warnings from Washington, threatening severe escalation in an already volatile trade climate. With existing duties on European and Canadian goods heavily impacting the market, experts warn that businesses and consumers will bear the brunt of rising cross-border friction. Sept 18, 2026 WMUR-TV Reporter: Amy Lu Hearst TV's Washington, D.C. correspondent The intersection of shifting geopolitical alliances and aggressive tariff policies is creating unprecedented uncertainty for North American supply chains. With over $380 billion in Canadian goods imported into the U.S. annually, any structural break or alignment shift threatens to disrupt critical manufacturing inputs, force longer supply routes, and introduce heavy administrative hurdles. Importers are forced to re-evaluate traditional logistics networks while navigating steep existing penalties that squeeze profit margins across multiple industries. Addressing the immediate financial fallout on domestic companies, Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law, noted the difficult decisions facing businesses caught in the crossfire: "US companies that are importing from Canada, they're saying, you know, we may just have to pass on the costs. And that's a little—a little scary for all of us." As regulatory pressures and potential retaliatory tariffs evolve, proactive compliance and supply chain strategy remain critical. Navigating complex tariff updates and trade volatility requires expert guidance. Contact Schulz Trade Law today to consult with our international trade attorneys and protect your supply chain operations. Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Navigating New Waters: What Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Mean for U.S. Businesses International trade attorney Michelle Schulz breaks down the shifting U.S.-Canada trade landscape and how companies can adapt. Summary After Canada implemented dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, businesses face higher costs, complex compliance demands, and unprecedented uncertainty. Michelle Schulz outlines the practical impacts on cross-border logistics and offers strategic guidance for navigating these changes. Sept 11, 2026 This Morning with Gordon Deal Host: Gordon Deal The trade dynamics between the United States and Canada have taken a sharp turn as Canada officially enacts retaliatory tariffs against U.S. goods entering its borders. Designed to match recent U.S. tariffs dollar-for-dollar, these new measures affect a broad spectrum of commercial exports and significantly alter the logistics of cross-border commerce. International trade attorney Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law, emphasizes that companies must prepare for a far more complex environment. "Canada has decided to retaliate against the many tariffs that we have imposed on Canadian products entering the United States," Schulz explains. "Canada is going to, dollar for dollar, impose tariffs on US products entering Canada. So, that means it's going to be much harder for US companies to do business with Canada, to export to Canada, and to make sales to Canadian customers." Beyond the broad policy shifts, the day-to-day operational reality for importers and exporters is undergoing a massive shift. Navigating custom entries now requires meticulous preparation to avoid financial pitfalls, as Canadian customs begins collecting duties of up to 50% on select items to mirror U.S. policies. Schulz points out that the administrative and financial weight falls heavily on the importing entities, slowing down established supply chains. "When you import and export, there is a heavy paperwork burden... Canadian customs will collect higher duties up to 50% that mirror the duties we're collecting," Schulz notes. "The interesting thing here really is, it's the importer who pays duties... And trade will slow. It will certainly slow and it will certainly become more expensive." In light of these rapidly shifting rules, proactive planning is essential to mitigate financial risk and preserve cross-border commercial relationships. While public debate includes extreme scenarios such as ending trade entirely, the practical imperative for businesses is to focus on immediate compliance and duty accuracy. Schulz advises companies to recalibrate their supply chain strategies without delay to avoid severe regulatory consequences. "Pivot again... It's not an easy situation, and you certainly need to know exactly what duties you're going to be charged when you export from the US and import into Canada," Schulz cautions. "Those calculations need to be sorted out now. I would prepare and plan ahead for this change... If you're not prepared, then you open yourself up to penalties for duty underpayment." Ensure Your Business Remains Compliant and Competitive Don't let unexpected tariff shifts disrupt your supply chain or lead to costly penalties. Contact Schulz Trade Law today to review your cross-border compliance strategy and safeguard your international business operations. Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: Navigating New Import Realities and Potential Refund Pathways Following a landmark 6–3 Supreme Court decision striking down executive tariffs, Michelle Schulz provides strategic context on alternative tariff mechanisms and the path toward recovery for U.S. importers. Summary In a major legal shift, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that key executive-imposed tariffs were unconstitutional due to a lack of explicit congressional approval. Speaking on KXAN-TV, international trade attorney Michelle Schulz addressed the immediate operational implications for businesses facing a rapid pivot to alternative tariff structures and explored whether companies can expect refunds on duties previously paid. September 3, 2026 KXAN-TV, Austin Anchor: Will DuPree The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive 6–3 ruling holding that broad tariffs enacted without congressional authorization breached constitutional boundaries. While the decision invalidates significant duties previously imposed under executive order, the administration has signaled a swift pivot toward alternative statutory authorities—including a temporary 10% global tariff and other legal channels—to maintain revenue and trade pressures. For corporate leadership, this decision offers immediate legal relief on one front while introducing new compliance hurdles as the executive branch leverages alternative trade statutes to keep duty obligations in place. Discussing the ruling's real-world impact on KXAN Radio, Michelle Schulz highlighted the ongoing friction felt across the supply chain, noting, "For the most part, importers are frustrated because they do have to pay those tariffs, and if they don't pay them, they get penalized." U.S. importers have absorbed heavy financial strain under recent duty policies, facing severe administrative penalties or inventory holds for non-compliance. While the court’s ruling challenges the validity of certain tariff programs, importers cannot afford a lapse in compliance. Businesses must navigate shifting Customs enforcement, precise classification standards, and emerging regulatory frameworks as new trade measures take effect to avoid costly delays at ports of entry. For businesses seeking financial recovery on duties paid under the invalidated authorities, the court's decision opens a potential avenue for refunds, particularly regarding IEEPA-based tariffs. Addressing the outlook for duty recovery, Schulz observed, "The refund process is—it gives me some hope. There may be refunds available on these IEEPA tariffs, but importers should keep in mind that that could take a very long time, and it could be a complex, nuanced..." As noted during the broadcast, recovering paid duties will not happen overnight. The refund process is expected to be a multi-layered, highly technical legal procedure requiring meticulous documentation, strategic protest filings, and ongoing monitoring of Court of International Trade directives. Importers are encouraged to audit past entry summaries immediately to preserve their rights for monetary recovery. Protect Your Bottom Line & Explore Tariff Refunds Don't navigate post-ruling tariff adjustments or complex refund processes alone. Contact the trade compliance experts at Schulz Trade Law today to audit your past duty payments and safeguard your supply chain against upcoming policy shifts. Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Small Businesses Push Back as New Tariff Wave Hits Global Supply Chains Trade attorney Michelle Schulz details how stacking tariffs are disproportionately impacting importers on This Morning with Gordon Deal. Summary International trade attorney Michelle Schulz joined This Morning with Gordon Deal to explain how small businesses are mounting legal challenges against broad, stacking tariffs that disproportionately impact their operations. To protect their bottom lines, Schulz recommends that importers proactively file administrative protests with Customs and Border Protection to preserve their legal rights and secure potential duty refunds before entries liquidate. July 30, 2026 This Morning with Gordon Deal Host: Gordon Deal As small businesses navigate an increasingly complex international trade landscape, a growing coalition of importers is taking legal action to challenge the latest round of federal import taxes. Appearing on This Morning with Gordon Deal, international trade attorney Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law in Dallas, outlined how expanding tariff measures are straining commercial operations across the country. Importers are facing overlapping duty burdens, with rates rising anywhere from 10% to 12.5% across multiple categories. Schulz explained that administrative frameworks originally structured for targeted trade policy are now being applied broadly, creating widespread confusion and financial hardship. As Schulz noted, "Small businesses are really still reeling from Section 122, Section 232, Section 301, and they're very confused overall about what tariffs they owe, how much they owe, and what they can still recoup and refund." A primary driver of recent legal challenges centers on the administration’s use of broad trade policy mechanisms under the banner of targeted remedies. For instance, recent Section 301 forced labor designations have applied sweeping 12% tariffs across approximately 60 countries, placing a blanket tax burden on all incoming shipments regardless of individual supply chain integrity. According to Schulz, small importers bear a disproportionate burden under these broad enforcement actions compared to larger corporations with deep compliance budgets. "Small businesses are suing to block the latest import taxes because... they're challenging Trump's authority, but they're saying that Trump is using mechanisms intended for targeted tariffs to impose broad tariffs," Schulz stated. "Every importer is subjected to that tariff. So small businesses are saying, 'Hey, wait, you're just using that tariff to apply a broad tariff to everyone,' and that impacts small businesses disproportionately." Despite these daunting market conditions, small businesses have secured significant financial victories through proactive legal and administrative remedies. Schulz reported that her firm alone has already recovered over $5 million in IEEPA tariff refunds for clients of all sizes since May, demonstrating that legal recourse remains viable. To safeguard bottom lines against the newest wave of tariffs, importers are encouraged to explore administrative options such as Customs and Border Protection protests, which offer a faster, lower-cost method to preserve refund rights before entry liquidations occur. "In regard to the most recent tariffs, they can file a lawsuit, they can file a protest," Schulz advised. "Protests are typically the way to go as far as administrative remedies. They're less expensive than filing a lawsuit... simpler, faster, and they will preserve your right to contest the amount on your entry." Protect Your Import Operations & Recoup Excess Duties Don't leave your hard-earned capital on the table. Contact the experienced international trade team at Schulz Trade Law today to review your entries, evaluate protest eligibility, and build a tailored tariff recovery strategy. Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Navigating 50% Canadian Tariffs and USMCA Instability: Insights from Michelle Schulz International Trade Law Expert Michelle Schulz Weighs In on the 50% Canadian Tariff Proclamation and Growing Uncertainty in North American Trade Summary In a recent appearance on This Morning with Gordon Deal, Michelle Schulz, Founder and Managing Partner of Schulz Trade Law, analyzed the White House's announcement of up to $50\%$ tariffs on Canadian imports and the ongoing disruption to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Schulz provided critical guidance for U.S. importers and exporters facing unprecedented planning challenges amid shifting trade policies. June 22, 2026 This Morning with Gordon Deal Host: Gordon Deal Recent Tariff Proclamations and the USMCA Framework The federal government’s invocation of executive authority to impose $50\%$ duties on broad categories of Canadian goods—citing alleged trade discrimination in sectors such as dairy, alcohol, and automobiles—marks a significant shift in North American commerce. Addressing whether these measures are justified responses or escalations, trade attorney Michelle Schulz emphasized that the underlying friction points have long been part of standard USMCA negotiations. "We have been addressing these areas already under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and these had been the subject of much discussion over the past several years during negotiations anyway," Schulz noted, pointing out that stepping away from established treaty frameworks is what ultimately triggered the current friction. Strategic Planning Challenges for Importers and Exporters For businesses that rely on supply chain predictability, the sudden potential suspension of duty-free treatment creates a severe planning deficit. After decades of relying on duty-free mechanisms under NAFTA and the USMCA, companies must now navigate shifting duty rates, potential Section 301 actions, and uncertain exclusion criteria. "It's nearly impossible to plan," Schulz explained during the interview. "We have so many clients who were using the advantages of the USMCA to import and export... and they could not plan ahead at this point because we didn't even know if we were going to be able to use the USMCA." She advised businesses to scrutinize product classifications, verify specific exemption status, and prepare for higher landed costs before finalizing cross-border transactions. Looking Ahead: The Broader Trade Landscape and Isolation Risks As trade officials signal that additional tariffs under various legal provisions may be on the horizon, U.S. businesses face a long-term shift toward trade isolationism. While other global economies continue forging bilateral and multilateral trade pacts, U.S. importers must prepare for continued volatility. Until broader diplomatic negotiations resume or policy priorities shift, proactive duty management and rigorous compliance audits remain the primary tools for companies seeking to mitigate exposure. Schulz advised companies to continuously monitor tariff schedules, evaluate product-level impact, and explore strategic supply chain adjustments. Protect Your Supply Chain from Tariff Volatility Navigating rapid changes in tariff schedules, USMCA compliance, and cross-border regulatory exposure requires proactive legal strategy. Contact Schulz Trade Law today to conduct a comprehensive tariff risk assessment and safeguard your international business operations. Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The Strait of Hormuz Reopens: Why the Global Supply Chain Won’t Recover Overnight The agreement to reopen the critical waterway is a major step forward, but a massive backlog of vessels and ongoing safety concerns mean supply chain relief will take weeks—if not months—to materialize. Summary While news of an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz offers a glimmer of hope for global commerce, international trade experts warn that a return to normal operations is still far off. With over 500 ships stranded for months and critical safety measures like mine-sweeping still required, businesses must brace for continued shipping delays, inventory adjustments, and elevated freight costs in the near term. June 18, 2026 WBAP News Dallas/Ft. Worth The Logistical Logjam: 500 Ships and a Massive Backlog The physical reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is only the first step in a long, complex recovery process. Over the course of the months-long shutdown, a massive backlog of roughly 500 cargo vessels has accumulated, leaving trillions of gallons of oil and critical commercial goods stranded at sea. Clearing this bottleneck will require unprecedented coordination, and operations cannot resume overnight. Furthermore, the maritime environment remains hazardous. Before cargo ships can safely navigate the waterway, authorities must ensure that mines laid earlier this year are fully cleared. As Michelle Schulz noted during a recent interview on WBAP Radio, Dallas-Fort Worth: "It's going to take some time... Keep in mind that ships have been stuck for over 100 days, so beginning operations again is not going to be a quick fix. Assuming that an agreement is reached and that the Strait does open, there are many things that still need to be done. For example, clearing mines that were laid earlier on this year." Because of these safety imperatives, maritime tracking data suggests that it will take weeks, if not months, for the backlog to entirely dissipate and for standard shipping schedules to normalize. Shifting Strategies: How Importers and Exporters are Adapting The prolonged instability in the region has forced global businesses to fundamentally re-evaluate their supply chain resilience. Relying on a single, vulnerable transit route is no longer a viable strategy, leading many companies to explore alternative—and often much costlier—routes, such as circumnavigating the African continent. To mitigate ongoing delays and safeguard their operations, proactive importers and exporters are utilizing specialized customs and trade mechanisms to manage their cash flow and inventory. Michelle Schulz explained how companies are currently navigating these choppy waters: "Our clients are navigating how they're going to ship and the shipping routes. They've been exploring alternate routes and, in addition to that, experiencing delays... Some are looking at mechanisms like bonded warehouses, foreign trade zones, and there's actually no great solution, to be honest. There's no perfect solution. But companies are trying to do their best to strategize to minimize the damages on delays and extra expenses." Ultimately, these extended routes and strategic pivot points come with a price tag. Higher operational expenses and freight fees will continue to trickle down the supply chain, impacting both corporate bottom lines and retail consumers alike. Mitigate Your Trade Risks Navigating global supply chain disruptions requires proactive legal and logistical strategy. Whether you need to review your current shipping contracts, evaluate force majeure clauses, or leverage trade programs like Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) and bonded warehouses to protect your inventory, Schulz Trade Law is here to help. Contact Schulz Trade Law Today to Schedule a Consultation Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Navigating the Perfect Storm: How Tariffs and Supply Chain Crises Are Compounding for U.S. Importers The dual pressures of escalating trade barriers and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are forcing businesses to rethink their global logistics strategies. Overview The international trade landscape has rarely been more volatile. Today, U.S. importers are facing a devastating "one-two punch": the sudden, indefinite disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz alongside rapidly shifting global tariffs. For small and mid-sized businesses, the financial strain of navigating these simultaneous crises is reaching a breaking point, making strategic legal guidance and supply chain adaptation more critical than ever. June 17, 2026 KNX News Los Angeles Stranded Cargo and the Drone Sweep Delay The current maritime crisis in the Middle East has left hundreds of commercial vessels in limbo. With standard shipping lanes effectively blocked or deemed unsafe, companies are facing unprecedented logistical gridlock. The source of the delay isn't just the initial disruption, but the highly technical and slow-moving safety operations required to clear the waters. As Michelle Schulz noted in a recent interview, the timeline for recovery remains incredibly uncertain: "Supposedly there were mines laid earlier on this year, and those mines have to be swept by underwater drones. So, ships and containers are somewhat at risk if if that hasn't been fully cleared. And shipping companies are cautious... they really haven't been many changes to their operations in the region because they don't know yet if it's safe, and they haven't seen a lot of improvement." With shipping companies hesitant to alter their operations without guaranteed safety, importers must prepare for extended inventory delays that could last for months. A Compounding Crisis: The One-Two Punch of Tariffs Logistical delays are only half of the battle. Businesses trying to reroute their goods or manage delayed arrivals are simultaneously being hit by volatile tariff policies. This creates an environment where long-term financial planning becomes nearly impossible, as costs rise on a daily basis. Schulz highlights how these overlapping issues are uniquely overwhelming for businesses right now: "And they're dealing with this and at the same time with tariffs that are escalating and changing every day. It's nearly unmanageable... Many of these clients did not see this coming, and so they're just dealing with multiple issues at the same time. They may have already relocated because of other trade issues, and now we have this issue in this part of the world. So, there's really no place that's safe. We have tariffs in virtually every country, and U.S. importers are paying those. So, it's kind of compounding. That's what I'm seeing is that it's compounding all of these issues." When geopolitical friction and fiscal policy collide, the traditional "safe harbors" for manufacturing and sourcing quickly vanish. The Small Business Breaking Point While multinational corporations often possess the capital reserves and extensive legal departments necessary to weather these systemic shocks, smaller enterprises are facing an existential threat. The margins required to absorb massive, unexpected operational overhead simply do not exist for many manufacturers and importers. The divide between corporate resilience and small business vulnerability is widening rapidly, as Schulz observed: "The clients that I've been working with are struggling. They can't absorb the costs, and especially the smaller businesses can't absorb the additional overhead, the additional tariffs that they're paying. In some cases, you know, 25%, 50%, they simply are struggling and may not make it." For these smaller entities, surviving the current trade climate requires aggressive cost-mitigation strategies, tariff classification reviews, and immediate compliance adjustments. Are Compounding Trade Issues Threatening Your Bottom Line? Navigating shifting tariffs and maritime disruptions requires more than just patience—it demands a proactive legal strategy. Whether you need to audit your tariff classifications, explore alternative sourcing destinations, or review force majeure clauses, Schulz Trade Law is here to help you protect your business. Contact Schulz Trade Law Today for a Comprehensive Strategy Consultation! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Scrapping the USMCA? Navigating the High Stakes of North American Trade Uncertainty Insights from Trade Attorney Michelle Schulz on the potential end of the landmark agreement and what it means for businesses. Overview Recent statements indicating a potential decision not to renew the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) have sent shockwaves through the corporate landscape. In this post, international trade attorney Michelle Schulz breaks down the sudden shift in rhetoric, the severe logistical and financial threats facing U.S. importers, and the strategic pivots companies must prepare for as regional trade stability hangs in the balance. June 12, 2026 This Morning with Gordon Deal "Trump threatens to kill trade deal with Mexico, Canada" Host: Gordon Deal A Surprising Shift in Continental Trade Policy For over three decades, North American supply chains have relied on a predictable framework of regional cooperation. Beginning with the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, and later modernized through the USMCA in 2018, cross-border commerce has long been viewed as relatively stable. However, recent developments have suddenly disrupted that assumption, indicating that the entire agreement could be scrapped rather than renewed at its upcoming six-year milestone. While past negotiations pointed toward potential revisions or a shift toward individual bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico, the prospect of dismantling the trade framework entirely comes as a stark surprise to the business community. As Michelle Schulz notes, "We're learning that the deal is not quite as set in stone as we may have thought... now he's saying, maybe we scrap the whole thing". Cited concerns over structural issues and drafting errors within the text have cast doubt on an agreement previously championed as a major legislative achievement, reminding businesses that continental trade status is never permanently set in stone. The Importers Facing the Hardest Hit If the USMCA is permitted to expire, the consequences will ripple across multiple industries, but U.S. importers will undoubtedly bear the heaviest burden. Countless domestic enterprises utilize the agreement on a daily basis to secure duty-free treatment on critical inputs, components, and finished goods flowing from Canada and Mexico. Without this legal framework, a massive volume of cross-border commerce would immediately become subject to standard tariffs, instantly spiking procurement costs. Schulz emphasizes the gravity of the situation for domestic businesses: "In my view, US importers... use the USMCA daily. We have routine importers that use USMCA to claim duty-free treatment on imports from Canada and Mexico... If this agreement didn't exist, it would be a huge logistical nightmare for companies in the United States". Forcing these deeply integrated, multi-step operations to navigate standard customs barriers without preferential trade status would bottleneck border logistics and disrupt just-in-time production schedules across the continent. From Automotive Parts to Agricultural Essentials The reliance on zero-tariff North American trade spans nearly every sector of the physical economy. The automotive and industrial machinery fields are particularly vulnerable, as they depend entirely on the steady flow of specialized components and car parts moving seamlessly between manufacturing hubs. Similarly, deep ties exist within agriculture and raw materials; the U.S. relies heavily on Canadian lumber, minerals, natural resources, and dairy, while closely co-developing textiles and consumer goods with Mexican partners. A prime example of this integrated ecosystem is the maquiladora business model in Mexico, which allows companies to utilize highly affordable manufacturing and assembly labor before returning the goods to domestic markets. Schulz warns that ending the agreement would completely disrupt these operations: "This would eliminate that entire business model. We would not be able to take advantage of the labor in Mexico. We would have to manufacture everything here, and it would become much more expensive". Prepare Your Supply Chain for Volatility In an environment where trade policy changes from day to day, standing still is a risk your business cannot afford. At Schulz Trade Law, we assist companies in auditing their current USMCA dependencies, modeling alternative tariff scenarios, and building agile logistics strategies to pivot on a dime. Contact our Dallas office today to review your cross-border operations and secure your supply chain against sudden regulatory shifts. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The $165 Billion Question: Navigating the New Tariff Refund Landscape Michelle Schulz Discusses the Biden Administration's Recent Stance on U.S. Importer Refunds Overview Following the implementation of an automated refund system for U.S. importers, a complex political dynamic has emerged. While $165 billion in tariff refunds is legally owed to businesses, reports suggest the administration is pressuring firms to forgo these claims. Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law, joined WTMJ Radio to break down what this means for the trade community. April 28, 2026 Wisconsin's Afternoon News WTMJ Radio, Milwaukee Reporter: Julia Fello A System Built for Speed The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has recently streamlined its processes to handle an unprecedented volume of tariff repayments. Through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a new sub-system known as CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entry) was designed to return funds to importers of record within a 60-to-90-day window. "It’s been interesting that the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has actually built a system to repay businesses so quickly... they’ve developed an automatic system for refunds that is supposed to return the money to the importer of record within 60 to 90 days." — MICHELLE SCHULZ Political Pressure vs. Legal Entitlement Despite the legal framework entitling companies to these refunds, a new narrative is forming from Washington. Major news outlets report that the administration is discouraging firms from claiming their money, citing various political and economic justifications. "It sounds like now the President has responded by saying, 'You're entitled to those refunds, but if you don't take them, I will remember you.' And so, you get brownie points if you just don't take your money back." — MICHELLE SCHULZ The Economic Reality for Importers For many businesses, these refunds are not just bonuses but significant capital owed for overpaid duties. Choosing to forgo these funds to remain in the administration's "good graces" presents a difficult dilemma for corporate leadership. "To ask companies to just go ahead and not claim the money that they’re duly owed—it’s kind of like asking people not to claim their tax refund." — MICHELLE SCHULZ Is Your Business Owed Tariff Refunds? Navigating the intersection of trade law and federal policy requires expert guidance. Don't leave your capital on the table without understanding the full legal landscape. Contact Schulz Trade Law Today Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Strategic Partnership Article War in the Middle East Time to Review Your Company’s Force Majeure Clauses Guest Article by S. George Alfonso, The Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, PLLC. Presented with permission by the firm’s strategic partner Schulz Trade Law, PLLC. April 28, 2026 Download this Article Disclaimer: This article is strictly limited to the legal analysis of force majeure provisions and is not intended as a political statement. Our goal is solely to provide practical guidance to help businesses maintain operations and review their specific contract clauses. Summary This article outlines key issues facing U.S. and international businesses arising from the Israeli/U.S. war against Iran and its regional proxies, which has expanded into a broader Gulf (if not global) conflict. It also highlights the potential relief available through the invocation of contractual force majeure clauses in contracts, when and if possible. Evaluate your options for invoking force majeure and develop a strategy. Schulz Trade Law offers a library of Trade Law Resources. Download this article The Iran War Effects Far More than the Energy Supply Chain The Israeli/U.S. launch of “Operation Epic Fury” on February 28th initially concentrated risk on the Strait of Hormuz and the global energy supply chain related to that narrow channel of water. Iran’s rapid response - via drone and missile attacks—effectively shut down the Strait by triggering the withdrawal of insurance coverage for tankers who were seeking ingress or egress from through the Strait. This disruption amounts to a de facto embargo on over 20% of the world’s oil resources. However, the consequences extend far beyond fuel markets as petroleum is essential to manufacturing an almost innumerable amount of products, including plastics, textiles, cosmetics, and construction materials, with diesel fuel being essential for global logistics. As a result, the interruption of this supply chain has already and will continue to render performance by parties under countless commercial contracts as impracticable to even impossible around the world. Force Majeure Clause A Force majeure clause (often referred to as an “Act of God” clause) is (or at least should be) standard in all commercial contracts (U.S. and international), as this clause may provide for the delay or excuse of performance by a party for at least an amount of time (if not completely release the party from contractual obligations and compliance), when extraordinary events beyond a party’s control occur. These typically include both natural and human-made disruptions. To successfully invoke such a clause, the triggering event must make contractual performance impracticable, impossible, or illegal—at least temporarily. Depending on the contract’s terms, prolonged disruption may excuse performance in whole or in part. Acts of Nature: Natural events like hurricanes, tsunamis, tidal waves or pandemics. Acts of Man: Human-made events such as war, terrorist attacks, strikes, or tariffs. Key Limitations and Risks Regarding Force Majeure Clause As with all contractual issues or questions - when in doubt, read the directions. The specific Force Majeure language in a commercial contract will control in every instance, which is why it is critical to ensure that this language is concise, well drafted and clear, without ambiguities or inconsistencies. Common issues found in Force Majeure Clauses include: Notice Requirements: Most Force Majeure Clauses will require the party to specifically cite and to some degree timely identify the triggering event(s) which rendered contractual compliance to be impracticable, impossible, or illegal at that time. Some Force Majeure clauses impose a strict “use-it-or-lose-it” notice provisions requiring timely written notification after a triggering event. Failure to comply may waive the right to invoke the clause. Scope of Covered Events: The triggering event must either be explicitly listed or fall within a valid catch-all provision. Ambiguity increases the risk of dispute. Immediate Steps to Undertake After two months of sustained conflict in the Gulf, businesses should take undertake the following proactive steps in order to better prepare for potential disruptions and minimize the financial risks associated with this unpredictable regional conflict. Review Existing Commercial Contracts for Force Majeure Clause (If Any): Confirm whether or not there is a Force Majeure Clause in each commercial contract and assess whether current conditions may qualify and justify the invocation of the Clause under the specific terms of each commercial contract. Update Clauses for Future Contracts: When negotiating new contracts, consider the new risks and evolving geo-political realities to include in the language of the Force Majeure Clause. Renegotiate Existing Contracts: If possible (whether or not a Force Majeure Clause exists in a particular contract), businesses should explore renegotiating the existing contractual terms, in order to avoid formal disputes (whether a dispute could arise due to an absence of a Force Majeure Clause or regarding the drafted and controlling Force Majeure clause). Strategic Decisions and Potential Leverage in the Mere Threat to Invoke the Clause Invoking force majeure carries inherent litigation risk. In some cases, the credible threat of invocation may provide sufficient leverage to renegotiate terms without the need to actually trigger the Clause itself and thereby avoid potentially costly and long formal disputes in litigation or arbitration. A careful, contract-specific analysis is essential before taking action. Conclusion The widening Middle East conflict has far-reaching commercial implications well beyond the energy sector and that region of the globe. Businesses should immediately review their contractual obligations to determine whether force majeure relief is available and if so if it may be advisable to claim (or at least threaten to claim vis-à-vis all contractual parties). Proactive contract review—and, where necessary, revision through possible re-negotiations - will better position companies to manage risk, maintain flexibility, and protect against ongoing and future disruptions in this turbulent global economy. by S. George Alfonso Navigating international trade during a global conflict demands more than just legal knowledge—it requires strategic foresight. At Schulz Trade Law, in partnership with the Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, we help businesses interpret complex clauses in the context of current Middle East developments. Contact us to discuss how we can help you defend your interests and manage performance expectations under your most critical international contracts. S. George Alfonso founded The Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, PLLC over thirty years ago. He provides his unique brand of “Concierge Counsel” to both U.S. and international clients regarding commercial contract negotiations, as well as U.S. litigation and arbitration. Mr. Alfonso’s firm focuses on “Problem Solving” (dispute resolution) in a variety of commercial scenarios, including pre-litigation and arbitration, as well as during litigation and arbitration. The Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, PLLC is a Strategic Partner with Schulz Trade Law, PLLC, providing the firms’ respective clients with elite international trade, contract, and dispute resolution representation. Resource Library Learn more about Trade Law. We have a series of articles highlighting the key components of international trade and compliance. Contact Us Stay ahead of trade law changes! Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.

Navigating the $166 Billion IEEPA Refund: Opportunity Amidst Obstacles The Mechanism is Live—But Is Your Business Ready for the Hurdles? Overview The federal government has officially opened the application portal for International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff refunds, placing an estimated $166 billion back within reach of American importers. While this marks a historic opportunity for liquidity and price stabilization, early reports from the field indicate that claiming these funds is anything but a "click-and-submit" process. From technical failures to regulatory delays, businesses must navigate a complex landscape to secure their payouts. April 23, 2026 NBC 5 KXAS, Dallas/Fort Worth Reporter: Vince Sims The Reality of the Refund Portal As the portal launched, the immediate surge in traffic created significant technical bottlenecks. For many importers, the excitement of the announcement was quickly met with the frustration of a system unable to handle the load. Ron Henderson, President of Varaluz, recently shared his experience with NBC 5, describing the process as a "rollercoaster." For companies that have had to rebrand tariff costs as "pricing strategies" to remain palatable to consumers, these refunds represent a vital chance to prevent further price hikes. However, Henderson notes that the primary challenge remains simply getting the government’s digital infrastructure to cooperate. Managing Expectations: The Timeline vs. The Reality While the official word suggests a turnaround time for refunds, industry experts advise a more cautious outlook. Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law PLLC, emphasizes that while the existence of a formal mechanism is "great news for people in the industry," the path forward will likely be paved with administrative friction. "Theoretically, it should take 60 to 90 days," Schulz explains. "I expect delays, though. There will be questions, and it may take more than that." Beyond the technical glitches, importers should be prepared for: Government Inquiries: Requests for additional documentation to verify "Importer of Record" status. Compliance Verification: A potential look-back at previous filings triggered by the refund request. Logistical Backlogs: As hundreds of thousands of claims hit the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) desks simultaneously. Strategic Takeaway for Importers The $166 billion is on the table, but it isn't "found money." It is a legal recovery process that requires precision. Importers should ensure their documentation is airtight before attempting to navigate the portal, as errors during the filing process could lead to more than just delays—they could trigger unwanted audits. Is your business prepared to claim its share of the IEEPA refunds? Don't let technical errors or documentation gaps leave your funds in the government's hands. Contact Schulz Trade Law PLLC today for a compliance review and expert guidance on navigating the refund process. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: Who Actually Gets a Refund? The refund portal is open — but for most businesses and consumers, the path to recovering tariff costs is far more complicated than it looks. Overview When the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's emergency tariffs, many businesses assumed a refund was on the way. The federal government has since opened an application portal to process an estimated $127 billion in refunds — but trade law experts warn that eligibility is narrow, the process is complex, and the money may not flow where people expect. April 20, 2026 FOX 26 KRIV TV / Houston Interview shown on 117 Channels Reporter: Tom Zizka Refunds Underway The ruling set off a wave of anticipation across the business community. Major retailers — Walmart, Target, Nike, Kohl's, Costco, FedEx, and thousands of smaller importers — are among the more than 300,000 companies that brought goods into the United States under the now-invalidated tariffs. Walmart alone could be due as much as $10 billion in refunds, according to some Wall Street analysts. The government's online portal opened for applications, and while some users reported sluggish performance, it did not crash under the anticipated demand. Customs and Border Protection has indicated the review process will take 60 to 90 days. However, the legal picture is more complicated for businesses further down the supply chain. Under current trade law, only registered importers and licensed customs brokers are eligible to file refund claims. If your business purchased goods from an importer but did not directly pay the tariffs yourself, you likely have no legal right to file — regardless of how much those tariff costs affected your bottom line. Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law PLLC, underscores the risk for businesses that assumed a refund agreement was implied: "If you were a customer of the importer, you don't technically have a right to file a claim. And if you didn't have an agreement with the importer that you get a refund when they get a refund, you may not have a right to that claim. It can be a legal mess." Even for eligible importers who do receive refunds, there is no obligation to pass those savings on to consumers or business customers. Some companies have signaled they would lower prices; others are reserving judgment until the money arrives. And separately, a number of other tariffs unrelated to the Supreme Court ruling remain in effect — meaning the broader trade landscape is still very much in flux. Not Sure Where Your Business Stands? Let's Talk. Tariff refund eligibility is a nuanced area of trade law, and the window to act is limited. Whether you're a direct importer evaluating your claim or a business trying to understand your options, Schulz Trade Law PLLC can help you navigate the process with clarity and confidence. Contact us today for a consultation. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.