Jr (00:00)
A year ago, we were talking about tariff uncertainty. Today, we're talking about a Supreme Court decision that changes everything and answers almost nothing.

Welcome back to written reflections episode 25. This is a forum for exploring the dynamic complex and essential nature of cross border trade in an ever changing world and a space to reflect on the deeper questions that shape how we live lead and move through uncertainty. I am really excited to continue this podcast and to deliver content that informs inspires.

and hopefully scratches where you itch. My intention is simple, to talk about what matters most when it matters most. Trade is the lens, life is the story. And as always, I'd love to hear from you, your ideas, your suggestions, your feedback. This is a conversation, not a monologue, and your perspective helps shape where we go next.

so I'm going to start today with a knock knock joke. And yes, it's relevant. So here it goes. Knock knock, who's there? AIIPA. AIIPA who? AIIPA refunds aren't automatic. No claims process established yet. So don't hold your breath.

Now as funny as that is, it also captures exactly where the trade community finds itself right now. You know it's interesting because exactly one year ago, almost to the day, I published episode four and five of my written reflections. And I recorded this at a time of incredible uncomfortable ⁓ period of tariff uncertainty.

We didn't know what would stick, what would change, or how long the chaos would last. Importers were trying to make decisions with incomplete information, and the legal challenges were just beginning. And so 2025 became the year of what I would say the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as AIIPA, became the year of AIIPA tariffs.

Also the year of operational confusion, shifting guidance, trade deals, tariffs as geopolitical threats, and months of waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in. Now I had over the last few months so many conversations with people and whenever they found out I was a trade guy, they would immediately raise tariffs and then they would ask me, what do you think the Supreme Court's going to do?

And of course, I don't, I had really no, no, no real idea ⁓ what they were going to do. But as of today, we know exactly what they did because they ⁓ made a decision. And this is a consequential inflection point. They ruled that the president of the United States did not have authority under IEPA to impose these tariffs. This truly is a landmark decision.

But the court also stayed silent on refunds. No automatic reimbursements, no clear process, and a lot of companies are wondering what will happen next. So to help us unpack all of this, I am joined today by two very special people who have been guiding companies through these moments and this one in real time. That is Beth Pride.

founder of BPE Global and Evelyn Bernal, director at BPE Global, who also is the author of a recently published article that perfectly frames our conversation today. Beth, Evelyn, welcome. I want to thank you for joining me at such a crucial moment in the world of trade. So let's jump in and start with the Supreme Court ruling. So, ⁓

If you could, maybe Beth, if you could summarize ⁓ the Supreme Court ruling for a business audience, that would be great.

Beth Pride (04:48)
Happy to do that. So the Supreme Court's ruling was a bit like the joke about the guy who finds a magic lamp. He rubs the magic lamp, a genie appears and offers him one wish. The man says, I wish to be irresistible to all women. So the genie turns him into a pair of shoes. Ba dum bum. I have been channeling all my energy and have been manifesting that the IEPA tariffs would be deemed illegal.

Evelyn Bernal (05:09)
Thank

Beth Pride (05:19)
But it's clear, just like the joke, I forgot to be more specific in my ask. The Supreme Court's decision found that the president had no tariff authority when he implemented the IEPA tariffs, and that the US cannot impose IEPA tariffs on anyone without violating the high court's decision. The Supreme Court's decision is applicable nationwide, but the decision did not order the ref-

Evelyn Bernal (05:25)
you

Beth Pride (05:46)
fund of all unlawful tariffs that have been paid, and nor did it implement permanent injective relief banning any attempt to reimpose the IEPA tariffs through future orders. It also didn't establish a process to issue refunds. So to summarize it all, we all ended up with a really irresistible pair of shoes.

Jr (06:09)
Well said, Beth. Love it. ⁓ So you hit on something really important, this idea of refunds. And so why is the absence of a remedy, you know, no automatic refunds, why is that so consequential?

Evelyn Bernal (06:26)
Yeah, I, you know, I think it's consequential in the sense that what it means is litigation, litigation, litigation. There are so many open questions around how to apply for a refund, whether or not customs can even issue the refund, whether or not protests apply under this whole entire AEPA argument. And then

even questions around whether or not the Court of International Trade is authorized to refund anyone who isn't a plaintiff in a case that's already out there. So there are layers upon layers of legal questions and challenges that we can expect, and those will take years.

Beth Pride (07:15)
I'm going to add onto that, Evelyn, because one thing that the Supreme Court didn't mention was interest payments. There are billions of dollars that companies could have made money off of their own money, but it was sitting in the U.S. government's coffers. So we got to look at interest payments. And the reality is neither the court nor CBP have published a definitive list of which specific

tariffs are illegal. There's a lot of tariffs under IEPA that may not be illegal. So right now, look at every chapter 99 HS tariff as a potential refund, but manage executive expectations. You're going to have a universe of tariffs that are potential refunds. It's likely going to be carved down once CBP issues the final list of eligible

Chapter 99, HTS numbers.

Jr (08:16)
Now, Beth, you raise a really important point about interest. You know, if you've ever dealt with the government and you had some of their money for too long, ⁓ you get charged interest. Is that right? Yes, exactly. So we'll see where that goes. ⁓ So you've both been talking with importers, I'm sure, nonstop since this ruling came out. By the way, it's been one week today.

Beth Pride (08:27)
Compounded, compounded.

Jr (08:44)
⁓ you know, what are the biggest questions, anxieties, or even misconceptions you're hearing right now? And how should companies be thinking about their exposure, their timelines, and their options at this moment?

Beth Pride (09:00)
Yeah, it's not really defined yet. So I want to talk a little bit about the difference between the various things as potential ways to get the refunds. And so there's post summary corrections. These are things that allow a customs broker to electronically amend an entry after the initial filing, but before liquidation. And you have up to 300 days since the entry date or 15 days before liquidation.

whichever is earlier, to fully replace the original entry summary. ⁓ But the issue with PSCs is that the customs broker would have to touch every import with IEPA tariffs and file that PSC. And that's crazy expensive for the brokers. Regarding the Court of International Trade litigation that Evelyn was mentioning, is we're not lawyers, but we've heard that a CIT, Court of International Trade litigation, costs around $10,000.

We've also heard it described as relatively inexpensive. So each individual company will need to determine if $10,000 is relatively inexpensive. And then let's talk about protests. So this is the most costly, most likely to pose administrative barrier solution. Brokers charge $125 per protest. And if the IEPA tariffs on the entry are less than $125, it's a non-starter.

And protests require electronic copies of the entry package, the entry, the invoice, the bill of lading, and other documents related to the import. Many importers do not have these copies. If they do, they're not electronic. But if you file a protest and don't include the entry package, the protest is automatically denied after 10 days once the protest is submitted. You can consolidate multiple entries on a single protest.

Let's say you put 100 entries on a protest. If one of those entries is rejected, the entire protest is rejected. So it's still risky. So the other option is, rather than paying your customs broker to file the protest, you can sign up for the ACE protest module. You can file your own protest. But this doesn't help you with the FedEx, DHL, and UPS entries where you weren't the importer of record. FedEx, DHL, and UPS acted as the importer of record and sent you a bill for the IEPA tariffs.

Jr (11:27)
Wow, that's a lot to consider. As you've been working with importers at this moment, what are some of the biggest mistakes or misperceptions or misconceptions people have about these different options?

Evelyn Bernal (11:45)
For me, would say that one of the things right now is just understanding the types of entries that are made. You have your informal entries, which are lower dollar value entries, and those will liquidate as soon as the duty payment has been made. So those are pretty, I mean, it's very, very quick liquidation versus your informal entries where you have your 300 days.

So I think a lot of it is just not really understanding which entry has liquidated, which entry is about to liquidated. And a lot of the importers don't yet have all of their ⁓ import data ⁓ in ducks in a row, right? ⁓ Not really understanding what came in.

What can we do with it? What are we supposed to do with it? What has liquidated? What doesn't? And what all the potential remedies can be, whether or not they're legal themselves.

Beth Pride (12:47)
Yeah, and I want to add to that. Importers who don't have an account, they are seriously behind. ⁓ ACE has liquidation reports, so you could answer those questions on when entries have liquidated. The other thing I want to go a lot deeper into is importers who allow the couriers to act as importer of record are even worse off. Imports where FedEx, DHL, UPS act as the importer of record means two things. Importers have

zero visibility to those imports. They don't show up on the importers ACE reports and the refund goes back to DHL, FedEx, and UPS. So importers should request ACE reports from those couriers to get their arms around how much they should expect to get back from those couriers.

Jr (13:34)
No, that's an excellent point. And I was going to ask you, you know, what about companies that don't have visibility to all these imports? Like you have the example of FedEx and DHL. So that creates a huge disadvantage, right? Because without data, it's very difficult to go and to get any sort of ⁓ refund. So that's super helpful. ⁓

So you talked about the PSCs, you talked about protest, and you talked about CIT litigation as three options. Can you just walk through a little bit more what would be the reason why I would choose one over the other?

Beth Pride (14:15)
I don't think you should choose any one of those.

Jr (14:18)
Okay.

Evelyn Bernal (14:18)
Well, I

would actually, I would say that if you're going to have any potential action, the post summary correction is going to be the lowest hanging fruit. Just from the perspective of the fact that you can easily reach out to your broker, depending of course on the number of entries, you've got your list, you ask your broker, hey, can you file this post summary correction?

Once you are 314 days or over and you actually have to file the protest, that involves so much more work. It involves so much more documentation and that's going to be a little bit more difficult. So if you are within the PSC window, I, you know, we say, Hey, it's an available option. Go ahead and do it. But word of caution. I just read an article this morning that customs has been rejecting the PSCs of late.

So even the post summary corrections may not be quickly addressed by customs.

Jr (15:19)
Okay,

Beth Pride (15:20)
And

I believe that there's way simpler and more cost-effective ways to get the importers to get their money back. So back in 1987, TB ⁓ implemented the assessment of the Harbor maintenance fee on export. It immediately triggered suits. It's basically unconstitutional to charge tariffs or tax on ⁓ exports. so suits piled up, but there were years and years and years where

Jr (15:20)
great.

Yeah.

Beth Pride (15:50)
Exporters had to pay it. So in 1998, this Court of International Trade finally ruled on it and they issued a requirement to build a system where the exporter could file a claim with CBP and then CBP would issue mass reliquidations and refunds from 1987 to 1998. So that is one option, which is giving importers a file a claim button, tie it to their IOR number.

And then CBP makes all the magic happen after that. I think requiring hitting a claim button is going to leave a lot of importers left out. Many people can't navigate the CBP website. How would they know to push the button for file a claim? So I think that CBP should just liquidate all entries with the illegal IEPA tariffs and automatically issue refunds without a claim. The problem is

Jr (16:33)
Right. Right. Right.

Beth Pride (16:48)
calculating the correct duties owed and the refund amount. Usually the broker's customs entry system does those calculations. So there could be programming on the part of CBP and we all know how great ACE programming is. And it's mandatory to sign up for the ACH ⁓ payments for refunds. If you don't, right now customs just doesn't give you your money back. ⁓ I'm suggesting that

Jr (17:01)
Right. Right.

Right.

Beth Pride (17:15)
CBP, if you're not signed up for it, but you have money owed you, you would send a notification that there are IEPA refunds that cannot be processed. But let's face it, some importers went out of business because of the IEPA tier.

Jr (17:28)
Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So that raises an interesting question in my mind, Beth, and that is the Supreme Court ruling did not touch refunds. So there's no reason that CBP or anybody should offer a refund. I mean, what is going to cause the government to actually issue a refund? There's no legal basis to do it. So all of these steps you're giving us

that we can do. mean, those are probably good steps to take to kind of be prepared, but that doesn't guarantee there's going to be any money coming back to anybody. Am I right?

Evelyn Bernal (18:06)
Yeah, not in any way. ⁓ Especially, where we talk, we put a lot of this responsibility on CBP, but the legal challenge to CBP is that a protest, the legal language says that the protest is based on anything where CBP had made a decision. And so when someone files the protest under section 1514,

⁓ that is not addressing something where customs actually made a decision. That wasn't a customs decision and they were just following what the president said, right? So this was just their ministerial duty. ⁓ And so the legal challenge there, of course, like I said, we'll see many years of litigation, the legal challenge there is whether or not the protests are even ⁓ legal in that sense that customs may not even be able to

do anything about it because it wasn't their job.

Jr (19:05)
Right, right,

right. So in order to get a ruling from the Supreme Court that made it very clear that there's no authority to the president to do this, is it likely that we also are going to need a Supreme Court decision to dictate and legislate, don't know if it's legislate, but maybe rule that the government has to refund?

I mean, is it going to take that, do you think, or is there going to be a way to work this out? you think? Yep.

Beth Pride (19:38)
I don't think so because the

court that originally struck this down is the court of international trade. This is being referred back to the court of international trade to figure out about whether refunds are owed and remedy. And they're used to dealing with these kinds of issues. So I don't think it has to go back up to the Supreme Court. think, and we know that many, many new suits have been filed saying, give us a remedy.

Jr (19:44)
Okay.

Okay, yes.

Beth Pride (20:07)
give us these refunds. And so I think it will be handled in the Court of International Trade.

Jr (20:08)
Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. The only, the only reason why I kind of get a little suspicious is because your statement earlier that, ⁓ CBP didn't, ⁓ implement these tariffs because of any sort of statute is because the president said, so if the president goes to CBP or whomever and says, you are not allowed to give refunds, I say,

right? Then then we're right back to somebody's got to go through the court process to get it up to you know to a decision that becomes the law of the land not the law of the president. I don't know just just thinking about this based on what's happened the last year.

Evelyn Bernal (20:37)
Yes.

Beth Pride (20:52)
Yeah, and it's not a normal year, but the court understands these questions and I believe we'll rule on them. We've seen edicts come down that need to be challenged and need to go back to the Supreme Court. So, yeah.

Jr (21:00)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right,

right. So this will be with us this issue for a little while, sounds like. Great. So before I move on, anything else when it comes to the refunds? I know that so many people, this is probably their biggest pain point and the biggest concern right now. Is there anything else you'd like to share with listeners about the refund situation?

Evelyn Bernal (21:10)
you

Beth Pride (21:26)
Yeah, I had one thing that I thought was really important to bring out is liquidation. So if this drags on and on and on and on and the entries are liquidated, once entry has liquidated, you have no recourse. And so that's going to be a challenge. people are going to have to go back to the quarter of international trade and challenge the fact that it wasn't their fault that

Jr (21:27)
Yeah. Mm-hmm. Okay.

Mm-hmm.

Beth Pride (21:54)
their entries liquidated in this period. it's just, that's the highest cost of everything is going back to the court. And I'm very concerned with that.

Jr (22:05)
Yes, right rightfully. So how about you Evelyn any other thoughts on refunds?

Evelyn Bernal (22:12)
Yeah, no, think just even that the refunds would take forever. you think about just that the, like, for example, let's say that the protest is a good measure and you can file your protest. CBP still gets up to two years to rule on a protest, right? So they may do nothing, right? They may sit on them for two years and hang out and wait to see what's going to happen. ⁓

Jr (22:31)
Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Evelyn Bernal (22:42)
It's a long game. It's a long game and it involves so much calculated risk. It may pan out. may not.

Jr (22:49)
Right, right. Now, I think you're spot on. I think this is just ⁓ going to be something everyone's going to pay attention to for a good year, I think. So we've been talking all about the Supreme Court ruling, what it didn't say, the refunds. And I think you guys have given some great advice to our listeners on how to deal with that. But let's shift now to think about the future. What happens as we go forward, right? So once companies get through this immediate

pre-age, reviewing their entries, checking their liquidation, filing their protests, and all of those things you guys have mentioned. The next question becomes, what's the future of tariffs going forward? I believe tariffs are here to stay. I don't see them going away. But with AIIPA off the table, then what does the administration do? And then what should importers be doing in preparation? We've heard things like Section 122, maybe Section ⁓

232 going back to the Trump administration one we heard all about section 301 as it related to China And so how does this is gonna play out as you go forward? So I thought maybe I could just take a second here and just briefly describe these three I guess you'd say tools or mechanisms that it can be used so section 122 122 comes from the Trade Act of 1974 and it allows the president to impose

Temporary import surcharges up to 15 percent and that is only for 150 days ⁓ And this is so that that he can address what he believes are fundamental international payment problems Such as a large and serious balance of payments deficit that is fraught with all sorts of questions and concerns ⁓ section 232 is from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962

And it authorizes the president to impose tariffs if the Commerce Department determines that imports threaten U.S. national security. And so we already have seen a number of 232 studies already established, some of those looking at steel and aluminum and so on, and the case being that these are a national security issue. And then the third mechanism is Section 301. And this comes also from the Trade Act of 1974.

And it authorizes the U.S. trade representatives under USTR to investigate and respond to unfair foreign trade practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. And we all got familiar with this one back in Trump won because this was what was used to establish tariffs on China at the time and it's still actually in place. So if I was to summarize, just so everybody has an idea here, ⁓ know, IEPA is off the table now, so we don't need to worry about IEPA.

No more AIPA jokes. ⁓ Section 122 is temporary. Section 232 is national security and Section 301 is the workhorse for unfair trade practices, especially with China. So the question becomes, which of these tools will define the next tariff era? Any thoughts on that?

Evelyn Bernal (25:44)
you

Beth Pride (26:05)
Well, I do want to point out on the Section 122 tariffs, during the Supreme Court hearings on IEPA, the administration actually argued that IEPA ⁓ was necessary, but they conceded that Section 122 were not applicable or available. And so they've kind of already admitted that they're not going to last, they're not going to work. ⁓ We know for a fact that both the 232

Jr (26:09)
Mm-hmm.

Beth Pride (26:35)
and the 301 tariffs have been ruled as legal by the court of international trade. And so I think that's how they're gonna come down and it makes the world really hard and companies are gonna have to figure out sourcing alternatives, cause it's very tied to origin. It's also like an anti-dumping case where it's not completely formalized until the investigation has been done. And so there's just...

It's a lot of overhead. ⁓ And so I think he's going to double down on anything he can get on because he's hell bent on these tariffs.

Jr (27:13)
Yes. Well, I think, ⁓ go ahead, Evelyn, go ahead.

Evelyn Bernal (27:14)
Yeah, I was just going to

say my conversation with Beth earlier today is that the image that has come to my head and its perfection is Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory. Now, for those of you millennials who haven't seen it, I urge you to go play the original version of the movie because the scene in the movie is Veruca Salt sitting at her father's desk

screaming at him saying, I want that golden ticket. And all the workers in the background are they've they've bought 17,000 candy bars and all the workers are frantically going through the candy bars trying to find the golden ticket. And that is Trump right now yelling at the USTR saying, I want that golden ticket, go find it for me. And the problem that the USTR is going to have or does have is that

all of these ⁓ particular trade ⁓ tariff authorities are so different. The benefit to ⁓ industry is that what remains apart from this 150 days section 122 is just that there are ⁓ gating factors for the implementation of all these other tariff authorities. So

Section 232 having a 270 day requirement for the report. Hey, that buys us nine months. I mean, at this point, we got to just take what we can get. But the truth is, the more time that goes by does give them. But if they had to dig this deep, I'm trying to be hopeful to think that if they had to dig this deep to come up with only a Section 122 that's 150 day window,

Jr (28:44)
Right. Yes.

Evelyn Bernal (29:04)
that there's not too much more they can really scrub up. It's not to say they will not find that golden tariff, ⁓ but I think they really are limited in the rest.

Jr (29:19)
Yeah, and I think, ⁓ you know, the president made it very clear in the State of the Union ⁓ this week that his ultimate goal is to make a lot of money, right? So that Americans won't have to pay income taxes. That's what I heard. That's what I heard. And so I don't know if that's just hyperbole or is that's really what his intention is. I will say, though, and I highly recommend it.

Evelyn Bernal (29:39)
yes, heard that. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Jr (29:48)
If you go back to my ⁓ episode five, I spent a fair amount of time walking everybody through both Robert Lighthizer's book, ⁓ No Trade is Free, and the Project 25 write-up on trade that was written by Peter Navarro. And in both of those ⁓ write-ups, you will find a very clear ⁓ description and rationale for what is driving. ⁓

This this agenda which is as you described it's an agenda. It's the golden ticket, right? It's wanting to wanting to get this done. So I just think that that's something we have to Unfortunately live with and monitor and and that's why having these conversations are so good so Anything else you want? Is there anything about any one of these? 22 we've talked 122 232 or 301 that you think importers should be aware of

Beth Pride (30:46)
I think sourcing is everything and understanding that when you get hit with one of these 232 or 301 tariffs, there is a calculation that is done, which is the percentage of steel or aluminum for that item. And if it is not known, the tariff gets applied to 100 % of the item. But if you have a piece of equipment that's only 5 % steel or aluminum,

you can move that assessment down to just that 5%. So companies, when they build their product matrices and they classify their products, they need to include that percentage of the item that will be dutyable under 232 or 301.

Jr (31:35)
So the other question I would then ask on this is ⁓ with these potential mechanisms or tools, are there other things that importers could or should be doing in the near term?

or just wait it out, see what happens.

Evelyn Bernal (31:54)
Well, it's something very important to know or to be reminded of is that importers do have up to two years from the initial implementation of the IEPA tariffs to file any kind of action with the Court of International Trade. So a lot of companies have said, you know, we're just going to have a wait and see approach. So that, you know, some companies are really taking ⁓

Jr (32:17)
Wait.

Evelyn Bernal (32:23)
that into consideration and saying, all right, we're, you know, just want to sit back and wait and see what, shakes out. You have time. So not to be like awfully pressured. I mean, it's not what the executives want to hear, right? The executives want their money back.

Jr (32:40)
Right.

Yeah, that's a great point. That's a good lead in to just shifting out maybe a little bit away from these tools. let's talk a little about executive leadership, because if there's any body or any number of folks in a company that are most concerned, it tends to be the executives. I know this firsthand, because no senator does an announcement come out, and you've got, they want answers. And they want to know all the details. So it does create a lot of ⁓ angst among the trading community.

Let's think about it, for the companies that you work with, what does good leadership look like right now? What are you seeing? How have you seen good examples of how people are addressing this versus those that are not?

Beth Pride (33:23)
Lobbying, absolute lobbying. Get over there, get the right message. The reality is these refunds have to be executed in the cheapest, most efficient way. And this is our one opportunity to do it. Up until now, the people who have really been lobbying and suing have been saying, protests, protests, protests are going to be the way to do it. That is not cheap, nor is it easy. So executives,

and should be absolutely ⁓ banging that drum on the hill and making sure that people see that there's an easier way to do this that is more equitable to all importers. That's facing outward. Facing inward, the reality is CFOs need to understand your ERP system is not going to tally how much you're owed. It's the ACE system. It is understanding which specific

Chapter 99 tariffs are illegal, which we don't know and it has not been published. And it's really then putting together the process on how you will do it once the Court of International Trade gives us the method, the means to remedy these tariffs.

Evelyn Bernal (34:39)
And there are companies out there who are smaller who are going to say, my gosh, I can't lobby. We always will say there are trade associations, there are groups out there that you can be members of that file, that go and do the lobbying. So that is definitely worth exploring. And a lot of the industry associations will file comments, which is my next point. Comment, comment, comment.

Jr (34:47)
Yes.

Evelyn Bernal (35:09)
So some of these tariff authorities do have or require comment windows. And if you feel very passionate, I think it's worth staying abreast of it, checking on the USTR website to see what the investigations are, whether or not they'll impact your company. If there's a comment window and you feel really led to put something together, by all means, do so.

Jr (35:36)
Yeah, yeah, no, that's excellent advice. And you know, my experience, you know, back at Intel is when these things happen, the trade employees that are responsible for trade oftentimes are buried, just buried. And so how do they find the time to develop comments and lobby? And so I have found that's why it takes more than the trade team.

to really get this done. And so I wanted to get your guys' thoughts. How should the different organizations in a company, legal, supply chain, finance, how should they work together to really get on top of this? Any thoughts?

Beth Pride (36:19)
Yeah, so I mean, again, the executives need to really...

Focus on how critical getting those comments in are and provide the trade compliance team with the resources to get out of the weeds and to actually... Trade compliance professionals know so much. If we can get their voices heard, their voices of reason, they're logical, it makes sense. So this comes back to the C level, realize that it's critical to get those voices heard now.

Jr (36:55)
Absolutely.

Evelyn Bernal (36:55)
I think

also because of the complexity, think all of us in the trade industry, I mean, everyone has a story on how we got here because there's no certificate program, right? We started in the trenches and we worked our way up. And so if you think about it, there are so many people still in the trench, so many people still coming up in the trade world, people who have a trade compliance job as their second job, right? Because they do...

Jr (37:04)
Right.

Evelyn Bernal (37:22)
finance, but someone said, hey, now all of a sudden you can do trade. So it's split responsibility and they don't have that level of expertise. So I think that's also something that the executives need to be aware of and understand and to be able to provide the resources for either the training, although right now training is going to be painful, but

Jr (37:48)
Yes.

Evelyn Bernal (37:49)
you know, really bringing in the resources and the help and the support, right, to come alongside the teams that are in there now and be able to help them to really understand what's happening, explain the regulations and help them with any processes that they have to develop. So there needs to be consideration given to what other resources can be leveraged.

Jr (37:51)
Yeah. Yeah.

Right, absolutely. you know, again, going back to my experience ⁓ back at Intel, we always had a difficult time, you know, obtaining resources. I mean, we're the trade group, you're doing what you do. And it was hard, think, at that executive level for the executives to truly understand why. And I've told people this in my latter years there, and I'll say it now, that this is the time.

I mean, you couldn't ask for anything more. You're the keeper, right, of billions, right? You're the one that possibly might be the one that could help recover, recoup those monies with your expertise and what you bring. And so this is the time to stand up and make your voice heard, if I could say it that way. But I just really feel like sometimes we underestimate the...

Evelyn Bernal (38:56)
Mm-hmm.

Jr (39:07)
the situation we're in and as trade professionals, there's not going to be any other time where you're going to have so much ability to influence and secure those resources that are so critical. anyway. ⁓

Beth Pride (39:20)
Can you imagine

the line on the resume? Successfully recovered $50 billion from the US government.

Evelyn Bernal (39:26)
Thank

Jr (39:28)
Well, I'll just, ⁓ I'll just toot the horn of my, team back at Intel. ⁓ as you mentioned that Beth, because my team won the highest awarded Intel because they were able to protect, we called it protect. and I won't give the exact number just to not, but it was, it was in the bees, ⁓ through, through getting export licenses without the licenses that revenue is gone. And so I think that propelled the team's view and estimation in the

Beth Pride (39:46)
Nice.

Jr (39:57)
executives eyes more than anything and so I think it's a great point ⁓ to aspire to see if you can be the group, the organization that recovers that money. That's huge. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Well, we're going to have to ⁓ wrap up. I've got one more thing I wanted to ask and that was you, Evelyn. ⁓ I had the opportunity this week to read your article and it was just published. It's fantastic article. You did a great job of just really

synthesizing all of this that we've been talking about. And you said in there, ⁓ at one point you said, most importantly, hang in there. You are not alone. So I was just curious, in your mind, what does resilience look like for trade professionals at this moment?

Evelyn Bernal (40:27)
Thanks.

⁓ gosh. I think really, if I think about it, resilience means being able to pivot from your more tactical approach to trade compliance into a more strategic approach. And the faster that you can do that pivot, there's so much data you need. There's so much you need to know from a regulatory perspective. There's so much you need to know from

you know, what all of the options that you have. And so there has to be much more level of planning.

setting up the right infrastructure, ensuring everyone has the training and making sure that there's the right level of communication that's going out to the executives teams.

Jr (41:38)
Yeah, I like the idea you said that hang in there. And it makes me think of that old famous poster of the cat hanging by its claws. So anyway, it is.

Evelyn Bernal (41:46)
Mm-hmm. Seriously,

I don't know how ⁓ trade therapists is not a thing at this point. I just don't know.

Jr (41:58)
⁓

There's a new there's a new opportunity for BPE Therapy Right, well it's coming it's coming I'm sure So that's great well, you know You guys just are tremendous in your knowledge and your experience and the things that you've shared today I thought maybe just to end with I'd ask you one last question and that is each of you can answer you know, ⁓ if if there was

Beth Pride (42:03)
Yeah.

Evelyn Bernal (42:03)
Trade therapy.

Jr (42:27)
One thing an importer should do differently after listening to this, what should it be? Who wants to start?

Beth Pride (42:36)
I'll go first and honestly it's just back to the basics. It's the three-legged stool classification, valuation and country of origin. If you do not have that under control, your world is never going to be easy. that's, it's very practical. ⁓ But if you don't have that and many small companies and medium sized companies and large companies don't have that.

together. So that's my two cents.

Evelyn Bernal (43:10)
Yeah, I would say to me, I think really it's just about building the right team. ⁓ You know, for all of the data that you need and all of the things you have to do, who is your, I mean, not to be on the therapy kick again now, but you know, who is your support group? You need a support group internally and you have to make sure you have all the right people around you. So if you, I think it's worth it to spend the time thinking about.

Jr (43:27)
Yeah. Yeah.

Evelyn Bernal (43:36)
who has what you need and how you're going to work more closely with them in developing those relationships.

Jr (43:42)
Yeah, those both of you, those are just tremendous pieces of advice. I have to say that, you know, going through this period of uncertainty, think one of the biggest risks is that people feel alone. They should be like it's all on their shoulders, right? It's something they have to solve. And I think your message is spot on. It's, you know, work as a team and that team doesn't have to necessarily be just your trade team, but it's the other departments and people within the company that have data and have information you need.

Evelyn Bernal (43:53)
Hmm?

Jr (44:11)
finding ways to work as a team. mean, setting up a task force, you know, and putting people on the team from different parts could really help in trying to get people to communicate and provide the information that's needed and also just provide that support, that feeling of support that you are not completely in this alone. I think that's one of the greatest struggles I think trade professionals have today is just that feeling that it's all on their shoulders and they got to solve it. And it's a complex, difficult time.

Evelyn Bernal (44:32)
Thank

Jr (44:40)
and a difficult situation as we've talked about here for the last 40 minutes. ⁓ I want to say just in closing, really, ⁓ again, appreciate both of you. ⁓ I wanted to mention to the listeners that when I go back and look at who was my very first connection in LinkedIn, it happens to be Beth. So Beth, you and I go back quite a ways, but it's great to continue to be able to.

Evelyn Bernal (45:03)
Wow.

Jr (45:09)
Collaborate and work with you and ⁓ so thankful both of you that you join me here today

I just wanted to think back to Something I said earlier, you know It was almost a year ago from today that I published episode four and five of my written reflections and what stands out ⁓ To me is how much uncertainty? defined that moment

We all felt incredibly uncertain. And we just didn't know where tariffs were headed. We didn't know how long this volatility would last. And we didn't know what the courts would ultimately say. And now here we are, a year later, at another inflection point. Different facts, different pressures, but the same underlying challenge. And that is leading through ambiguity.

The Supreme Court gave us clarity on authority, but not on refunds. It closed one chapter and opened another. And that's the reality of trade. It's never a straight line. It's a series of adjustments, recalibrations, and decisions made with imperfect information. What matters is not predicting every turn, but building the discipline and resilience to navigate.

So as you go back to your teams, your brokers, your advisors, and your data, I hope this conversation gives you a little more clarity and maybe a little more calm. I want to thank you for listening. Thanks for thinking through this moment with us. And as always, stay curious, stay steady, and stay reflective. We'll talk again real soon. Thank you.