Category: Global

CNIPA Reminds Applicants Not to Include Political Content in Patent Applications

On April 11, 2025, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the Business Reminder on Further Standardizing the Requirements for Drafting Patent Application Documents (关于进一步规范专利申请文件撰写要求的业务提醒). The Reminder states that the background section of the specification specifically should not introduce political content not directly related to the technology and only use official maps from China’s Ministry of Natural Resources “to ensure accuracy, legality and authority of the map.” However, this represents difficulties for foreign applicants as the Ministry’s map website appears to be unavailable for foreigners.
A full translation follows. The original text can be found here (Chinese only).
In order to further improve the standardization of patent application documents and save the application and authorization procedures, the following reminders are made for the writing of patent application documents in accordance with the relevant provisions of the “Patent Examination Guidelines”:1. The core of the patent application document is the technical solution it records, and the introduction of content unrelated to the technical solution should be avoided as much as possible, especially the background technology and drawings of the specification.2. The background technology part of the specification should state the background technology and corresponding documents that are useful for understanding, searching, and reviewing the invention or utility model. When explaining the problems and shortcomings in the background technology, it should focus on the technical content and try to avoid introducing political, economic, cultural and other information that is not directly related to the technology.3. For the drawings of the specification, it is recommended to introduce maps only when they are closely related to the scope of protection. When it is necessary to introduce, the applicant should use standard maps, such as those obtained through the “Standard Map Service System” (http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/ ) on the website of the Ministry of Natural Resources to ensure the accuracy, legality and authority of the map. When making drawings based on standard maps, relevant laws, regulations and departmental regulations should be observed.

Windy City Wins: Seventh Circuit Backs Coverage for Chicago’s $3.75M in Attorneys’ Fees

In a significant decision, Starstone Ins. SE v. City of Chicago, No. 23-2712 (7th Cir. Apr. 02, 2025), the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that an insurer must cover $3.75 million in attorney fees incurred by the city of Chicago in an underlying civil rights lawsuit that settled for over $18 million.
Case Background
This coverage dispute arose from an underlying lawsuit involving a man who served over 20 years in prison for murder. After being released, the man sued the City of Chicago and several Chicago police officers for violating his civil rights. The jury in the civil rights case returned verdicts in his favor, amounting to more than $17 million, and his lawyers then sought more than $6 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The case was settled for $18.75 million, of which $3.75 million represented attorney’s fees and costs. The central issue in the coverage dispute was whether the insurer was responsible for covering these legal fees/costs under the city’s insurance policy. The insurer argued that the policy it had issued to the city only covered “damages,” and legal fees/costs did not fall within the policy’s definition of “damages.”
Seventh Circuit’s Decision
The Seventh Circuit began the opinion with a discussion of federal jurisdiction over the insurer which is organized as an “SE,” a form of a European company under the European Union’s European Company Statute. The court grappled with the question of whether the insurer was a corporation for purposes of federal jurisdiction. The court compared the insurer to other non-traditional corporations from other parts of the world, and ultimately found the insurer to have the essential characteristics of a corporation. Therefore, the court found that it could exercise jurisdiction over the insurer.
The focal point of the decision, however, was whether the insurer was responsible for the component of the settlement attributed to underlying plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, affirming that the insurer must cover these fees and costs. The policy’s main coverage clause stated: “We shall pay you, or on your behalf, the ultimate net loss, in excess of the retained limit, that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed under an insured contract because of bodily injury or property damage arising out of an occurrence during the Policy Period.”
In reaching this conclusion, the court observed that the policy stated the insurer would cover the “ultimate net loss” in excess of the retained limit, and that under Illinois law, language in an insurance policy must be taken to mean what the words in the policy say. The district court found that the $18.75 million settlement was an “ultimate net loss” under the policy that the city was “legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law.” It reasoned that an ordinary reader would interpret the policy’s language of “ultimate net loss” to mean the amount the insured pays out of pocket, and “legally obligated to pay” to mean “legally obligated to pay” and not some version of “legally obligated to pay as damages.” Because the city was liable for the settlement from underlying litigation, the district court found the city’s liability was an ultimate net loss that the city was legally obligated to pay. As a result, the insurer had a duty to indemnify the city as its policyholder for its attorney’s fees in the underlying action, and the Seventh Circuit concurred.
Key Takeaways
This ruling has significant implications for policyholders.

Governing Law Matters: The district court sat in Illinois, so Illinois law applied to the policy language dispute. If the court determined it could not have exercised jurisdiction over the insurer, the law of the European Union could have applied to the dispute, which would have changed the outcome. Starstone re-emphasizes the outcome-determinative role that governing law can have on the interpretation of policy language.
Policy Language is Paramount: This decision turned on the wording of the policy—not the general principles of fee-shifting or the American Rule. The court found that the terms of the policy, and not the insurer’s supposed intentions, controls.
Insurers Can Not Re-Write Coverage After the Fact: Courts will hold insurers to the language they drafted and put in their policies—no matter how expensive the outcome. Here, the court held the insurer to the language that it drafted and included in the policy.

Final Thoughts
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling serves as a crucial reminder for policyholders to carefully examine the language of their insurance policies. A policy’s language remains crucial to the resolution of any coverage disputes between policyholders and insurers. Experienced coverage counsel can help policyholders understand the language of their policies.

Coalition Agreement for New German Government: Real Estate Industry Implications

On 9 April 2025, the Christian Democrats (CDU and CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD) announced an agreement to form a new government in Germany and presented their coalition agreement (Koalitionsvertrag). The CSU has already approved the agreement, while the CDU and SPD plan to finalize their approval the end of April following party conventions and a member survey. The new chancellor is expected to be elected in early May, with the new federal government taking office shortly thereafter.
The coalition agreement includes several key initiatives impacting the real estate industry:
Rent Control and Tenant Protections

Prolongation of the rent price brake (Mietpreisbremse) for new lettings by four years, through the end of 2029. 
Enhanced regulation of indexed rents for apartments in distressed housing markets (angespannte Wohnungsmärkte). 
Tightened regulation of furnished apartments and short-term lettings in distressed housing markets. 
Expert group proposal (due by the end of 2026) to introduce penalty fines for violations of the rent price brake and to tighten rent usury (Mietwucher) regulations. 
Adjustment of the modernization levy (Modernisierungsumlage) to ensure better “affordability” of rents whilst maintaining sufficient investment incentives. 
Increase in the threshold for the simplified modernization levy procedure from €10,000 to €20,000 by the end of 2025. 
Introduction of a “shared apartment guarantee” (WG Garantie) for trainees and students. 
Implementation of national rent surveys. 
Strengthening of consumer protection rights for tenants. 
No reduction of the cap (Kappungsgrenze) on rent increases in existing leases.

Building Law Reform

Introduction of a “construction turbo” (Bauturbo) and simplified noise protection regulations within the first 100 days of the new government’s term. According to a proposal made in the last legislative period, the “construction turbo” aims to enable greater flexibility in building and zoning law requirements. 
Subsequent implementation of a fundamental building law reform, including:

–
Adjustments to technical guidelines for noise emissions (TA Lärm) and air protection (TA Luft) to better resolve conflicts between residential, commercial, and agricultural uses. 

–
Simplification of building standards. 

–
Facilitation of serial and modular construction. 

–
Protection of building type E. 

–
Exclusion of defects when deviating from technical standards (anerkannte Regeln der Technik).

Municipal Preemption Rights

Measures to prevent circumvention of municipal preemption rights (Vorkaufsrechte) through share deals. 
Extension of municipal preemption rights in milieu protection areas (Milieuschutzgebiete).

Ban on Condominium Conversion

Extension of the ban on converting properties into condominiums in distressed housing markets for another five years, through end of 2030.

Milieu Protection Areas

Facilitation of building measures to improve barrier-free access and energy efficiency. 
Exemption of private owners from milieu protection regulations.

ESG Initiatives

Repeal of existing heating law (Heizungsgesetz). 
Introduction of more technology-neutral provisions into the Buildings Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz). 
Promotion of flexible, urban quarter-based heat planning (Wärmeplanung). 
Initiative to postpone the implementation deadline for the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), currently scheduled for May 2026. 
Support for the EU omnibus initiative to reduce the scope of sustainability reporting (CSRD) and supply chain due diligence (CSDDD).

Tax Incentives and Public Subsidies

Establishment of a specialized investment fund for housing construction, combining private capital with public guarantees (e.g., via the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau – KfW). 
Tax measures to promote home ownership for families, as well as new construction and refurbishments. 
Federal initiatives to reduce financing costs for apartments in distressed housing markets at rents below €15 per sqm (through guarantees). 
Increased funding for social housing. 
Tax incentives for letting apartments at low rents. 
Restructuring of KfW funding into two programs: “new construction” and “modernization.” 
Support for housing cooperatives (Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften). 
Simplification of rent subsidies (Wohngeldprogramme) by the federal states.

Mixed Signals for the Real Estate Industry
The coalition agreement sends mixed signals to the real estate industry. While regulatory tightening – especially in the residential market – is evident, there is also a commitment to more flexible building regulations, increased tax incentives, and enhanced subsidy programs. However, many of the initiatives lack specific details, leaving their scope and impact dependent on subsequent actions by federal ministries and parliamentary committees. The real estate industry can engage with these developments by voicing its interests and priorities through industry associations.

UK Venues Face New Security Requirements Under ‘Martyn’s Law’

Go-To Guide:

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, also known as “Martyn’s Law,” requires UK venues and events to implement security measures against terrorist attacks. 
The Act introduces a tiered approach based on venue capacity. 
The Act defines “responsible persons” who must address compliance. 
Penalties for non-compliance include fines up to £18 million or 5% of worldwide revenue for some premises.

On 3 April, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 received Royal Assent. The Act, also known as “Martyn’s Law” in tribute to Martyn Hett, one of the 22 people killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, is intended to improve protective security and organisational preparedness for terrorist attacks at public venues across the UK.
The Act comes at a time when the Government considers the threat level from terrorism in the UK to be “substantial” as well as “less predictable and harder to detect and investigate.”
Pursuant to the Act, those responsible for certain premises and events will now be legally obliged to consider the risk and take reasonably practicable measures to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack.
Background
The Act’s provisions were developed following engagement with the Martyn’s Law campaign team, expert security partners, businesses, and local authorities, as well as via learnings from the Manchester Arena Inquiry (a statutory public inquiry to investigate the deaths of the victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena attack) and the London Bridge Inquest (an inquest into the 2017 terror attack at London Bridge and Borough Market), which both recommended introducing legislation to protect the public and clarify venue owners’ duties regarding protective security.
The Act also forms part of the Government’s broader counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) 2023. At a time when the nature and threat of a terrorist attack is complex and unpredictable, the Government is aiming to enhance the UK’s readiness and protection by ensuring a wide a range of premises and events are legally obliged to be better equipped and ready to respond to a terrorist attack.
Key Provisions
Those responsible for certain premises or events will now be required to implement reasonably practicable public protection procedures and/or measures, depending on the capacity of the premises or event.
Tiered Approach
The Act establishes a tiered approach, linked to the number of individuals reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time. Smaller premises (200-799 individuals) fall within the standard tier and will be required to put in place simple procedures to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals who may be present. Larger premises and events (800 individuals plus) fall within the enhanced tier, with additional procedural requirements in recognition of the potentially higher impact of a successful terrorist attack.
Types of Premises & Events
Premises include a building, part of a building, a group of buildings, or a building and other land – for example, a hotel plus its grounds where the same are used for dining or events.
Premises must be wholly or mainly used for one or more specified use(s), including shops, bars, pubs, restaurants, hotels, healthcare, education and childcare facilities, entertainment venues such as nightclubs, theatres and cinemas, halls, leisure, sports grounds, libraries, museums, galleries, transport stations, visitor attractions, and places of worship.
Events reasonably expected to have 800-plus individuals in attendance at the same time are also captured and subject to enhanced tier requirements so long as the event is publicly accessible and meets the “express permission” criteria (employees or individuals checking conditions of entry to the event are satisfied by attendees).
Standard v Enhanced Tier Requirements
Persons responsible for standard tier premises (or “standard duty premises”) will be required to implement appropriate and reasonably practicable public protection procedures for staff to follow in the event of a terrorist attack at the premises or in the immediate vicinity, including procedures to (i) provide information to individuals on the premises and (ii) evacuate, invacuate, or lockdown the premises. For these smaller venues there is no expectation to incur costly or implement physical measures.
Enhanced tier premises (or “enhanced duty premises”) will also be required to comply with the requirements above, but appropriate and reasonably practicable public protection procedures must also be documented and provided to the regulator (see below), including procedures that may be expected to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to an act of terrorism. This might include the monitoring of premises and their immediate vicinity, controlling the movement of individuals into, out of, and within the premises or event, and physical safety and security. It also includes measures relating to the security of information which may reveal vulnerabilities and assist in the planning, preparation, or execution of acts of terrorism, particularly what is appropriate to share, where, and with whom.
The requirement for procedures to be “reasonably practicable” allows those responsible persons to factor in the nature of the qualifying premises or event, encouraging a tailored approach whilst complying with the Act’s requirements.
Who Is the ‘Responsible Person’?
The responsible person must ensure the legislative requirements are met.
For a qualifying premises, the responsible person is the person who has control of the premises in connection with its use. Where premises are let, this would typically be the tenant. However, if qualifying premises form part of other qualifying premises, for example a department store within a shopping centre, then both the tenant and the property owner would each be responsible persons. In this case, the property owner and tenant would be required, so far as is reasonably practicable, to coordinate to enhance individual and cumulative compliance.
For a qualifying event, the responsible person is the person who has control of the premises at which the event is taking place in connection with its use for that event. For example, if a hotel hosted a public event in its grounds and maintained control of the premises for the purposes of that event, the hotel is the responsible person irrespective of the involvement of any contracting organisations. Responsibility cannot be delegated to contracted services.
For enhanced tier premises or an event, the responsible person is required to appoint a designated senior individual (DSI), i.e., someone with high-level management responsibility such as a director or partner, with responsibility for meeting the relevant requirements.
The responsible person will also be required to notify the regulator when they become and cease to be responsible for the premises (regulations will set out further details of timings and exactly what information must be provided).
Where the responsible person is the tenant, the requirement to comply with the Act is caught by the tenant obligation in most market standard leases where a tenant is typically required to comply with all laws relating to the premises and the occupation and use of the same by the tenant. Where the responsible person is the landlord, for example with a shopping centre, then a landlord may be obliged to meet its obligations via the provision of services.
Co-Operation
There is a requirement for persons with control over enhanced tier premises or events but not being the responsible person (for example, the freeholder where premises are let) to co-operate so far as reasonably practicable with the responsible person to facilitate the responsible person’s compliance with the Act.
The Government gives examples in its additional guidance where a freeholder as landlord would be obliged to consider the above to a reasonably practicable level. One example is when receiving requests from the responsible person to carry out alterations pursuant to the terms of its lease to meet their legal obligations. Where tenant alterations require landlord’s consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed, this would simply be part of the landlord’s decision-making process. Another example is where the responsible person has identified certain mitigations required to meet their legal obligations but the lease may state that landlord’s permission is required and the landlord should contribute a certain percentage of costs to ensure premises remain fit for purpose. The freeholder as landlord would be obliged to consider such requests from the tenant to a reasonably practicable level.
Enforcement & Sanctions
To support the Act’s enforcement, the regulator function will be delivered as a new function of the Security Industry Authority (SIA).
The SIA will have inspection and information-gathering powers and will be able to issue a range of civil sanctions, including compliance notices and restriction notices for non-compliance resulting in the temporary closure of enhanced tier premises or prohibiting an event from taking place.
The SIA can issue monetary penalties up to a maximum of £10,000 for standard tier premises and £18 million or 5% of worldwide revenue for enhanced tier premises or events. Daily penalties (up to £500 per day for standard tier premises and £50,000 per day for enhanced tier premises or events) may also be imposed where non-compliance continues.
It will be a criminal offence to fail to comply with an information, compliance, or restriction notice, provide false or misleading information, or obstruct the SIA. Further, the offender might be liable to imprisonment and/or a fine.
For enhanced tier premises, senior officers (including the DSI) may be liable to prosecution if the responsible person commits an offence, and it is proven that the offence was committed with their consent or connivance.
Next Steps
The Act received Royal Assent on 3 April; however, its provisions have not yet come into effect and will only require compliance once activated through regulations. Implementation is expected to take approximately two years, allowing time for the SIA to establish itself, for the Home Office and the SIA to develop guidance, and for those responsible for qualifying premises and events to familiarise themselves with their new obligations. Conclusion
The Act delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to “bring in Martyn’s Law to strengthen the security of public events and venues,” ensuring they are better prepared and ready to respond to terrorist attacks.
Whilst many owners and occupiers of premises may have already proactively considered the risk that acts of terrorism pose and have plans and procedures in place, this Act mandates for the first time who exactly is responsible for considering the risk and taking appropriately proportionate protection measures, applying a consistent level of security standards across qualifying events and premises. Both owners and occupiers should monitor the Government’s progress on guidance and regulations related to the Act, using the implementation timeframe as an opportunity to plan and prepare for compliance with the upcoming legislative changes.

German Federal Labor Court Finds Certain Virtual Stock Option Forfeiture Clauses May Unreasonably Disadvantage Employees

On March 19, 2025, the German Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht or BAG) held in Case No.: 10 AZR 67/24 that certain forfeiture clauses in General Terms and Conditions of Business (Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen or AGB) regarding the expiration of virtual stock options upon termination of employment are invalid.

Quick Hits

The German Federal Labor Court ruled on March 19, 2025, that certain forfeiture clauses in General Terms and Conditions of Business regarding the expiration of virtual stock options upon termination of employment are invalid.
The court found that such forfeiture clauses unreasonably disadvantage employees by not adequately considering the work already performed and the associated entitlement to the options.
International companies might benefit from decoupling employee ownership at least from the German employment relationship to avoid legal uncertainties and enhance the attractiveness of their programs.

Background
Virtual stock options are a popular form of employee ownership. They allow employees to participate in the economic success of the company without actually purchasing shares. These options are often subject to certain conditions, such as length of service. Employees often acquire rights to virtual options in different tranches. This staggered acquisition of rights is called vesting. In addition, the exercise of vested rights is often dependent on an event beyond the employee’s control, such as an initial public offering (IPO) of the company. This often results in a situation where the value of virtual stock options can only be realized after a significant delay.
Many programs contain clauses that provide for the forfeiture of vested options when the employee leaves the company. The German Federal Labor Court has now ruled that such forfeiture clauses can be invalid if they unreasonably disadvantage the employee.
Case History
In the present case, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant from April 1, 2018, to August 31, 2020. The employment relationship was terminated by a timely voluntary resignation. In 2019, the plaintiff received and accepted an offer to be granted twenty-three virtual stock options. According to the employee stock option plan (ESOP), the exercise of the options required their exercisability after the expiration of a vesting period and an exercise event such as an IPO. The options could generally be exercised in stages after a minimum waiting period of twelve months within a total vesting period of four years.
At the time of the plaintiff’s resignation, 31.25 percent of the options granted to the plaintiff were vested.
The defendant rejected the plaintiff’s claim to these options based on the forfeiture clauses. The plaintiff argued that the forfeiture clauses were invalid because the options were an integral part of his compensation package.
The German Federal Labor Court’s Ruling
The Tenth Senate of the German Federal Labor Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and found the following: the vested virtual stock options had not expired; the forfeiture clauses in the ESOP unreasonably disadvantaged the employee and were therefore invalid; the vested options constituted compensation for the work performed by the plaintiff; and the immediate forfeiture upon termination of employment did not adequately take into account the employee’s interests and was contrary to the legal concept of Section 611a (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB). In addition, the court found that the termination of the vested virtual stock options could be seen as an unjustified restriction to end the employment and seek a new job.
Issue of Restricted Exercisability Upon Voluntary Resignation
A key issue highlighted by the BAG in its decision is the restricted exercisability of options in the event of voluntary termination by the employee. These clauses unreasonably disadvantage the employee because they do not sufficiently consider the work already performed and the associated entitlement to the options. The immediate or accelerated forfeiture of already vested options upon voluntary resignation constitutes an unfair disadvantage and may act as a disincentive to resign, as employees may refrain from resigning in order to avoid financial losses.
In particular, international companies could consider decoupling employee ownership from the employment relationship and structuring it according to a different legal regime. This can help avoid legal uncertainty and make the programs more flexible and attractive to employees.

The BR International Trade Report: April 2025

Welcome to this month’s issue of The BR International Trade Report, Blank Rome’s monthly digital newsletter highlighting international trade, sanctions, cross-border investment, geopolitical risk issues, trends, and laws impacting businesses domestically and abroad. 

Recent Developments
United States implements universal baseline tariffs while pausing reciprocal tariffs—except against China. 

On April 2, President Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on almost all imports into the United States, which his administration rolled out in two phases:

On April 5, imports from all countries became subject to a 10 percent baseline tariff.
On April 9, the tariff rate increased for imports from 56 countries and the European Union, countries with which the United States has determined it has the largest trade deficits.  This included a 34% tariff on Chinese goods.

Later, in response to China’s retaliatory tariffs of 34% on U.S. goods (see below), President Trump levied an additional 50% in tariffs on Chinese goods, which China then matched.
On April 9, President Trump announced a 90-day pause on implementation of the second wave of reciprocal tariffs noted above, except with respect to import of Chinese goods, which saw a further increase in tariffs to 125%.
Notably, certain products are excluded from the new tariff program, including items subject to Section 232 tariffs and articles that comply with United States-Mexico-Canada Act (“USMCA”) preferential origin rules. See our alert for more details.

Global trading partners react to United States reciprocal tariffs. In the aftermath of President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs announcement, U.S. trading partners have taken differing approaches to President Trump’s new tariffs. 

Some, like Israel, India, and Vietnam, reportedly have contacted the White House to negotiate a deal. When President Trump announced on Truth Social that he was postponing the tariffs, he claimed that more than 75 countries have reached out to negotiate.   
China, in stark contrast, announced retaliatory tariffs of 34 percent, expanded its export controls, and vowed to “fight to the end.”  In response, President Trump increased the U.S. tariff on Chinese goods.  After a series of escalating moves, at press time, the U.S tariff on Chinese goods stood at 145% (125% for reciprocal tariffs plus a 20% tariff related to the fentanyl crisis), while China is imposing a 125% retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods.
Meanwhile, the European Union reportedly is doing both: authorizing retaliatory tariffs on around €22 billion of imports of U.S. goods into Europe, while offering a “zero for zero” tariff deal for cars and other industrial products.  In response to the Trump Administration’s pause on reciprocal tariffs, the EU has paused its retaliatory measures.

China, Japan, and South Korea meet to discuss possible free trade agreement. On March 30, the three countries held their first economic talks in years, agreeing to “closely cooperate for a comprehensive and high-level” dialogue on a free trade agreement to promote “regional and global trade.” Chinese state media took things a step further, claiming that the countries had agreed to coordinate their response to U.S. tariffs, which South Korea described as “somewhat exaggerated” and which Japan denied.
White House releases public summary of the Report to the President on the America First Trade Policy. On April 3, the White House publicized a summary of various U.S. government agencies’ April 1 report to President Trump on the implementation of his “America First” trade policy, although the summary did not provide definitive details regarding the report’s contents. The summary notes that the report examined a range of China-related trade actions, as well as “simpler, stricter, and more effective” export controls and possible expanded U.S. government review of outbound U.S. investment into China.
President Trump orders new CFIUS review of Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel. On April 7, President Trump called for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) to conduct a de novo review of the proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel. President Trump’s directive comes after former President Joe Biden blocked the acquisition of U.S. Steel prior to his departure from the White House. 
European Union considering joining Canada in World Trade Organization case against U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs. On March 12, Canada filed a request for consultations at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”), alleging that U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are “inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994].” Reports indicate that the European Union may join Canada’s complaint as the economic “bloc has a ‘substantial trade interest’ in the issue.” The dispute complaint is largely symbolic in nature, as since 2019, the WTO’s appellate body has been nonfunctioning. 
Coalition government formed in Germany amid economic uncertainty.  The German center-right Christian Democratic Union (“CDU”), led by Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz, and the center-left Social Democratic Party (“SPD”) reached an agreement to form a coalition government.  The need for a centrist coalition was driven by uncertainty regarding American tariffs and the continuation of the Ukraine War, along with an impetus to keep the Alternative for Germany (“AfD”) party out of power.  Merz has touted the agreement as evidence that Germany will be a reliable and capable force in Europe.
Democratic Republic of the Congo seeks critical minerals deal with the United States. Representative Ronny Jackson (R-TX) met with Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) President Felix Tshisekedi in late March to discuss a potential critical minerals deal between the countries. The potential deal comes as the DRC seeks to secure funding to contain the conflict with the Rwandan-backed M23 rebels in its east. Massad Boulos, President Donald Trump’s senior advisor for Africa, indicated that the White House had reviewed a minerals agreement between the United States and the DRC and that President Trump and Boulos had “agreed on a path forward for its development.” 
President Trump extends TikTok sale deadline. On April 4, President Donald Trump announced that he would pause the upcoming ban of TikTok, set for April 5 under a law that President Biden signed last year requiring divestiture of TikTok’s U.S. operations, for another seventy-five days. The extension comes after representatives of ByteDance, TikTok’s parent, reportedly told the White House that the Chinese government would not approve a sale of the company without negotiations over tariffs. President Trump has suggested that he may lower tariffs on U.S. imports of Chinese-origin items if Beijing approves the sale. 
Impeached South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol removed from office. On April 4, South Korea’s Constitutional Court voted unanimously to remove Yoon Suk Yeol, the country’s impeached president, from office for his December 2024 martial law declaration. South Korea will hold a snap presidential election on June 3, 2025.

In Case You Missed It…
Liberation Day: President Trump Unveils Global, Reciprocal Tariffs – What You Need to KnowBlank Rome partner Joanne E. Osendarp,  of counsel Timothy J. Hruby, senior counsel Alan G. Kashdan, and associates Brenden S. Saslow, Rachel D. Evans, and Christopher A. Kimura authored this alert assessing the recently announced global tariffs initiated by the Trump administration. 
Read More > >
Christopher A. Kimura also contributed to this article. 

Hong Kong SFC’s New Roadmap to Develop Hong Kong as a Global Virtual Asset Hub: ASPIRe

The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has recently unveiled a growth plan for the virtual asset (VA) industry, outlined in a five-pillar roadmap called “A-S-P-I-Re.” This roadmap consists of 12 initiatives organized into five categories: Access, Safeguards, Products, Infrastructure, and Relationships.
Pillar “A” (Access) – Expanding Opportunities for Investors
Initiative 1: Establish Licensing for OTC Trading and Custody Services
The SFC will support a licensing framework for over-the-counter (OTC) trading, ensuring parity between OTC operators and VA trading platforms (VATPs). A separate licensing regime for custody services will create a two-tier structure for trading and custody.
Initiative 2: Attract Global Platforms and Liquidity Providers
The SFC aims to encourage international VA platforms to set up local operations and streamline onboarding for institutional-grade liquidity providers, enhancing market liquidity.
Pillar “S” (Safeguards) – Balancing Investor Protection with Flexible Regulations
Initiative 3: Dynamic Custody Technologies
The SFC will explore emerging custody technologies, moving away from rigid cold storage mandates to more flexible and security-focused frameworks.
Initiative 4: Enhance Insurance and Compensation Frameworks
The SFC will align compensation and insurance requirements with global standards, allowing VA service providers to tailor their arrangements.
Initiative 5: Clarify Onboarding and Product Categorization
The SFC will clarify investor onboarding processes and create a classification system for VA products based on their nature and associated risks.
Pillar “P” (Products) – Diversifying VA Offerings
Initiative 6: Regulatory Framework for Professional Investors
The SFC will consider allowing professional investors to participate in new token listings and trade VA derivatives, contingent on due diligence and risk management.
Initiative 7: Margin Financing Requirements
The SFC will introduce margin financing requirements for VA, making it easier for traditional finance to engage with familiar risk practices.
Initiative 8: Staking and Borrowing/Lending Services
The SFC will evaluate the possibility of allowing staking and borrowing/lending services for professional investors, supported by appropriate risk management safeguards. As a follow-on action, on 7 April 2025, the SFC issued guidelines on licensed VATPs and authorized funds in relation to the provision of staking services.
Pillar “I” (Infrastructure) – Improving Market Monitoring and Collaboration
Initiative 9: Advanced Reporting and Surveillance Tools
The SFC will implement blockchain analytics tools and transaction monitoring systems to combat fraud and market misconduct.
Initiative 10: Strengthen Cross-Agency and Cross-Border Collaboration
The SFC will promote local and global collaboration to establish a comprehensive framework for risk monitoring and asset recovery.
Pillar “Re” (Relationships) – Fostering Education, Engagement, and Transparency
Initiative 11: Guidelines for Financial Influencers
The SFC will introduce guidelines for financial influencers (Finfluencers) to encourage responsible communication and protect investor interests.
Initiative 12: Build a Sustainable Communication and Talent Network
The SFC will work with stakeholders through the Virtual Asset Consultative Panel and support training programs.
Conclusion
The A-S-P-I-Re roadmap presents a comprehensive strategy to sustain Hong Kong’s VA market by integrating traditional finance with blockchain innovation. By addressing regulatory gaps and promoting collaboration, the SFC is positioning Hong Kong as a global leader in the VA industry.

Federal Court to Block Termination of Humanitarian Parole for Citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela

On Apr. 10, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani stated her intention to block DHS’s Mar. 25, 2025, decision to terminate Humanitarian Parole for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, also known as the CHNV program. The program allows approximately 450,000 people to live and work legally in the United States. It is set to expire on Apr. 24, 2025.
During an Apr. 10, 2025, hearing in a case brought by parolees and their U.S. sponsors to stay termination of the CHNV program, Judge Talwani said, “I am going to issue an order staying the revocation of parole under the Federal Register Notice and of people’s individual parole.” The judge stated that she is unlikely to block the Trump Administration from canceling the program going forward.
Judge Talwani called DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program a “Hobson’s choice” where “your parole gets ended, and you either go back to the country you fled … or they stay here in illegal status, at which point they lose all opportunity to adjust their status legally.”
Judge Talwani continued, “I don’t understand the reason … to say ‘No, that’s not enough for people who have been following the law, but instead we want to make them illegal now. We want to make them flee the country.’”
Although the judge is considering certifying the case as a class action, saying “there’s a sufficient basis” to certify a class of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, she declined to issue an order requiring DHS to notify parolees of the ruling. On that, she stated, “I am trying to stay in my lane and address the problem that’s been created here. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater because I’m awarding more than I have jurisdiction to do.”
Department of Justice attorney Brian Ward argued that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has discretion to cancel the CHNV program at any time. Plaintiffs’ attorney Justin Cox contends that DHS’s rationale to ending the CHNV program (to subject former parolees to expedited removal to enable DHS to deport them without a hearing before an immigration judge) is a clear example of legal error and grounds to block termination of the CHNV program.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS: Main Outcome of the 55th Committee on Food Additives (CCFA55)

The 55th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commit­tee on Food Additives, Flavorings, Enzymes, Yeasts, and Processing Aids (CCFA55) successfully ad­dressed all topics on its agenda during three full days of plenary meeting discussions. As a landmark first time in recent times, CCFA55 reviewed a draft com­modity standard, i.e., on baker’s yeasts, but decided to return it to an intersessional EWG to address outstanding issues (e.g., pre-alignment with GSFA of food additive provisions). CCFA55 also reviewed a path forward for a future prioritization mechanism to sort possible new areas of work, e.g., secondary food additives, processing aids, other biotechnologi­cal aspects, for further discussion at its next session. CCFA55 also considered, exhaustively, and for the first time, a proposed new work project on guidelines for assessing potential risks associated with grow­ing media used in cell-based food production, but recommended a revision of the discussion paper to refine the project document.
In addition, CCFA55 covered its traditional agenda in full and adopted proposed, new, and revised pro­visions for food and additives – and revoked others – resulting from (a) the endorsement of provisions from commodity Committees; (b) the alignment of provisions between GSFA food categories and corresponding commodity standards; (c) the review of new and revised provisions for inclusion into the GSFA into the step process; (d) the revised INS catalogue and related functional classes and techno­logical purposes for food additives; and, (e) the list of priorities for JECFA future evaluations and reeval­uations of food additives, flavorings, enzymes and other processing aids. CCFA55 decisions on these five core components of CCFA activities were based on recommendations from four different in-person working groups, held immediately before or during the plenary session [ii].
More information is available about CCFA work­ing documents quoted in this article [iii], as well as in the official report of the CCFA55 meeting [iv].
UPDATED FOOD ADDITIVE PROVISIONS IN TABLES 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE GSFA (CXS 192)
Newly adopted and revised provisions
CCFA55 considered the outcome of the PWG on GSFA held immediately prior to its session and endorsed all its 22 recommendations. All final pro­visions were sent to the next session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48) for final adoption and publication into the next version of the GSFA (CXS 192, 2025 version), expected to be published during the first quarter of 2026. All those provisions are included in Appendix VI of the CCFA55 official report (REP25/FA) [v].
Revocation of already adopted provisions in the GSFA
CCFA55 agreed to revoke only two adopted provisions this year, namely the GSFA adopted provision for Annatto Extracts, Bixin Based (INS160b(i)) listed in Food Category 01.2.1 (Fermented milks (plain), and the GSFA adopted provision for Caramel IV – Sulfite Ammonia (INS 150d) in Food Category 04.2.2 Pro­cessed vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweeds, and nuts and seeds.
Discontinuation of draft provisions
About another hundred draft provisions for (mostly synthetic) colors in various food categories (e.g., rip­ened cheese; fruits and vegetables subcategories) were discontinued as presented in Appendix VIII of the CCFA55 report (REP 25/FA).
New provisions added and other provisions for future consideration
CCFA55 agreed with the inclusions of new and revised provisions as included in Appendix IX of the CCFA55 report (REP 25/FA) [vi].
New mandate for the GSFA EWG and PWG
CCFA55 agreed to reestablish the EWG and the PWG on the GSFA (see more details in REP 25/FA).
ENDORSEMENT AND ALIGNMENT OF GSFA PROVISIONS WITH FOOD ADDITIVE PROVISIONS SET IN COMMODITY STANDARDS, AND REVERSELY
ENDORSEMENT
CCFA55 endorsed the revised proposed food ad­ditives provision in the regional draft standard for Castilla lulo (Naranjilla), noting that the provision had been revised to ensure language consistency with the similar provision in other standards. CCFA55 also endorsed the proposed food additive provision in the standard for fresh curry leaves and the consequential exclusionary Note (XS362) to the food additive provi­sions of FC 04.2.1.1 of the GSFA. CCFA55 noted that the corresponding changes to the GSFA were also sub­mitted for adoption by CAC48 alongside the adoption of the commodity standard, but the standard will only be published after the endorsement of the labelling provisions by CCFL49 (Spring 2026). CCFA55 noted that it was the first time that it successfully concluded both endorsement and alignment concurrently (with this fresh curry leaves example). CCFA55 congratu­lated the PWG on alignment/endorsement for this outcome and encouraged it to follow the same practice for future reviews.
ALIGNMENT
Discussion paper to avoid further divergence between the GSFA, Commodity Standards and other related Codex texts: validation of the options presented in the working paper and of the engagement plan
CCFA55 considered the revised discussion paper prepared by Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Senegal, and the USA. CCFA55 further agreed to request China as author, Australia, Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, EU, Japan, USA as co-authors, to prepare a stand-alone document on working practices, keeping the two options identified in the CCFA55 working document as alternative routes, for the development of GSFA food additive provisions relating to com­modity standards; including a communication and engagement plan; and developing dedicated templates to be used by the Codex Commodity and Regional Coordinating Committees to ensure submission of comprehensive information. CCFA55 also agreed to inform accordingly all Codex regional coordinating Committees and all active Commodity Committees about the ongoing work in this regard [vii].
Alignment – Main decisions
CCFA55 agreed to forward to CAC48 for final adop­tion the revised food additive sections of three (3) CCASIA Standards (namely Fermented Soybean Paste (CXS 298R), Non-Fermented Soybean Products (CXS 322R), and Cooked Rice Wrapped in Plant Leaves (CXS 355R)); three (3) CCNE Standards (Canned Humus with Tehena (CXS 257R), Canned Foul Me-dames (CXS 258R), and Tehena (CXS 259R)); eight (8) CCSCH Standards (Dried Oregano (CXS 342), Dried or dehydrated ginger (CXS 343), Cloves (CXS 344), Dried Basil (CXS 345), dried or dehydrated gar­lic (CXS 347), saffron (CXS 351), Nutmeg (CXS 352), and Dried or Dehydrated Chilli Pepper and Paprika (CXS 353)); and, the standard for rice (CXS 198). These were included in Appendix V of the CCFA55 report (REP25/FA). CCFA55 also agreed to revise the Stan­dard for pickled cucumbers (Cucumber Pickles) (CXS 115) to replace the entry on “oleoresin of paprika” with “Paprika extract (INS 160c(ii))” in the section for coloring matters and submit the revised standard for adoption by CAC48. See Appendix V of REP25/FA.
CCFA55 also agreed to forward to CAC48 for adop­tion consequential revised provisions of the GSFA in relation to five (5) CCASIA standards, three (3) CCNE standards, eight (8) CCSCH standards, the standard for edible fats and oils not covered by individual stan­dards (CXS 19) (whereby note 509 was deleted and note 508 was amended to read “For use in products, excluding virgin or cold pressed oils and vegetable oils, conforming to the Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards (CXS 19-1981) only for the purposes of restoring natural colour lost in processing, or standardising colour only”), the amend­ments of the food additive provisions due to the align­ment of the Codex standard for rice (CXS 198) on BMC; and, the important revision to the reference to commodity standards for the GSFA Table 3 Additives for Food Category 12.2.1 “Herbs and Spices (ONLY SPICES)”. See Appendix VI-PART A&B of REP 25/FA.
Alignment/Endorsement – New EWG Mandate
CCFA55 re-established the EWG on endorsement and alignment to be chaired by Canada, and co-chaired by the USA and Japan. The EWG was tasked to align the food additive provisions set in standards and regional standards under the purview of CCAFRICA regional standards (fermented cooked Cassava-based products (CXS 334R), fresh leaves of Gnetum spp. (CXS 335R), Dried Meat (CXS 350R)), CCLAC regional stan­dards (Culantro Coyote (CXS 304R), Lucuma (CXS 305R)), CCNASWP regional standards (kava products for use as a beverage when mixed with water (CXS 336R), Fermented Noni Fruit Juice (CXS 356R)), CCCPC commodity standard (Cocoa Butter (CXS 86)); CCFFP commodity standard (Quick Frozen Raw Squid (CXS 191), Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs (CXS 292), Live Abalone and for Raw Fresh Chilled or Frozen Abalone for Direct Consumption or for further Processing (CXS 312)), and CCPFV commod­ity standard (Fruit Juices and Nectars (CXS 247)). The EWG will also aim at developing a stepwise approach for Table 3 Notes, including (a) deleting provisions for Table 3 additives in FCs not listed in the annex to Ta­ble 3 but included in Tables 1 and 2; and importantly (b) revising the fifth column of Table 3 Notes.
Future Alignment Work
CCFA55 also agreed that, pending response from the relevant committees, at CCFA56 or later, the CCFA will task the Endorsement and Alignment working group(s) to complete alignment of (i) Fermented Soybean Paste (CXS 298R) and Non-Fermented Soybean Products (CXS 322R), pending response from CCASIA; (ii) mixed zaatar (CXS 341R), pending response from CCNE; and (iii) dried roots, rhizomes and bulbs: Dried or dehydrated ginger (CXS 343) and consequential changes to CXS 326, pending response from CCSCH. It was also noted that although the workplan for alignment endorsed by CCFA54 (See REP24/FA, Appendix IV) included alignment of the CCNFSDU commodity standards (Special Dietary Foods with Low-Sodium Content (Including Salt Sub­stitutes) (CXS 53) and Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten (CXS 118), a further review demonstrated alignment was not required and therefore were not included in the proposed terms of references of the EWG and PWG for CCFA56.
NEW, REVISED, OR REVOKED SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOD ADDITIVES AND FLAVOURINGS AND OUTCOME OF JECFA MEETINGS HELD SINCE CCFA53 MEETING
CCFA55 agreed to forward the full specifications de­veloped by JECFA99 for food additives and flavorings to CAC48 for final adoption and make all consequen­tial amendments to the List of Codex Specifications for Food Additives (to be published in CXA 06) [viii].
FIRST DETAILED REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT COMMODITY STANDARD FOR BAKER’S YEASTS
For the first time since the split from CCFAC in 2007 and the development of the Codex standard on food grade salt (CXS 150), CCFA55 held detailed discus­sions on a proposed draft Codex commodity Standard, i.e., for Baker’s Yeasts. The draft text under consideration resulted from an intersessional work led by China and co-led by France and Türkiye with the support of an EWG, and further discussions held during and on the side of the plenary session. CCFA55 succeeded to review all the sections of the proposed Codex commodity standard, but recognized the need for additional technical discussions to fine-tune some sections in advance to CCFA56 and in par­ticular the section on food additives, bearing in mind that CCFA was also responsible to ensure at the very early stage of the drafting process that such section should be aligned de recto with the GSFA provisions set for the (not 1-to-1) corresponding food category 12.8 in the GSFA (and reversely), and how functional classes of food additives set in Table 3 would be appli­cable to each types of these yeasts. CCFA55 noted that further justification was needed to allow only some functional classes of food additives listed in Table 3 in yeasts, noting the absence of food additive provisions for semi-dried yeast. As semi-dried yeast was consid­ered as a subset of dry yeast, no separate food additive provision was needed. The section on food additives was kept in square brackets as a further review of the functional classes of antioxidants, emulsifiers, stabiliz­ers, and a few others from Table 3 was needed. Regarding the processing aids section, CCFA55 couldn’t conclude, at this stage, whether a reference to the Codex Guidelines on substances used as process­ing aids (CXG 75) would suffice or further specific technological purposes, e.g., as lubricant, filtering aid, or fermentation nutrients, should be included in the provision. CCFA55 agreed to re-establish a dedicated EWG, chaired by China and co-chaired by France and Türkiye, to revise the text of the proposed draft standard for baker’s yeasts in the light of the outcome of the session, and suggest possible draft amendments to the GSFA, for further consideration by CCFA56. Other sections discussed were subject to changes [ix].
PRIORITY LIST FOR JECFA SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF FOOD ADDITIVES, FLAVOURINGS, AND PROCESSING AIDS (including ENZYMES)
CCFA55 considered the recommendations from an in-session physical working group (IWG) chaired by Kenya, as presented in CRD5, while the proposals and other information received were collated in CRD 25 to support the discussion during the in-session PWG. CCFA55 agreed to forward the amended Priority List of Substances Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA for endorsement by CAC48 and to FAO and WHO (i.e., JECFA joint secretariats) for relevant follow-up. A new circular letter (CL) would be issued to request information and comments on additional inputs on the Priority List of Substances proposed for Evalua­tion by JECFA (deadline expected to be 15 January 2026). With regards to Potassium bisulfite (INS 228), CCFA55 noted the discussion by the IWG on whether to re-evaluate the whole group of sulfites or undertake a re-evaluation only for potassium sulfite (INS 228). It confirmed that INS 228 was not included in the group of sulfites listed in the GSFA, so it was agreed to maintain the entry for INS 228 only. With regards to Phycocyanin produced from Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli, CCFA55 noted the request from Chile to include phycocyanin derived from these microorganisms on the JECFA priority list to evalu­ate its similarity with the phycocyanin derived from Spirulina (i.e., already permitted in Table 3 of GSFA as Spirulina extract (INS 134)) and recommended to Chile to resubmit such a proposal by filling in the de­tailed reply form attached to the regular circular letter for further consideration at CCFA56. With regards to Brazil’s request to include Erythrosine (INS 127) (i.e., US FD&C Red #3) on the Priority List for safety re-evaluation, given the recent ban announced by the US-FDA, CCFA55 noted the advice from the WHO JECFA Secretariat that no new data was available for this substance and that the current evaluation con­ducted in 2018 remained valid and CCFA55 therefore agreed not to include INS 127 on the Priority List until new data became available. It was further noted that in the absence of future confirmation of any data sponsor or data availability for sucroglycerides (INS 474) and for the Enzyme Xylanase from Bacillus li-cheniformis expressed in Bacillus licheniformis (initial­ly proposed by Puratos), they would be removed from the JECFA Priority List by CCFA56 (and in the case of sucroglycerides, it could also mean a deletion from the entire GSFA system) [x].
JECFA secretariats also indicated that while the activ­ities of JECFA were supported by WHO, they relied on extra-budgetary resources from governmental institutions from WHO’s member countries. Given the recent significant reduction from some donor contributions for scientific advisory activities, includ­ing those related to JECFA, WHO indicated it would be unable to secure the necessary resources, leading to a need to reduce the JECFA operations. Conse­quently, WHO would need to evaluate the possibility of assessing fewer food additives in 2026 and may also consider a reduction in the frequency and duration of future JECFA meetings. WHO and FAO made clear they were looking for extra-budgetary funding from other WHO and FAO member donors or from the private sector, so as to maintain JECFA support to CCFA at a nominal level.
PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR OTHER CHANGES TO THE CLASS NAMES AND INTERNATIONAL NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR FOOD ADDITIVES
CCFA55 considered the recommendations from an in-session working group (IWG) chaired by Bel­gium, building on those of an intersessional EWG and comments received on that report to amend the International Numbering System for Food Additives (CXG 36). Proposed changes once adopted by CAC48 will be reflected in these Codex Guidelines CXG 36. CCFA55 also reestablished a new EWG on the INS, chaired by Belgium, to consider future replies to a circular letter requesting proposals for change and/or addition to Section 3 of the Class Names and Interna­tional Numbering System for Food Additives (CXG 36), including a further consideration of the « nisin A » issues, and prepare a proposal subject to comments, to prepare relevant recommendations to CCFA56 [xi].
ISSUES OF FURTHER INTEREST
New work proposal on guidelines for food safety assessment of cell culture media components in cell-based food production
CCFA55 spent half a day reviewing the discussion paper presented in CRD06 and courageously defended by Singapore and China as co-drafters. It was by far the most discussed and disputed topic on the agenda of this CCFA55 meeting. CCFA55 overal acknowl­edged the efforts invested by Singapore and China in preparing the new work proposal. CCFA55 noted support (described as “general” or only as “some”) on the establishment of such a Codex guideline to ensure consumer safety and to facilitate fair practices in the trade of cell-based foods. CCFA55 also noted the lack of sufficient support to start new work at this point in time based of the current wording presented in the project document, which required further consulta­tions to improve it. The FAO representative reminded CCFA55 that FAO had already developed reports that provide a comprehensive inventory of food safety haz­ards, as well as more detailed descriptions on the prin­ciples of the various production processes, and that, in his view, there were no fundamental scientific gaps to prevent CCFA to undertake new work to establish a risk assessment framework. The WHO representative pointed out the need to gather insights from countries that were exploring cell-based foods to get a better understanding of the risk assessment requirements specific to cell-based media components and high­lighted some budgetary constraints to be overcome to provide the necessary FAO/WHO expertise that would be required by CCFA in this field.
CCFA55 agreed to establish a new EWG chaired by Singapore and co-chaired by China, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, tasked to revise the draft project document on the development of a guideline for the conduct of food safety risk assessment of cell cul­ture media components used in the production of cell-based food for consideration on the agenda of CCFA56; in particular by developing a categorization framework for cell culture media components and corresponding evidence needed for safety assessment in each category, and, by determining specific areas requiring further FAO and WHO scientific advice for the purpose of developing risk assessment frameworks for cell culture media components. The revised discus­sion paper would be considered as a formal item on the provisional agenda of CCFA56 [xii].
CCFA55 reviewed the project document and suggested changes as follows: (a) the list of substances in Appen­dix 1 should not be part of the project document and it was agreed to delete it; (b) a reference to “cultivated meat” and “cultured meat” was included in footnote 5, whereas it was advised that the document retain gen­eral and generic explanations as to the reasons why the culture media were employed; (c) Section 6 covering the relevance of the proposal with the Codex strategic objectives should included Goal 1 and Goal 4 with amendments to make the section more neutral and replace the word “regulations” with “risk assessment framework”; (d) reference to the Codex General prin­ciples of food hygiene (CXC 1) was added in Section 7; and, (e) the provision in Section 8 was broadened to additional expert bodies governed by FAO and WHO, in addition to the joint FAO/WHO ones (such as JECFA), for providing scientific advice to Codex.
Future work of CCFA and prioritization mechanism
CCFA55 agreed to request the Codex Secretariat to issue a CL requesting the international food additive community further inputs on (a) a further review of the proposals presented in the CCFA55 document (CRD 7); (b) additional topics for possible future work; and, (c) a more systematic approach to deal with these topics (inventory list). Based on these responses, China, as the host country of CCFA, would prepare a revised discussion paper for further consid­eration by CCFA56. This new discussion paper could help CCFA56 to further develop its Forward Work Plan by focusing on secondary food additives, the management of processing aids, the further review of the GSFA structure and operability, as well as ad­dressing new challenges posed by emerging new food sources and production systems. A new and more systematically streamlined and prioritized reevaluation program by JECFA could also be part of that future plan [xiii].
Views expressed confirmed that (a) the work on GSFA should remain the top priority with a focus on improving the GSFA, particularly by simplifying the GSFA to make it more accessible and user-friendly; (b) the harmonization of notes and the revisiting of the food categories’ descriptors for consistency would help users, taking into account the impacts of emerg­ing technologies, such as precision fermentation on food additives leading to a possible reclassification of foods based on new food processing technologies; (c) a systematic approach referencing practices in other Committees (CCFICS in particular) should be estab­lished; (d) discussions on outstanding topics such as secondary food additives, processing aids including enzymes, etc. should be reinitiated due to ongoing challenges, and that would entail a (re)evaluation of their safety and justifications for sound use; (e) CCFA work should remain within the current terms of ref­erence of CCFA (although this point may be debated depending on the outcome of the upcoming interses-sional work); and (f) CCFA should prioritize issues while ensuring that future work aligns with its core mandate to help ensuring food safety and fair practic­es in international food trade.
Mapping exercise of food categories set in the Codex GSFA with the EU FoodEx2 Database
Japan updated CCFA55 with their ongoing task of mapping food categories listed in the FoodEx 2.0 food categorization system used in the European Union, with food categories set in the GSFA, as decided by CCFA53. Japan indicated that, due to the complexity of FoodEx 2.0 (and also due to a domestic restruc-turation of the services in charge of the work), further communication would be required to achieve a better alignment with the one-to-one mapping. That work had been undertaken in collaboration with Australia, Canada, and the EU. Japan indicated that the first draft of the initial 1-to-1 mapping was submitted to the WHO JECFA Secretariat for review in January 2025. WHO confirmed that the WHO Global environmen­tal Monitoring System (GEMS)/Food administrator acknowledged that such GSFA – FoodEx2 mapping was quite challenging. It should be noted that this work may also have other implications on the databas­es of food categories used by WHO’s FOSCOLLAB (e.g., contaminants).
Endnotes:
[i] Food Production Systems Engineer; Food Standards, Safety and Regulatory Specialist; Counsellor at Keller and Heckman LLP Brussels office.
[ii] CCFA55 was held in person in Seoul (Republic of South Korea) from 24 to 28 March 2025 and was preceded by two pre-session working groups (PWG), held on 21 and 22 March, on (a) pending draft, new or proposed revised provisions for adoption in the GSFA or inclusion in the step process and on (b) alignment between the Codex Commodity Standards and the GSFA (and reversely) and endorsement of provisions from Commodity Committees. Two inSession work­ing group (IWG) meetings advanced the proposed conclusions on (a) the revised JECFA priority list and (b) revisions to the INS list and to functional classes and technological purposes for several food additives. CCFA55 was attended by about 230 delegates from 46 Member Countries, one Member Organization (the EU), 27 Observer Organizations, and representatives of the FAO and the WHO. The session was chaired by Mr Yongxiang Fan, Deputy Director of the National Centre for Food Safety Risk Assessment of the People’s Republic of China (C-CFSRA) and co-chaired by Mrs Hae Jung Yoon, Professor at the Chung-Ang University of Seoul. The next CCFA meeting (CCFA56) was scheduled from 13-17 April 2026, and preceded by two PWGs, (on GSFA and alignment) on 10 and 11 April 2025 in a not-yet determined location (in China or perhaps in Africa).
[iii] Seehttps://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCFA&session=55&
[iv] Seehttps://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/en/
[v] Among all the provisions discussed and adopted (see REP 25/FA Appendices), CCFA55 agreed to revise the current provision set for aspartame in the GSFA in food category (FC) bread and ordinary bakery wares (FC 07.1) by adding the horizontal note 398 stating that “Some Codex Members allow the use of additives with sweetener and colour functions in this food category while others limit this food category to products without these additives”. Many revised and draft color provi­sions were approved in FCs based on fruit and vege­tables, included in Jams, Jellies and Marmelades (FC 04.1.2.5), with some provisions having a permitted use set at a lower level in products conforming to the Codex Committee Standards for Jams, Jellies and Marmelades (CXS 296). Some provisions were approved for 4-hexyl-resorcinol (INS 586), whereas at the same time CCFA55 agreed to request guidance from the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) regarding the technological needs for its use in foods conforming to the Standard for quick frozen shrimps or prawns (CXS 92) and to the Standard for quick frozen lobsters (CXS 95). During the GSFA PWG, an interesting discussion occured on the proposed provisions for colors in Edible casings (e.g., sausage casings) (FC 08.4) and CCFA55 agreed to keep them on hold and recirculate for com­ment on all colour provisions in FC 08.4 (both adopted and in the step process) so as to make the reporting ba­sis consistent on the weight of the casing, and to incor­porate notes necessary to allow conversion to a maxi­mum level in the final food. A suggestion was made to add a note suggesting a use level of the colour reported on the whole food basis to be approximately one percent (1%) of the use level when reported on the casing basis. Taking these comments into consideration, the PWG drafted a proposed note which included these consid­erations (i.e., up to 1.5%). While the drafted note was considered helpful by some PWG members, there was no clear consensus on a way forward, and it appeared that additional discussion would be helpful.
[vi] As part of these proposals, the following examples could be noted: (a) proposed revision of the adopted provision for sucrose esters on FC 4.1.1.2 of surface treated fresh fruits simply to add the note 453 (For use as a glaze where such surface treatment is allowed for application to the surface of fresh fruit) and a proposed new note to restrict it further to “Sucrose esters of fatty acids (INS 473) and Sucrose oligoester, Type I and Type II (INS 473a) only” in addition to existing note 454 and same max level (1500 mg/kg); (b) new proposed note applicable to all provisions set in FCs 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5 to read “Products in food category 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5 are available in multiple formats (e.g., liquid ready to consume and powder which requires mixture with water before consumption). In all cases, consistent with the language in Section 6 of the Pream­ble of the GSFA, the maximum level listed in the GSFA is for the final product as consumed.”; (c) sorbates, as sorbic acid, on surface-treated fresh fruits (FC 04.1.1.2) at 20 mg/kg; and, (d) permission of the use of Glycerol (INS 422) as a Table 3 additive to be allowed in Com­modity Standard on Instant Noodles (CXS 249).
[vii] The discussion paper proposed two options – (a) Commodity/Regional Committee prepares the first draft provisions; (b) CCFA prepares the first draft provisions, along with two annexes entitled “Key Considerations for the development of the Commodity Standard and for the amendment of the GSFA” and “Communication and Engagement Plan”. CCFA55 overall agreed with the proposed approach and retained the two identified options on possible approaches to ensuring minimi­zation of divergence, as alternative routes that would depend on the level of expertise about how GSFA works within Codex Commodity and Codex Regional Coordi­nating Committees. They should be used to develop the next steps on the possible way forward. It was empha­sized the need for further communication through the engagement plan to implement these future working practices to be fully utilized by the Commodity and Regional Coordinating Committees. It was further em­phasized that Codex member’s CCFA delegates should work collaboratively with their colleagues delegated to attend to Commodity and Regional Coordinating Com­mittees to help elaborating food additives provisions for these foods having GSFA alignment in scope from the very beginning.
[viii] JECFA new and revised specifications were ap­proved as follows: for food additives, natamycin (INS 235), nisin A and polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (INS 475); for flavourings, S-methyl thioacetate (FL. 482), S-methyl 3-methylbutanethioate (FL. 487), 4,5-dihy-dro-3(2H) thiophenone (FL. 498), 2-methyltetrahy-drothiophen-3-one (FL. 499), 1-butanethiol (FL. 511), o-toluenethiol (FL. 528), bis(methylthio)methane (FL. 533), 3-mercaptohexyl acetate (FL. 554), 3-mercapto-hexyl butyrate (FL. 555), and 3-mercapto-2-pentanone (FL. 560); and for processing aids, endo-1,4-3-xylanase from Bacillus subtilis expressed in Bacillus subtilis (JECFA99-2), endo-1,4-3-xylanase from Rasamsonia emersonii expressed in Aspergillus niger (JECFA99-3) and glucosidase from Aspergillus niger expressed in Trichoderma reesei exhibiting α-glucosidase and trans-glucosidase activity (JECFA99-4a, JECFA99-4b).
[ix] CCFA55 considered the text of the proposed draft standard as revised during the session in CRD34. CCFA55 agreed on the sections of the proposed draft standard as presented in Section 5 (Contaminants); Section 6 (Food Hygiene); Section 7 (Labelling); Sec­tion 8 (Packaging, Transportation, and Storage); and Section 9 (Methods of Analysis and Sampling). CCFA55 confirmed that the scope should be aligned with that of the Standard for food grade salt (CXS 150) devel­oped by CCFAC and there was no need to replace the existing phrase “for direct sale to the consumer and for food manufacturer” with “for domestic and industri­al use” as proposed by a Member. CCFA55 amended the text in various instances. For example, on Product definition (Section 2.1), it debated on the inclusion of a reference to the Codex Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (CXG 44). CCFA55 clarified that baker’s yeasts should derive from species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts only (despite of proposals from El Salvador to expand the list to many other species). CCFA55 debated the scope of “semi-dried yeast”, commonly distributed worldwide in a freeze-dried form, with a moisture content fall­ing within a range of 18-22%, and CCFA55 agreed to include a third classification for “semi-dry yeast” under “dry yeast” to read “c) The semi-dry yeast needs to be stored frozen and can be added directly to the flour and other ingredients during mixing. The product consists of porous cylindrical particles with a diameter of about 0,5 mm”. On Essential composition (Section 3.1), CCFA55 (a) amended the chapeau to read “For the pur­pose of this standard, the following composition shall apply”; (b) inserted the word “preamble” the first line of the provision 3b to ensure clarity, i.e., “In accordance with Section 4.2 of the preamble to the General Stan­dard for Food Additives (CXS 192-1995)”; (c) noted the concerns expressed regarding what constituted “other ingredients” under 3b, and whether the paragraph mak­ing reference to the GSFA should be included under the section on food additives. The provision referring to the carry-over principle was retained but further consid­eration would be needed for other ingredients such as vitamin C and enzymes which are used/added during the processing of the yeasts for ensuring a better quality of the Baker’s dough and noted that these ingredients and additives were not added to exert a function in the baker’s yeast itself.
[x] Revised priority list for JECFA evaluation would be found in Appendix XI of the CCFA55 report (REP25/ FA). Worth noting the addition of couple of new pro­posals, notably monk fruit extract, Butterfly pea flower extract (INS 163(xi)), Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone (also proposed for evaluation as a new flavouring by IOFI under FEMA 3811), Potassium bisulfite (INS 228) in wine making. For polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (INS 475), CCFA55 identified the need for a safety eval­uation including a revision of the existing specifications to include limits for neoformed chemicals 3-MCPD and Glycidyl esters of fatty acids (GEs) and their respective dietary exposure assessment. In addition to the need to collect real use data for INS 475 to refine the dietary exposure assessment by the end of 2026, JECFA also advised CCFA to work on the current maximum levels approved in the GSFA for INS 475 and align them al­ready on the same use levels JECFA would receive. It was noted that some Codex Codes or Practice exist to mitigate the formation of 3-MCPD and GEs in vegeta­ble oils used as raw material for the manufacture of INS 475. For Black carrot extract (INS 163(vi)), NATCOL indicated data availability by December 2027. For pro­pylene glycol (INS 1520), ICBA indicated be working at generating new data, the date of data availability was to be re-affirmed at CCFA56, as confirmed by IFAC.
[xi] CCFA55 endorsed the recommendation to modify Section 3 and 4 of CXG 36 as follows: adding Jagua blue as a synonym of Jagua (genipin-glycine) blue (INS 183) and clarify the use of parentheses via a footnote; deleting ortho-phenylphenol (INS 231) and sodium ortho-phenylphenol (INS 232); and adding oxidised polyethylene wax (INS 914) as a glazing agent. It also agreed to amend Section 1 of CXG 36, to clarify that the use of parentheses in additive names may be explained by using footnotes, where necessary. The “Information document/table on deleted and re-used INS numbers” is to be amended to reflect the deletion of INS 231 and INS 232. CCFA55 agreed not to delete azodicar-bonamide (INS 927a) from the INS at this stage, given that national authorization(s) were still in place, and agreed that a possible deletion would be reconsidered in the future (e.g., by 2030), after reassessing its continued relevance. CCFA55 agreed to delete 2-phenylphenol entry in CXA 6 (list of Codex approved JECFA spec­ifications). CCFA55 assigned INS 1211 to Carbomer, despite acknowledged concerns expressed on the use of a trade name in the INS. CCFA55 agreed to further con­sider how Nisin A and potentially other types of nisin should be handled in the INS under a parent category entry for Nisin (current INS 234). CCFA55 encouraged Members to respond to the CL if they wished to propose additional variants of nisin.
[xii] The main differing views were on whether to embark into the new work at this session or to allow more time for Members to have some further consultations, not necessarily on the need for Codex guidance in this area.
Those in support of the new work proposal indicated that (i) cell-based food had the potential to improve material and energy efficiency in food production and could play a role in future food systems; (ii) the pro­posal was aligned with Goal 1 of the upcoming Codex Strategic Plan 2026–2031; (iii) developing Codex guide­lines would be beneficial and not imped countries to perform food safety risk assessments at domestic level; (iv) further delays to start this new work could lead to countries having different protocols and regulatory frameworks in place to perform safety assessments of these cell-based food growing media and then make it more difficult for Codex to achieve consensus at a later time (i.e., harmonization towards a single international Codex guidance point), as this Codex work would take several years to be completed anyway; (v) such a Codex text would provide a balanced approach combining risk assessment framework for ‘novel’ product-specific standards, while helping to discuss a broader NFPS framework; (vi) such a Codex text could serve as a single point of harmonized reference, hence preventing potential divergences among national regulations, as current domestic frameworks for cultivated meat and seafood were evolving fast and in different directions.
Those not in support of sending the new work proposal to the Codex Commission or requesting more time for undertaking additional inputs to the project document were of the view that (i) additional clarification on the objectives and scope of the proposal was needed; (ii) the Appendix 1 of the CRD06 was including a list of sub­stances with no known history of consumption as food additives or ingredients, which might be misinterpreted as an endorsement of their safety and a kind of ap­proval for their use; (iii) the project document was in a preliminary stage and presenting a more refined version at CCFA56 would ensure a clearer direction that may facilitate easier progresses during future discussions; (iv) given that implementation of Codex standards largely depended on capacities of Codex Members to incorporate them into their national frameworks, CCFA should prioritize the work that would support the devel­opment of broader national regulatory framework on NFPS at large, rather than work on Codex texts relating to specific products such as growing media for cell-based foods; (v) the term “processing aids” used for cell-cul­ture media was of great concern since processing aids were not required to be labeled and that could lead to cell-based food being presented as “near natural” foods and eventually could mislead the consumers about their true nature; (vi) working on this matter was premature given that only few countries had experience in assess­ing and regulating these products and no consensus currently existed on the best regulatory approach or on primary safety concerns to assess; (vii) given only a few of these products have obtained an authorization, there was no available experience in large-scale production or significant trade and, as that industry would scale up in the future, possible evolving methods and formulations might introduce new and different safety concerns; (vii) Codex members should first gain more experience with these products and share their findings through scien­tific publications and food safety evaluations before de­veloping a Codex guideline; (viii) given that cell-based foods were still in the early stages of commercialization, concerns were expressed about the availability of data to assess current and projected global trade of these products and further consideration should be given on how such information would shape the nature and the scope of future Codex texts or recommendations; (ix) efficient coordination between this proposal to CCFA and the related proposal to be submitted to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) was needed.
[xiii] See CCFA55 CRD07 working document at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1burl=https%253A%252F%252F-workspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252F-Meetings%252FCX-711-55%252FCRDs%252F-CRD06%252C%2B07%252Ffa55_crd07.pdf. While pointing out that the Codex GSFA would always remain the core of the CCFA work — supported by the three other key pillars (alignment, INS, and the priority list for JECFA evaluations), CCFA host country’s discussion paper listed a series of topics for a further forward-look­ing work plan that could cover secondary food additives (i.e., carried over food additives); processing aids; sim-plifi cation of the the GSFA tables and improvements to navigate into it (by e.g., reducing redundant footnotes, clarifying definitions and functions of additives, devel­oping a more streamlined digitally accessible version of the PDF document); revisions and/or amendments to food categories; emerging challenges related to food additives used in some new food fources and production systems (NFPS); other new or improved biotechnol­ogy techniques, including through advanced genetic modification or through nanotechnologies, resulting in enhanced functional properties, such as improved solubility, stability, or bioavailability; revisit the reliance on INS for approval of new food additives; a JECFA re-evaluation program for reassessing the need for specific food additives in the GSFA; and, exploring sustainability aspects for new food additives (lifecycle analysis and environmental footprints). The proposal would also include establishing mechanisms to identify and prioritize future work similar to what has been developed by other Codex Committees already (namely CCFICS and CCFL).

What Every Multinational Company Should Know About … the Pause in the Reciprocal Tariffs

The recent announcement of a pause in the rollout of reciprocal tariffs has created some confusion — and some hope — for multinationals and importers around the world. While the announcement hopefully presages a bit of calm and the potential lowering of tariffs in what has become a rapidly escalating trade war, the reality is far more complex. This article outlines what every importer needs to know about the scope and implications of the pause and why, for many importers and companies that depend on imports, the risk of a tariff-induced disruption is likely to remain an importing certainty for the reasonably foreseeable future.
What’s Paused — And What’s Not
As a starting point, here are the groupings of tariff announcements to understand the context of tariffs:

Chapter 1-97 Pre-existing Tariffs: These are the tariffs that have existed for decades, generally in the range of 0%–7%. These tariffs continue to apply, as all tariffs “stack” on top of the normal tariffs.
Section 301 Tariffs: These tariffs were imposed just on Chinese-origin goods in the first Trump administration. About half of trade with China is exempt from these tariffs (the so-called “List 4B”); the other half of imports from China pay a tariff of between 7.5% and 25%. These tariffs lasted through the Biden administration and stack on top of the Chapter 1-97 tariffs for China alone.
Section 232 Sectoral Tariffs: The third set of tariffs are the sectoral tariffs imposed under Section 232 on specific products. These sectoral tariffs fall into three buckets:

First, there are 25% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum, payable on products from anywhere in the world. The tariffs extend to certain identified steel and aluminum derivative products (i.e., products in identified Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings that contain a lot of steel or aluminum). The only carveout here is for products that use steel and aluminum that are “melted and poured” or “smelted and cast” within the United States. For derivative products, only the value of the steel or aluminum is subject to the additional 25% tariff.
Second, there is a 25% tariff imposed on automobiles and most automotive parts. For the automotive tariffs, there currently is a pause in their implementation for parts and components that are USMCA-compliant. By May 3, 2025, the Department of Commerce will establish a system to calculate non-U.S. content, which will be subject to the 25% tariff rate for both automobiles and automotive parts.
Third, certain sectors will be subject to forthcoming sectoral tariffs. The U.S. government already has initiated investigations into copper and lumber. President Trump has indicated there is a strong likelihood that the same will occur for semiconductors and pharmaceutical products.

IEEPA 25% Canada and Mexico Tariffs: The fourth set of tariffs are the 25% tariffs imposed on Canada and Mexico, relating to what President Trump characterizes as their role in not exerting sufficient efforts to halt the flow of fentanyl and unauthorized immigrants int to the United States. These tariffs are suspended for any goods that are USMCA-compliant.
IEEPA 20% China Tariffs: This fifth set of 20% tariffs is related to what President Trump characterizes as the Chinese government’s failure to halt the shipment of fentanyl precursors into the United States.
IEEPA Global and Reciprocal Tariffs: The final set is the largest set of tariffs by far, which include (1) 10% global tariffs imposed on the entire world and (2) reciprocal tariffs, which are calculated based mostly on the level of the trade deficit with each country. The calculated ranges for these tariffs go from 10% (countries subject only to the global tariffs, like Singapore and the United Kingdom), up to 49%. Due to the Trump administration’s response to China’s retaliatory tariff, the current level of these tariffs against China is 125%.

The headline news is that reciprocal tariffs are on hold — but only for 90 days, not for China, and only in certain respects. Here’s what’s in and what is out:

All Reciprocal Tariffs (except for China) Are Paused: This means countries hit with high “reciprocal” tariffs based on their trade surpluses with the United States will be engaged in a mad-dash set of negotiations with the Trump administration over the next 90 days. The White House has reported that over 50 countries already have contacted the administration to begin discussions.
The Global 10% Tariff is Not Paused: Despite initial confusion, this tariff remains fully in effect for virtually every country except Canada and Mexico, which represents what appears to be a favored status for these two countries, which have received multiple carveouts from different tariffs.
China is Explicitly Excluded from the Pause: Not only do the original Section 301 tariffs remain in place, but additional China-specific tariffs are now pushing rates up to 125% or more for Chinese-origin goods. The 125% reciprocal rate announced for China, for example, does not include the separate 20% tariffs related to fentanyl precursor exports. Because these reciprocal tariffs stack with the prior Section 301 tariffs and the 20% fentanyl-related tariffs, many Chinese imports are now subject to tariff rates of 170% or higher.
Sectoral and Special Tariffs Continue Unabated: It’s critical to understand that this pause does not affect sector-specific tariffs. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles (25%) remain fully in force. Fentanyl/immigration-related tariffs on Canada and Mexico remain technically in effect, but most USMCA-compliant goods are currently exempt, meaning more than half of trade in the North American region avoids these tariffs. Further, nothing in the pause slows down ongoing investigations for future Section 232 tariffs on copper or lumber, which may be joined by investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, or other sectors.

In short, the reciprocal tariff pause leads to the following current set of tariffs:

China: 145% tariff on many goods, plus existing Chapter 1-97 tariffs and applicable Section 301 tariffs.
Rest of the World: 10% global tariff, plus existing Chapter 1-97 tariffs. Reciprocal tariffs are in place but suspended for 90 days.
Canada and Mexico: Exempt from the 10% global tariff, but subject to 25% IEEPA tariffs for goods that are not USMCA-compliant.
Sectoral and Special Tariffs: Unaffected by the pause and thus subject to Section 232 duties on steel, aluminum, automobiles, and automotive parts. Because of a carveout in the global and reciprocal tariff announcements, items that fall within these tariffs are subject only to the 25% Section 232 tariffs and not the global and reciprocal tariffs.

Fifteen Key Implications for Importers and Companies That Depend on Imported Materials
The reciprocal tariffs pause was a major change in the tariff environment. Although importers might view this as a welcome development, the tariff environment remains tricky, as tariffs remain very high, the length of the pause is only 90 days, and the ability of importers to make long-term plans is sharply impaired. In trying to determine how to move ahead, importers should keep the following 15 key principles in mind:

Principle #1: —This is Not a Trade War De-escalation: Despite the sign of a potential off-ramp to permanently higher tariffs, the reciprocal tariff pause should not be viewed as a dialing down of the trade war until we see concrete evidence of negotiated and lowered long-term tariffs. Several trade economists have noted that due to the expanded China tariffs, the average U.S. tariff rate actually increased following the pause announcement, leaving tariffs at around the level of tariffs that applied during the Great Depression, due to the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.
Principle #2 — Tariffs Still in Place Are Enormous: Tariff rates are still very high, even after the reciprocal tariff pause. As a rough approximation, U.S. imports totaled $3.3 trillion last year. A 10% tariff, even taking into account the certain coming decline in imports, implies a $300 billion tax increase. Adding in steel, aluminum, automotive tariffs, and residual North American tariffs takes the total over $400 billion, and this is before accounting for the new China tariffs. Add it up, and CBP is collecting well over a billion dollars per day in duties, all assessed against the importer of record (which is generally the U.S. company), underscoring the scale of the impact.
Principle #2 — The Trade War Has a Sharper China Focus: Though initially broad-based, the trade war is now clearly pivoting toward China, which is the only country with triple-digit tariff rates. With China and the United States comprising 40% of global GDP, the escalation in tariffs between these two economies introduces significant systemic risk to global trade. Further, in addition to being the only country to impose significant retaliatory tariffs, China is showing little willingness to negotiate lower tariff rates, which would likely require it to make major changes in how its economy functions.
Principle #3 — There’s Still Room to Hit China Harder: Though it may appear that the administration has now imposed the maximum pressure on China and that no further escalation is realistically possible, this assumption is incorrect. The U.S. government has plenty of tools left regarding China, including:
Coordinated Pressure: As part of negotiations with other countries, it is likely that the Trump trade officials will push other countries to take coordinated actions against China. These countries will have every incentive to do so, because there are major concerns that Chinese companies will pivot their exports from the U.S. to other regions.
Tariffs on Chinese-origin Components: The U.S. also could impose tariffs on Chinese-origin content on imports from any country to hit Chinese parts and components. This means that even goods assembled elsewhere could be targeted, as long as their components are of Chinese origin. This also would sharply limit China’s options to replace its U.S. sales with other countries’ sales and could lead to China retaliating by restricting exports of things like rare earth ore, which are essential for modern electronics — a step it has been reluctant to take.
Secondary Sanctions: Like those used with Venezuelan petroleum, the U.S. could impose secondary sections relating to China. These could increase tariffs on countries that trade with China as a means of pressuring countries to decouple from China.
Principle #4 — Fortress North America?: The favorable treatment of Canada and Mexico, including exemptions from the global 10% tariff and exemptions from other tariffs for USMCA-compliant goods, suggests a strategic pivot. Even though Mexico and Canada were initial targets for special 25% tariffs, it appears these targets were mostly aimed at creating negotiating leverage regarding fentanyl and unauthorized immigration. Since then, repeated carveouts for these countries signal a growing effort to strengthen North American regional ties. This is especially apparent when compared to the treatment of other partners like the EU or Korea, which have seen no such relief. For example, even though Korea has a free trade agreement with the U.S. (KORUS) and thus maintains very-low tariff rates on imports from the United States, Korea did not receive any type of carveout and also received a relatively high reciprocal tariff number.

This treatment of Canada and Mexico suggests that within the USMCA review, it may still be possible to devise a modified USMCA that rebalances trade within North America without imploding the entire arrangement. Mexico’s proposal to match U.S. tariffs on China could form the basis for a revised USMCA with broader regional integration and a combined barrier to Chinese parts and components and Chinese investment within the USMCA region.

Principle #5 — The Automotive Sector Still Faces Major Disruption: Automotive tariffs remain a flashpoint, with ripple effects across the U.S.-Canada-Mexico supply chain. These tariffs will continue to be a major upheaval to the largest U.S. manufacturing sector. These tariffs also are inextricably linked to the 2026 USMCA review. Because of the integrated U.S.-Canada-Mexico automotive supply chains, it is impossible to divorce the upcoming 2026 USMCA review from the automotive sector, as it is the main determinant of the trade deficit with Mexico. One likely area of compromise will be for limitations on Chinese investment in North America and the use of Chinese-origin parts and components. Chinese investment in Mexico, and the use of Chinese-origin parts and components in Mexico, has been a major trend over the last six years as Chinese companies have reacted to the Section 301 tariffs imposed in the first Trump administration. The utility of this strategy likely will be curtailed in the USMCA review.
Principle #6 — Lobbying Will Be Intense: It is likely that all or nearly all countries will negotiate. Industries will jockey to receive favorable treatment for their own concerns. Thus, with global tariffs on the table, expect a surge of special-interest activity, as industries and companies race to secure carveouts, exemptions, or favorable tariff treatment. Negotiations will open a free-for-all of companies and industries pushing to get favored status.
Principle #7 — The China Situation is Uncertain: Supply chains can’t shift overnight. Companies report that for many items, like such basic parts as capacitors or resistors, no alternative sourcing exists outside of China. Even if relocation were possible, it could take years and raise permanent costs. With China being the only country that has implemented major retaliation, and with both sides potentially digging in for an impasse, there may be a long and uncertain path toward resolution. As this creates major uncertainty as to the best coping strategy for multinationals, many U.S. manufacturers may have no choice but to suddenly start paying double or more for many parts and components and to look to pass these costs onto consumers.
Principle #8 — Tariffs Attack the Core of U.S. Manufacturing Models: Many U.S. manufacturers rely on global parts and components for domestic assembly. The business strategies of multinationals often depend on purchasing parts and components through carefully thought-out international supply chains and then adding value and further manufacturing in the United States. These carefully engineered supply chains took decades to build, and tariffs threaten to upend entire business strategies, not just margins.
Principle #9 — Uncertainty Is the Biggest Business Risk: A common theme we see when engaging in tariff risk-planning exercises with clients is the difficulty of reacting to rapidly changing tariff announcements and the uncertainty of not knowing which countries will end up with high or low tariffs. This leads to delayed investments, frozen M&A, and general paralysis. Companies are spending resources on cost-passing strategies and supply chain triage, not growth.
Principle #10 — Tariffs Are a Major Tax on Profits: Tariffs will have a huge impact on profitability. Across multiple tariff modeling exercises, one constant emerges: Profit hits of 40% or more are not unusual. While some U.S.-based manufacturers will benefit, they are the exception, not the rule.
Principle #11 — Retaliation is (Temporarily) Off the Table: The EU and others have announced they will not retaliate (other than retaliating against steel and aluminum tariffs, as previously announced) — for now — given the decision to pause the reciprocal tariffs. This puts the focus squarely on negotiating reciprocal tariff reductions, not escalation, for the next 90 days.
Principle #12 — The 10% Tariff May Be Here to Stay: The Trump administration seems to view the global 10% tariff as a long-term revenue measure, potentially offsetting the cost of extending the Trump-era tax cuts. It also appears to be viewed as the “price of admission” for companies to sell into the U.S. market. Thus, it preliminarily appears that the 10% tariff will be difficult for countries to negotiate away. One exception might be countries with free trade agreements, particularly Canada and Mexico, which may roll this into overall renegotiated terms for the FTA.
Principle #13 — Reciprocal Tariffs Are Unlikely to Fully Disappear: The reciprocal tariffs are based on trade deficits, not actual tariff barriers. This is why countries like Switzerland and Korea, which impose very low tariffs on imports, were still hit hard with major reciprocal tariff numbers. The administration appears to view any trade deficit as discriminatory, including through such foundational foreign attributes as maintaining a VAT (which generally exempts exports from paying any VAT, which President Trump views as an export subsidy). Thus, reciprocal tariffs may decline to take into account the equalization of tariff rates but not vanish because of the breadth of the perceived extent to which foreign governments are viewed as discriminating against U.S. exports to their countries. Importers should plan on longstanding global tariffs at 10%, as well as heightened reciprocal tariffs, but at rates left to be negotiated.
Principle #14 — Plan for Permanence, Not Pause: Though much remains uncertain regarding the U.S. trade landscape, importers should plan for permanence, not pause. Although it is tempting to think the tariffs might disappear after the Trump administration leaves town, all of the Section 301 tariffs and 232 tariffs that were imposed in the first Trump administration stayed in place through the Biden administration. Importers should be looking to build flexibility, resilience, and agility into their supply chain and should be risk planning how they would negotiate a permanent end to low tariff rates, even if the eventual rates are not known. The reciprocal tariff pause is a breather to allow for negotiations to drop foreign trade barriers, but the trade war continues.
Principle #15 — Customs Compliance and Accuracy in Import Operations is Critical: In a high-tariff environment, it is essential to have complete accuracy in all imports, as errors very quickly can result in large underpayments, associated interest, and penalties. Further, the Trump tariff proclamations have directed that Customs focus on ensuring full collection and compliance with the new tariff requirements, often directing that Customs impose penalties at the maximum level allowed without considering any mitigating factors. As a result, it is essential that importers carefully review the accuracy of all import-related information they submit, especially for the critical areas of determining the correct country of origin and valuation of the product. This is especially important when importing goods made in third countries using Chinese parts and components, as these goods could be considered to still be Chinese in origin and thus subject to the ultra-high Chinese tariffs, unless they were substantially transformed in the third country. Since Customs will be carefully scrutinizing all imports for potential underpayments of the new tariffs, importers should be doing the same.

Our white paper on “Managing Import and Tariff Risks During a Trade War” outlines a 12-step plan to provide practical steps to help importers navigate the tariff and international trade risks in the current tariff and trade environment, while the companion white paper on “Managing Supply Chain Integrity Risks” provides practical advice to deal with heightened supply chain risks pertaining to goods imported into the United States, including the increasing use of detentions by Customs.

The UCC, Passover and Another Public Company Plans Delaware Exit

In recognition of the beginning of Passover at sunset tomorrow, today’s post reprises this post from 2015:
The Jewish holiday of Passover begins at sundown this evening [In 2025, Passover begins on April 12]. In preparation for Passover, observant Jews must dispose of absolutely all chametz,which is basically any food that is made with grain and water that has been allowed to leaven (rise). One way to dispose of chametz, which is also spelt chometz, is to sell it to a non-Jew and then buy it back after the holiday. Under this option, the parties enter into an actual written contract.
Thus, I began wondering about the secular legal implications of these contracts. I could find only a handful of U.S. cases that even mention chametz, and all of those cases involved prisoner complaints about being fed chametz. Nonetheless, it is possible that disputes could arise. For example, who bears the risk of loss if the chametz is destroyed in a fire or other calamity? What if one party fails to perform?
It seems to me that the sales of chametz are governed by, among other things, Division 2 of the California Commercial Code. Under Section 2102 provides that Division 2 applies to transactions in goods. Section 2105 defines “goods”, with certain exceptions, as all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification of the contract for sale. Most items of chametz (bread, beer, cookies, etc.) clearly fit within this definition. See, e.g., Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room, Inc., 347 Mass. 421,198 N.E.2d 309 (1964) (applying the UCC to fish chowder).
You can watch Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sell all of the State of Israel’s chametz here. It is unlikely, however, that the contract included a California choice of law provision.

China Based Company Proposes Reincorporation In Nevada
DExit continued this week with the filing of a preliminary information statement by Baiyu Holdings, Inc., a company based in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. Baiyu believes that moving to Nevada will reduce the risk of unmeritorious litigation:
The increasing frequency of claims and litigation in Delaware brought by financially-interested law firms against corporations and their directors and officers creates unnecessary distraction and costs for businesses, especially businesses in competitive and innovative industries. The absence of statutory bright-line standards in Delaware for transactions that may involve a controlling stockholder has encouraged law firms to test new theories of liability and broaden the definition of who is in control, what transactions should be deemed conflicted and how strict the standards should be for cleansing such transactions.

Trade Update: Navigating Trump Administration Tariffs – Reciprocal Tariffs and Further Developments

Since early 2025, the Trump administration has imposed a series of broad sector- and country-specific tariffs. These measures were significantly expanded on April 2, 2025, with the announcement of a global tariff regime grounded in the principle of reciprocity. However, some of these new reciprocal tariffs were soon paused on April 9, 2025. Further, reciprocal tariffs on China were raised to an unprecedented 125%.
As global trade tensions continue to rise and many countries have already begun to introduce retaliatory tariffs on the U.S., it will be critical to monitor how increased duty rates will impact your company’s cross-border transaction activity, as well as to develop practical supply chain strategies to mitigate the impact of these fluid and dynamic trade disputes. Additional background on each of these tariff regimes is included below.
I. Targeted IEEPA Tariffs
Before proceeding to describe the reciprocal tariff regime which was announced on April 2, 2025 pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), it is important to note that on April 9, 2025, the Trump administration announced that application of reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2, 2025 to apply respectively to 57 named countries, have been suspended from application for 90 days, except in the case of retaliating countries, including China. The global baseline tariff of 10% announced on April 2, 2025, however, has not been suspended and will be applicable. IEEPA tariffs announced in 2025 prior to April 2 are also not affected by this suspension, nor are Section 232 based sectoral tariffs.
On April 2, 2025 pursuant to the IEEPA, President Trump declared a national emergency arising from the foreign trade and economic practices of other countries and their impact upon the U.S. He proceeded to announce a new global tariff program, with heightened U.S. tariffs calculated by reference to the trade deficit maintained between the U.S. and individual foreign countries. This program introduces a global baseline tariff of 10% ad valorem on all imported goods, effective April 5, 2025, with higher, country-specific rates for 57 individual countries coming into effect on April 9, 2025 (see these specific rates in Table 1 below).
On the same day, the administration announced the elimination of the de minimis exemption for Chinese imports, which previously allowed duty-free entry for low-value shipments under $800. This change, effective May 2, 2025, aims to close loopholes exploited by e-commerce platforms to bypass tariffs.
Importantly, this new global tariff program does not replace or supersede the tariff increases announced previously by the Trump administration since the beginning of 2025, and adopted pursuant both to the IEEPA and to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232). The reciprocal tariff program announced on April 2, 2025 delineates tariff increases that will be added to the increases previously announced pursuant to the IEEPA. However, for imports of goods subject to Section 232 sectoral tariff increases, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2, 2025 will not be additively applied to increase the overall tariff rate for the imports.
Previously announced IEEPA based increases include a 25% tariff on imports of goods from Mexico and Canada, with exceptions including imports of goods that qualify for duty-free importation pursuant to the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA). They also include a 20% tariff on imports of nearly all goods from China.
Additional IEEPA based increases include the so-called “secondary tariff” regime, announced on March 24, 2025, which imposed 25% tariffs on all goods from any country that has been determined to import Venezuelan oil, whether directly from Venezuela or indirectly through third parties, effective April 2, 2025.
II. Section 232 National Security Tariffs
Again, these tariffs adopted under the IEEPA apply separately to tariff increases adopted pursuant to Section 232. These include the following:
1. Steel and Aluminum
In February 2025, the Trump Administration announced updated 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum products pursuant to Section 232, targeting all countries. The updated Section 232 tariffs went into effect as of March 12, 2025 – and CBP has since published guidance on impacted HTS classifications for steel, aluminum, and related derivative products. On April 2, 2025 a tariff of 25% was added under this authority for imports of beer and empty aluminum cans.
2. Automobiles and Related Parts
On March 26, 2025, President Trump issued a new Section 232 proclamation imposing a 25% tariff effective April 3, 2025 on imported passenger vehicles (sedans, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, cargo vans) and light trucks, as well as key automobile parts (engines, transmissions, powertrain parts, and electrical components). On April 2, 2025 this proclamation was updated to include nearly 150 additional auto parts categories that will be subject to a 25% tariff beginning on May 3, 2025.
3. Pending Section 232 Investigations
On February 25, 2025 and March 1, 2025, the White House announced two new Section 232 investigations into (i) copper, and (ii) timber and lumber imports – which may result in additional tariff actions.
III. Noteworthy Impacts
China
On April 9, 2025, President Trump announced that, due to China’s application of retaliatory tariffs in response to the reciprocal tariffs he announced on April 2, 2025, the reciprocal tariff on almost all imports from China to the U.S. would be set at 125%. The previously announced IEEPA tariff of 20%, plus any base HTS tariff and/or Section 301 tariff previously announced, would be added to this minimum rate. However, imports of goods subject to Section 232 sectoral tariffs are exempt from the application of IEEPA tariffs. This means that imports of steel, aluminum, and automobiles from China subject to Section 232 tariffs, will only be subject to a 25% tariff in addition to any base HTS tariff.
Southeast Asia
A number of southeast Asian countries were also hit particularly hard by the specific reciprocal tariff regime. This includes Vietnam (46%), Cambodia (49%), and Thailand (37%). Since the increased tariffs implemented during President Trump’s first administration on China, many Chinese companies had set up manufacturing in these countries to avoid these tariffs. Increased tariffs on southeast Asian countries are likely a response to that circumvention. However, again, these country-specific reciprocal tariffs were suspended for 90 days on April 9, 2025. Thus, these countries will at least temporarily be subject to the 10% global baseline tariff. Imports from the countries subject to Section 232 sectoral tariffs are exempt from this IEEPA based global baseline tariff.
E.U.
Imports from the E.U. were not hit with tariffs as high as those on China and some southeast Asian countries. The E.U. was hit with a relatively smaller country-specific reciprocal tariff rate of 20% on April 2, 2025. This additional reciprocal tariff will be applied in addition to any base HTS tariff. However, any imports subject to Section 232 sectoral tariffs are exempt from this reciprocal tariff increase. Even though the E.U. has announced its intention to retaliate against applied U.S. tariffs, the temporary suspension for non-retaliating countries announced on April 9, 2025 has been confirmed to include the E.U. Thus, during this suspension the E.U. will be subject to the 10% global baseline tariff instead of the 20% country specific reciprocal tariff.
Canada/Mexico
Imports from Canada and Mexico were exempted from any new specific reciprocal IEEPA tariffs and are not subject to the global tariff of 10% announced on April 2, 2025. They are, however, still subject to the previously announced 25% IEEPA tariffs on both countries, with the important exception that imports qualifying for duty-free treatment under the USMCA will continue to enter the U.S. duty-free. Imports from both countries are also subject to any base HTS tariff and/or Section 301 tariff previously announced. Again, however, imports subject to Section 232 sectoral tariffs are exempted from the 25% IEEPA tariffs.
The Section 232 auto and auto parts tariffs are of particular significance to both countries, due to the close integration of the auto manufacturing supply chain among the USMCA members. Importers of Mexican and Canadian automobiles covered under the USMCA will be given the opportunity to certify their U.S. content, which will not be subject to tariffs. However, the Section 232 based 25% tariff applies to the non-U.S. content of the vehicle. Further, after May 3, 2025, auto parts covered by the USMCA will also be subject to a 25% tariff on the non-US content of these parts.
FTAs
Pursuant to the reciprocal tariff order, imports from countries with which the U.S. has free trade agreements (FTAs) are subject to the newly imposed reciprocal tariffs. This means that products previously benefiting from reduced or zero tariffs under FTAs will now incur the additional reciprocal tariffs as outlined in the order. Although again, this impact is subject to the suspension of country-specific reciprocal tariffs for non-retaliating countries announced on April 9.
IV. Supply Chain Strategies and Key Takeaways
Tariffs have been and will continue to be a focal point of the Trump Administration’s global trade policy, whether in pursuit of economic security, national security, or as a broader negotiation tactic. The tariff landscape is evolving rapidly and subject to constant evolution and change – and accordingly, companies and importers should take the following steps as soon as possible:

Evaluate your supply chain and diversify suppliers to mitigate tariff costs;
Reevaluate product designs and manufacturing operations to establish favorable country(ies) of origin;
Negotiate tariff cost-sharing provisions in supply and distribution contracts to mitigate effect of increased tariffs; 
Explore options to utilize “first sale” pricing for the transaction value of imported goods, potentially leading to lower import duties;
For related party transactions, reassess transfer pricing strategies and structuring of relationships for opportunities to mitigate the effect of tariffs;
For outbound products, identify potential new costs to customers and distributors associated with retaliatory tariffs implemented by third-countries;
Closely monitor evolving negotiations and regulatory changes for new exclusions, exemptions, or carve-outs that may impact your cross-border transaction activity;
Utilize free trade agreements or free trade zones where practicable; and
Consistently audit and document HTS classifications and country of origin determinations for imported goods to ensure customs compliance, timely duty payments, and efficient responses to requests for information issued by CBP.

Table 1

Countries and Territories
Reciprocal Tariff, Adjusted

Algeria
30%

Angola
32%

Bangladesh
37%

Bosnia and Herzegovina
36%

Botswana
38%

Brunei
24%

Cambodia
49%

Cameroon
12%

Chad
13%

China
34%

Côte d`Ivoire
21%

Democratic Republic of the Congo
11%

Equatorial Guinea
13%

European Union
20%

Falkland Islands
42%

Fiji
32%

Guyana
38%

India
27%

Indonesia
32%

Iraq
39%

Israel
17%

Japan
24%

Jordan
20%

Kazakhstan
27%

Laos
48%

Lesotho
50%

Libya
31%

Liechtenstein
37%

Madagascar
47%

Malawi
18%

Malaysia
24%

Mauritius
40%

Moldova
31%

Mozambique
16%

Mozambique
45%

Namibia
21%

Nauru
30%

Nicaragua
19%

Nigeria
14%

North Macedonia
33%

Norway
16%

Pakistan
30%

Philippines
18%

Serbia
38%

South Africa
31%

South Korea
26%

Sri Lanka
44%

Switzerland
32%

Syria
41%

Taiwan
32%

Thailand
37%

Tunisia
28%

Vanuatu
23%

Venezuela
15%

Vietnam
46%

Zambia
17%

Zimbabwe
18%

Dan Joyner, Scott A. Jones, Angela Ennis, and John McCullough contributed to this article.