Wait and See Is Not a Viable Option: How General Counsel Can Take Action in Uncertain Times

In times of uncertainty, it can be tempting for firms to sit back and wait, let the markets return to “normal”, or even delay action to see what others do. This can often be the best choice in some circumstances, but when it comes to trade and economic decisions being taken by the current U.S. administration, this would be a mistake: these changes are sudden, but they are also substantial and likely to be sustained over the next years.

Shape Strategy, Drive Success: The Modern General Counsel

More Insights

One of President Trump’s biggest applause lines at his 2024 campaign rallies was directed at the belief the United States has been ill served ─ “ripped off” in his words ─ by decades of bad trade agreements signed by both his Democratic and Republican predecessors.¹ A month into his second term, the President again asserted on social media “The U.S. does not have free trade. We have stupid trade. The entire world is ripping us off!”.² From the Oval Office, the President has said “we were supporting NATO, we were paying the bills for other countries, yet those same countries…. were ripping us off on trade.”³ President Trump’s belief in the power of tariffs to strengthen America’s global economic position is a consistent worldview he has held since the 1980s.⁴ He campaigned on a promise to use them.

At the onset of his second term, the changes initiated by President Trump in the trade, economic and national security policies of the United States are causing significant disruptions across global markets.⁵ Leveraging his executive powers to levy tariffs, President Trump and his administration are clearly signaling their firm intent to reshape global trade and international defense treaties, readdressing concerns about U.S. trade imbalances, domestic manufacturing and the security umbrella. In the first hundred days, the President has called for tariffs on close trading partners and major world economies with varying degrees, amounts and across a range of industries.⁶ At times, he has rescinded the tariffs and reannounced another set in the next days.⁷ While critics point to inconsistencies and confusion created in the application of his trade policies,⁸ the President remains committed to the role of tariffs in securing his agenda, even if the schedule for implementation remains flexible and open to change.

Long held assumptions about global trade now need to be reconsidered, while the immediate impact of the tariffs on individual businesses need to be assessed and managed in real time. There is no time for complacency.

First Things First

No matter the sector and no matter the jurisdiction that companies operate in, there will be a direct and measurable impact – it is only the degree and exposure that will differ. Assessing and mitigating these risks and their impact should be treated as a priority issue by company leadership. And yet, it will likely fall to the general counsel (“GC”) to bring clarity and shape to the company’s strategic response ─ first by determining immediate exposure, risk tolerance and then developing practical strategies to mitigate risk and protect growth in the future.

This isn’t an issue for the GC to face alone, it will require collaboration from across the business. But it will be the GC with a broad appreciation of risk that will pull different internal stakeholders together – the CEO, the CFO, the Chief Product Officer, the Chief Marketing Officer, the Chief Compliance Officer and, increasingly, the Chief Technology Officer – to work through the various impacts of the tariffs to operations and reputation. This kind of scenario planning exercise will better position organizations to not only manage the changes as they currently are, but what they may inevitably change into overtime – with the GC well positioned to lead from the center. The key considerations are: where are the vulnerabilities in our supply chain? Where is the impact going to be felt? How will this affect our pricing model? What are the options available to change and pivot? What would be the benefits of this? What could be the drawbacks? How best to implement change and how fast can they be made? What messages should be communicated, to both internal and external stakeholders and how? Are we technically enabled to support any sort of change or transformation and are there security assurances or response plans in place? Bringing different perspectives from the business will allow GCs to see around corners, to make more informed recommendations and build in the essential agility needed to be able to navigate this unprecedented level of change and disruption.

It’s not just about asking the right questions, but it’s about scenario planning ─ not just for what you predict is most likely to happen, but for what all of the plausible outcomes could be – and conducting tabletop exercises to prepare your response. Monitoring and updating preparation and response plans regularly is essential, it cannot just be a one-time exercise. Building in this flexibility and repetition is more important than ever, given the fast changing geopolitical and economic landscape ─ GCs and their organizations that take this approach are taking the right steps to future-proof their business in this fundamentally different trade environment.

The Intention Behind The Change

Whilst its paramount to deal with the specific issues currently faced, to truly be able to manage risk in the long term, GCs should always keep in mind the “why” – that the purpose behind these policy changes is to strengthen the U.S. economy via and prioritizing domestic interests.

Understanding the political truths and driving forces and viewing the changing policy landscape in light of that will allow GCs to make more informed decisions and build in the essential flexibility and agility needed to be able to navigate this unprecedented level of change and disruption. Understanding the why will better position organizations to not only manage the changes as they currently are, but what they may inevitably change into overtime.

A Fundamental Shift

A political poll conducted for The New York Times in 2023 asked respondents if the United States today required “no, moderate, or fundamental change to its political and economic system.”⁹ Nearly 60% responded the system needed fundamental change.¹⁰ The economic anxiety simmering in the country since the 2008 recession was brought to a fever pitch by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this climate, President Trump returned to the White House determined to bring a structural change. To simply discount these policies as political posturing or something that will never come to fruition is not only misplaced but a fundamental mistake that could either sink companies or take years or decades to recover from.

The political and social momentum that has taken off in the United States is unlikely to completely reverse course by a change in administration, regardless of party. A new framework has been set. There is no playbook that GCs or companies can turn to, instead it is up to you to make a new one and continuously adapt it amid shifts and turns.

1: “Key takeaways from Trump’s first rally speech after November election win,” Al Jazeera (December 23, 2024).

2: Greg Norman, “Trump says US has ‘Stupid Trade,’ not ‘free trade’,” Fox Business (March 13, 2025).

3: Una Hajdari, “Trump claims US is being ripped off by Europeans and ‘globalists’ as markets dip,” Euronews (July 3, 2025).

4: Jim Tankersley and Mark Landler, “Trump’s Love for Tariffs Began in Japan’s ‘80s Boom,” The New York Times (May 15, 2019).

5: Dr Ahmet Ihsan Kaya and Professor Stephen Millard, “The Economic Impact of Trump’s Early Policies,” National Institute of Economic and Social Research (February 3, 2025).

6: “Tracking Trump – updates on the presidency’s first 100 days,” The Guardian (last accessed March 18, 2025).

7: “Trump Administration Highlights: In Reversal, Many New Tariffs on Mexico and Canada Are Suspended New York Times,” (last accessed 19 March).

8: Jennier A. Dlouhy and Shawn Donnan, “Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff strategy sows confusion,” The Economic Times (March 6, 2025).

9: “Cross-Tabs: Late October 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate,” The New York Times (October 25, 2024).

10: Ibid.