USMCA

USMCA renewal talks critical for North American manufacturing supply chains

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is the legal and operational backbone of a $31 trillion North American trading bloc, and its renewal process is a live strategic risk factor for manufacturers and automotive brands active in the region.

Renewal negotiations are one of the most strategically important issues facing North American manufacturers, automotive brands and industrial supply chains.

While the agreement itself is not due to expire immediately, the failure to secure a straightforward 16-year renewal by the July 2026 review milestone is creating growing uncertainty across sectors heavily reliant on integrated US, Mexican and Canadian manufacturing operations.

The negotiations are particularly important for automotive, machinery, steel, aluminium and advanced manufacturing supply chains that have spent years restructuring production around the USMCA framework.

Why USMCA matters

The USMCA effectively underpins North America’s position as a highly integrated manufacturing bloc, supporting nearly $2 trillion in annual trade and deeply interconnected cross-border production networks.

The agreement provides the legal and operational framework that allows manufacturers to build complex regional supply chains with long-term investment certainty, streamlined customs processes and unified rules governing trade across all three countries.

That stability has become increasingly valuable as global manufacturers continue reducing dependence on long-distance Asian supply chains and accelerating near-shoring strategies closer to North American demand centres.

Mexico, in particular, has become a major beneficiary of this shift, offering shorter transit times, lower logistics risk and strong manufacturing integration with US production.

Automotive supply chains remain at the centre of negotiations

USMCA rules already require 75% of vehicle content to originate within North America for tariff-free treatment, helping drive major investment into regional automotive manufacturing and supplier networks.

Modern automotive production across North America is now deeply interconnected, with components often crossing borders multiple times before final vehicle assembly.

A single component may be stamped in Mexico, machined in the US and assembled into a finished vehicle in Canada or back in Mexico. That level of integration means even relatively small tariff or rules-of-origin changes can have significant operational and commercial consequences.

The Trump administration is now reportedly pushing for even higher US content requirements within vehicles as part of the renewal process, alongside broader efforts to bring more manufacturing activity back into the United States.

At the same time, steel, aluminium and automotive tariffs remain major areas of disagreement between the three countries.

Negotiations becoming more complex and politically sensitive

Formal negotiations between the US and Mexico are now under way, while Canada is still waiting to enter full trilateral discussions with Washington.

Current expectations are that the July review deadline will pass without a full agreement, triggering an extended review and negotiation period rather than an immediate collapse of the agreement itself.

In practical terms, USMCA would remain operational, but uncertainty around future rules, tariffs and investment conditions could persist for months or even years.

That uncertainty matters.

Manufacturers making long-term investment decisions around factories, tooling, supplier sourcing and critical minerals need confidence that North American trade rules will remain stable over the life of those investments.

The White House is also increasingly using separate bilateral negotiations alongside the formal USMCA review process, creating additional complexity around tariffs, automotive rules, steel, aluminium, labour standards and critical minerals.

For many manufacturers, the agreement is now viewed not simply as a trade deal, but as a strategic foundation for North American industrial resilience.

What this means for manufacturers and importers

For businesses operating across North America, the current environment reinforces the importance of supply chain flexibility, customs planning and close monitoring of trade policy developments.

Automotive, industrial and manufacturing sectors remain particularly exposed to any changes involving rules of origin, tariffs, customs procedures or regional content requirements.

While the direction of negotiations remains uncertain, all three governments continue publicly supporting the importance of maintaining a trilateral North American trade structure.

The challenge now is whether that shared strategic interest can overcome increasingly difficult political and economic negotiations.

Metro helps customers manage complex cross-border logistics, customs compliance and North American supply chain strategies across the US, Mexico and Canada.

To discuss your North American logistics requirements or USMCA-related supply chain planning, EMAIL Managing Director Andrew Smith.

container lorry queue

Capacity tightens and rates surge as peak season pressure builds

Asia–Europe and transpacific market conditions have shifted sharply in recent weeks, as strong demand tightens available space and enables carriers to push through higher spot rates and surcharges, even on shipments moving under long-term contracts.

Recent index data shows steady week-on-week gains, but forward indicators suggest a much steeper rise ahead. Pricing for early June shipments is already high and market signals indicate that rates could climb as high as $6,000–$7,000 per 40ft in the coming weeks, particularly as space tightens in the second half of June.

This demand spike is being driven by large-volume shippers accelerating shipments ahead of new bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) due to take effect from 1 July. These revised fuel charges are expected to increase significantly, prompting a surge in June volumes that is now placing further strain on capacity.

At the same time, carriers are increasing peak season surcharges (PSS) and signalling ongoing reviews. Initial increases are already being implemented in early June, with further upward revisions likely through the summer. Importantly, these surcharges are not being capped, creating continued upward pressure.

On the transpacific, the situation is following a similar trajectory. Capacity reductions, most notably the withdrawal of a key Asia–US East Coast service, have tightened supply, while carriers are taking a more aggressive stance on rate increases. Although recent index movements have been moderate, multiple general rate increases (GRIs) have been announced for June, pointing to a much firmer market ahead.

Contract conditions are also shifting. Previously available rate offers are being withdrawn or replaced with higher-priced agreements, and in some cases, revised terms are becoming commercially unviable. Across both major east–west trades, current expectations are that elevated rate levels and constrained space will persist through June and July, with the potential to extend into August.

For shippers, this creates a highly compressed and competitive freight environment. Securing space is becoming increasingly dependent on rate acceptance, and delays in booking or pricing decisions are likely to result in higher costs or missed sailings.

Metro’s Advice

If you have upcoming shipments, early planning and rapid booking decisions are critical.

  • Expect continued upward pressure on both spot and contract rates through June and into July
  • Allow for additional surcharges, particularly PSS and revised fuel costs
  • Plan for reduced flexibility, with limited space availability on key sailings
  • Anticipate further volatility as carriers adjust pricing in line with demand

Metro’s teams are actively monitoring capacity, pricing movements, and carrier strategies to secure the best possible options for our customers.

Contact your Metro account manager today to review your shipping forecast, secure space, and minimise cost exposure in an increasingly constrained market.

This story was first reported in The Loadstar and can be viewed HERE

China flag and ship

China’s New 2026 Supply Chain Laws: What You Need to Know

China is rewiring the legal framework around its ports and supply chains and that matters for every UK shipper moving goods to, from or via China. 

Two new sets of rules in 2026 change who controls disputes, how far you can probe your supply chain, and how China may respond to Western sanctions and due‑diligence demands.

Below we set out what’s changing and what Metro’s customers should be thinking about.

New maritime law puts China’s courts in the driving seat

From 1 May 2026, China’s revised Maritime Code gives Chinese law a much stronger role in contracts of carriage linked to Chinese ports. Where the port of loading or discharge is in China, Chinese courts can apply Chapter IV of the Code to carriage contracts even if the bill of lading or sea freight agreement points to English law.

Law firm HFW has called this a “substantive change”, noting that “chapter four of the Chinese Maritime Code will apply to a contract of carriage regardless of whether or not another law has been incorporated or chosen by the parties”. In effect, if governing‑law and jurisdiction clauses are unclear, Chinese courts now have more room to assert jurisdiction over disputes involving cargo moving through their ports.

Trading agreements often choose English law and London arbitration, while the carrier’s bill of lading may point a different way. The question is whether, in a dispute, a Chinese court will treat the bill of lading as the main contract and apply Chinese law, despite what the trade agreement says.

Some industry experts see this as part of a broader strategic move, to encourage a switch from FOB to CIF terms so that Chinese exporters control freight, insurance and crucially litigation on home turf.

However, any FOB to CIF shift is commercial, not legal, and Incoterms are an international standard which means that FOB remains fully available for China–UK trade, where the buyer wants to control the main–carriage contract and freight costs.

So, China’s legal changes don’t cancel FOB, and UK buyers can still insist on FOB terms and book their own freight, provided the contracts and practical behaviour match that intention.

Supply chain security rules: due diligence under pressure

Alongside the maritime reforms, China has introduced its first comprehensive Regulations on Industrial and Supply Chain Security, effective 31 March 2026. These rules treat supply chains as part of national security rather than a purely commercial matter, bringing them under the oversight of economic, security and cyber authorities.

The most sensitive provision for Western companies is Article 13, which restricts “information gathering activities” related to industrial and supply chains where these are found to breach Chinese law. The language is broad and undefined, creating uncertainty about whether standard due‑diligence activities, which can include supplier questionnaires, ESG audits, human‑rights assessments or on‑site inspections, could fall within the scope.

This sits uneasily alongside emerging Western rules such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and US forced‑labour legislation, which expect companies to map supply chains and scrutinise suppliers in detail. Legal commentators warn that “the new law creates a direct and unresolved conflict between Chinese law and Western due diligence obligations”, with companies potentially facing legal risk in China for work they are required to do under EU or US law.

The regulations also give authorities wide powers to respond to perceived threats to supply‑chain stability. Investigations can target foreign organisations and individuals where there is a “risk or threat” of harm, not just proven damage, and can lead to restrictions on trade, investment and cooperation in China, along with travel or work limits for individuals.

Counter‑measures against foreign sanctions

A companion set of rules – the Regulations on Countering Foreign Improper/Unjustifiable Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, in force from early April – strengthens China’s ability to push back against foreign sanctions, export controls and data‑disclosure demands applied extraterritorially.

These sit alongside the Anti‑Foreign Sanctions Law, blocking rules and the “unreliable entities” regime, creating what one firm describes as an “integrated counter‑sanctions system”. Authorities can investigate and penalise organisations and individuals who implement or even “promote” foreign measures seen as discriminatory towards China, with tools ranging from import and export restrictions to asset seizures and visa bans.

This framework has emerged against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tension, including Western tariffs and probes into China’s exports, secondary‑sanctions risks around Iran and disputes over strategic assets like the Panama Canal.

What shippers should do

None of this means that trading with China will suddenly stop or that every UK shipper is about to be investigated. But the risk environment has clearly changed, and it is worth taking some practical steps:

  • Check bills of lading, trade agreements and framework contracts to see where Chinese ports are involved, what law and jurisdiction are specified.
    Strengthen English‑law and arbitration provisions and clarify that higher‑tier agreements take precedence.
  • Talk to your insurers about how the revised Maritime Code might affect liability, claims handling and cover for China‑linked moves.
    Consider obtaining Chinese‑law input on key routes or contracts where your exposure is greatest.
  • Map which parts of your ESG and human‑rights due diligence involve Chinese suppliers or sites.
  • For higher‑risk work, such as auditing sensitive regions or investigations linked to sanctions, seek specialist advice on how to stay compliant with both Western obligations and Chinese restrictions.
  • Be mindful of public statements about “decoupling from China” or “boycotting” particular regions. These may be read as aligning with foreign measures and may increase regulatory attention in China.
  • Align messaging between compliance, procurement and communications so that necessary changes to your supply chain are framed around resilience, quality and legal compliance, not politics.

For Metro’s customers, the key takeaway is that China is now using law as an active tool of supply‑chain strategy. Understanding how these new rules work, and adjusting contracts, due‑diligence programmes and communication strategies accordingly, will help keep goods moving while managing a more complex risk landscape.

If you have questions or concerns about any of the developments outlined here EMAIL our Managing Director, Andrew Smith.

EU UK negotiations 2

UK–EU reset could ease border friction for importers and exporters

On 13 May 2026, the King's Speech set out the government's plans for the next Parliamentary session, including efforts to reset post-Brexit relations, forge closer economic ties with the EU and reduce unnecessary barriers to trade.

The reset is not a return to the single market or customs union. Instead, it is being presented as a targeted attempt to stabilise the trading relationship through closer alignment in specific areas where the government believes reduced friction could support growth, cut costs and improve supply chain efficiency. 

SPS alignment could simplify GB–EU border processes

The government intends to pass legislation by the end of 2026 to enable an SPS agreement with the EU to take effect by mid-2027. The agreement would cover animal and plant health, food safety and related agri-food rules, with the UK aligning to relevant EU legislation in order to ease border procedures.

SPS controls have been among the most disruptive post-Brexit trade barriers, creating additional documentation, inspection, certification and timing challenges at the GB–EU border.

A veterinary-style agreement could reduce the need for some routine checks and help make border movements more predictable. For exporters, this may improve access into EU markets. For importers, it could reduce delays, compliance costs and uncertainty when bringing goods into Great Britain.

Emissions trading alignment could reshape supply chain costs

Alongside the SPS agreement, the government is also negotiating closer alignment between the UK and EU emissions trading schemes (ETS), designed to reduce regulatory divergence and support longer-term industrial and energy cooperation. 

For businesses involved in manufacturing, energy-intensive production, transport and international trade, the implications could extend well beyond environmental policy.

A linked or more closely aligned ETS framework could help reduce friction for exporters trading into Europe, particularly as the EU continues expanding carbon-related trade measures and compliance requirements. It may also provide greater long-term certainty for businesses operating across both UK and EU markets.

Dynamic alignment brings certainty but also new compliance considerations

The proposed reset relies on dynamic alignment in selected areas, meaning UK rules would keep pace with relevant EU law as it evolves. This is central to the government’s ambition to reduce border friction, because smoother trade processes depend on both sides recognising equivalent standards.

For logistics and supply chain teams, this could provide greater medium-term certainty over the regulatory framework affecting GB–EU trade. However, it also means businesses will need to monitor changes in EU rules that may flow into UK requirements over time.

The wider political debate remains active. Critics argue that dynamic alignment could reduce UK regulatory flexibility, while others want the government to go further and pursue a customs union. 

What this means for UK traders

The direction of travel may point toward a less burdensome GB–EU trading environment, but the more realistic reading is:

  • Customs declarations are not going away simply because an SPS deal is agreed.
  • Rules of origin issues are not being removed by the reset as described in this briefing.
  • What may improve is the regulatory layer sitting on top of customs processes for certain categories of goods, especially agri-food.

That distinction matters, because a truck can still need customs processing even if SPS checks become lighter or less frequent.

So the likely benefit is not “no border”, but a border with fewer SPS-related interruptions, fewer compliance mismatches and a lower chance that a shipment is delayed because UK and EU technical rules have drifted apart.

Importers and exporters should now review where SPS controls, border checks, certification or documentary requirements are creating cost, delay or uncertainty in their supply chains. They should also assess whether current customs and compliance processes are flexible enough to adapt as the UK–EU framework develops.

As the UK–EU reset develops, Metro is helping customers assess how changing customs procedures, SPS requirements and evolving regulatory alignment could affect their supply chains, transit times and compliance obligations. 

Through integrated freight forwarding, customs support and cross-border logistics expertise, Metro helps businesses prepare for changing GB–EU trade conditions and maintain efficient cargo flow across European supply chains.

EMAIL Managing Director, Andrew Smith, today to learn more.