What New York Lawyers Should Know About the U.S.-Brazil Tariff Crisis: Risks and Solutions
9.17.2025
A New Dynamic in U.S.–Brazil Trade
In August, the United States imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian agricultural products, including coffee, beef, and seafood. While the trade balance in many of these sectors already favors the U.S., the measure signals a shift in trade policy. For businesses and law firms with strong ties to New York’s global economy, understanding the implications of this tariff is essential to safeguard clients’ interests and anticipate future developments. Although the scenario is complex, it also creates increased demand for specialized legal advice, reinforcing New York’s role as a central hub for international commercial law.
Implications and Opportunities: The Role of New York Lawyers
The tariff creates immediate challenges for New York clients engaged with Brazil, particularly investment funds, banks, and multinational corporations exposed to Brazilian agribusiness. Higher costs, regulatory uncertainty, and potential disruptions to supply chains are evident.
At the same time, the situation opens significant opportunities for the legal community:
- Rising Demand for Specialized Counsel: The complexity of the tariff increases demand for lawyers skilled in international trade law and arbitration, who can reassess contracts, manage legal risk, and advise on financial and reputational exposure.
- Strengthening International Trade Expertise: Navigating World Trade Organization rules and both U.S. and Brazilian law deepens New York lawyers’ expertise, positioning them to identify alternative markets and legal strategies.
- Reinforcing New York’s Global Status: The need for integrated legal, economic, and geopolitical analysis places New York firms at the forefront of resolving complex disputes and shaping commercial strategies, enhancing their international visibility.
- Expanding Practice Areas: Shifts in supply chains and trade strategies may generate demand in areas such as market diversification, cross-border investment structures, and high-stakes commercial litigation.
Legal Perspectives on U.S. Trade Law
The justification for the tariff, based on claims of a trade deficit, is contested by data showing a U.S. surplus with Brazil in several sectors.[1] The unilateral use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974[2] raises questions about consistency with World Trade Organization rules. While the measure does not require formal injury determination, it challenges core principles in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, including most-favored-nation treatment (Article I) and safeguard conditions (Article XIX).[3]
In response, Brazil’s National Confederation of Industry has engaged law firms in Washington, D.C., to challenge the tariff before the U.S. trade representative and the World Trade Organization. For New York lawyers, this evolving environment presents opportunities in WTO litigation, commercial arbitration, and government relations, reinforcing the city’s reputation as a center for sophisticated legal practice.
Contractual Analysis: Force Majeure vs. Hardship
The tariff underscores the importance of distinguishing between force majeure and hardship clauses. While tariff increases rarely qualify as force majeure since performance is not rendered impossible, they often fall within the scope of hardship, where performance becomes excessively burdensome.
The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2016) support renegotiation in such circumstances.[4] Similarly, although the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods treaty does not directly address tariffs, its principles of good faith and contract adaptation offer mechanisms to mitigate imbalances.[5] For New York lawyers, advising on the strategic use of these clauses strengthens their role in contract renegotiation and arbitration, further consolidating expertise in international dispute resolution.
Private Sector Responses
Brazilian industry, led by the National Confederation of Industry, is mobilizing lobbying efforts to reverse or mitigate the tariff, likely arguing the absence of injury to U.S. domestic industries and inconsistencies with World Trade Organization obligations.
Simultaneously, Brazil is expanding trade ties with the European Union, Asian economies, and BRICS partners.[6] For New York lawyers, this diversification represents both risk and opportunity, as clients seek guidance on regional trade agreements, cross-border investments, and regulatory compliance in diverse jurisdictions.
Practical Recommendations for Lawyers
To address the immediate and long-term effects of the tariff, New York lawyers may consider:
- Contract Review and Communication: Conducting prompt audits of contracts with Brazilian parties, focusing on hardship clauses to initiate renegotiations.
- Proactive Dispute Resolution: Encouraging clients to pursue negotiation or arbitration rather than prolonged litigation, with alternative dispute resolution serving as a competitive advantage.
- Strategic Advocacy: Participating in lobbying efforts to highlight the tariff’s impact on U.S. businesses, aligning legal practice with policy advocacy.
- Risk Management: Identifying potential risks early and implementing preventive measures to protect client interests, reinforcing the lawyer’s role as a proactive advisor.
Conclusion: Leadership Through Adaptation
The unilateral tariff on Brazilian imports reflects broader tensions in international trade law. For New York’s legal community, it is both a challenge and an opportunity to safeguard client interests, to advance contractual and dispute resolution strategies, and to reinforce the city’s leadership in global commerce.
By combining legal expertise with strategic foresight, New York lawyers can transform volatility into influence by strengthening commercial diplomacy, supporting predictable trade relations, and reaffirming the state’s position as a leader in international law.
Although this article focuses on the U.S. – Brazil dynamic, the legal strategies discussed are equally applicable to other international tariff disputes. Similar measures imposed on goods from Asia, the European Union, or emerging markets may trigger comparable contractual challenges, arbitration opportunities, and demands for specialized legal counsel. Thus, the framework presented here equips New York lawyers with transferable tools to navigate not only the Brazilian case but also future global trade disruptions.
Luana Cristina Malaquias is a Brazilian law student working at Costa Oliveira e Santos, a law firm in Brazil. She is particularly interested in international law, global trade, and geopolitics, with a focus on how legal frameworks intersect with economic and political developments. Her research seeks to understand how trade measures shape the strategic role of lawyers in global centers such as New York.
Endnotes
[1] U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Trade in Goods with Brazil. Available at: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html.
[2] World Trade Organization (WTO). General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994). Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm.
[3] UNIDROIT. Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2016). Available at: https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/commercial-contracts/unidroit-principles-2016
[4] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/salegoods/conventions/sale_of_goods/cisg.
[5] Congressional Research Service. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11346.
[6] BRICS. About BRICS. Available at: https://brics.br/en. BRICS is a political and economic bloc originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It was created to strengthen cooperation among emerging economies in areas such as trade, finance, and development. More recently, the group has discussed expansion to include additional members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.
