e2open expert interprets tariff and trade policy: 'on-off-on' pattern continues to trouble supply chain

Introduction

The persistent uncertainty of U.S. trade policy continues to challenge global supply chains. In an interview with *Logistics Management*, John Lash, Vice President of Product Strategy at e2open, provides an in-depth analysis of the current state of tariff implementation, the progress of legal disputes, and the issues with the refund mechanism. As a service provider specializing in connected supply chain platforms, e2open (now a member of the WiseTech Global group) offers an important perspective for the industry.

Key Developments: The "On-Off-On" Pattern of Tariffs

Lash describes U.S. trade policy as a cycle of "on, off, and on again." Taking the temporary 10% tariff under Section 122 as an example, after the Department of Justice appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the tariff was reinstated, even though a lower court had previously ruled it exceeded executive authority. Lash notes that this pattern has become all too familiar: plaintiffs sue over the legality of tariffs → courts rule them ultra vires → appellate courts quickly stay the ruling → the case moves to a higher court.

Based on experience with IEEPA-related cases, the process from appeal to final ruling takes over eight months. During this period, tariffs continue to be collected, with no relief for businesses or consumers. After the Supreme Court ruled, the Federal Trade Court ordered the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to appear in court and explain why so few tariff refunds had been issued—more than four months after the ruling.

Supply Chain Impact: Tariff Fatigue and a Sense of Injustice

The volatility of tariffs has exacerbated so-called "tariff fatigue." Lash emphasizes that businesses and consumers face multiple injustices: being forced to pay illegal tariffs, enduring long refund cycles, and grappling with uncertainty over whether refunds will ultimately be obtained. This sense of injustice is further amplified against the backdrop of inflation and economic anxiety.

From a supply chain perspective, the actual bearers of tariff costs often do not align with those receiving refunds. Lash points out that the government simply designates the importer as the recipient of refunds, but in reality, costs may be shared among suppliers, importers, or consumers. Transparency and the power dynamics between buyers and sellers determine the ultimate flow of refunds: when transparency is high or consumers have leverage, refunds are more likely to be passed down the chain; otherwise, they may be retained by businesses.

Industry Perspective: Insights from the Amazon Class Action Lawsuit

In May 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington accepted a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, with plaintiffs representing consumers who paid higher prices due to tariffs. The core question of the case is: Who should bear the hundreds of billions of dollars in illegal tariff costs? Lash believes this case is a "bellwether." According to reports, Amazon has not yet applied for tariff refunds from the government.

For thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises, they face a similar moral dilemma: Should they pass refunds on to customers, or keep them for themselves? Lash notes that this is not only an ethical challenge but also an opportunity to test corporate values.

Future Outlook: Policy Uncertainty Will PersistLash estimates that the litigation over Section 122 tariffs may take months or even longer to be finally resolved. During this period, supply chain managers must contend with ongoing policy fluctuations. Companies should enhance supply chain visibility, optimize tariff management processes, and establish more flexible sourcing and inventory strategies to hedge against risks.

Conclusion

The current legal challenges and back-and-forth enforcement of U.S. trade policy are becoming major sources of uncertainty for global supply chains. The "on-off-on" pattern of tariffs, delays in the duty refund mechanism, and the protracted nature of legal disputes are forcing companies to reassess the resilience and compliance costs of their supply chains. Insights from e2open indicate that until policies become clearer, proactive risk management and transparency-building will be key for companies to address these challenges.