After mid‑2025 tariff changes, retailers, manufacturers and logistics providers are shifting from short‑term workarounds to deliberate network redesign — using SKU‑level modelling, contingency planning and nearshoring while balancing rules‑of‑origin and cost trade‑offs.
When the latest round of tariffs landed in mid‑2025, the immediate industry response was not panic so much as pragmatism: retailers, manufacturers and their logistics partners are doubling down on supply‑chain resilience while trying to retain the agility that lets them react quickly to shifting trade policy.
“Tariffs have reshaped how companies approach supply‑chain planning and global sourcing,” Mike Short, president of global forwarding at C.H. Robinson, told DC Velocity in an email. “The conversation has evolved beyond a simple ‘China +1’ or ‘+2’ diversification model. What we’re seeing now is a more intentional, tiered sourcing hierarchy that prioritises geopolitical stability, business continuity, and cost efficiency.” That description captures a shift from tactical workarounds to strategic redesign: firms are reassessing sourcing origins, port choices, routing and even last‑mile solutions rather than applying one‑off fixes.
Consultancies and logistics providers say the pressure is both immediate and structural. Gemma Thompson, senior consultant at Proxima, told DC Velocity that higher tariffs increase cost pressure and “introduce continuity risks as businesses re‑evaluate their supplier relationships.” She warned that moves such as nearshoring to Mexico carry their own complexity — notably rules‑of‑origin exposures upstream — and urged companies to map full supply‑chain liabilities before making permanent shifts. Analysts who have followed nearshoring trends note the same trade‑offs: shorter, closer supply lines can improve visibility and lower transport risk, but they often require up‑front investment and do not automatically eliminate exposure to tariffs or supply constraints.
Logistics operators are translating these concerns into concrete services and advice. C.H. Robinson, which earlier this year announced expanded resources to help shippers navigate tariff uncertainty, has promoted risk‑scenario modelling, contingency planning and diversification support as core responses. In May 2025 the company unveiled a U.S. Tariff Impact Analysis tool it says allows importers to assess duty exposure at SKU level and compare sourcing alternatives. The firm frames such capabilities as ways to give customers clearer, faster data so they can decide whether to reroute freight, consolidate entries or pursue other mitigating steps; in its messages the company emphasises the role of visibility and analytics in enabling those choices.
Uber Freight has pushed a similarly practical, tactical agenda. Zeid Houssami, senior vice‑president and global head of freight forwarding at Uber Freight, told DC Velocity that “timing is everything” and urged shippers to lock production schedules, push factories to hit cargo‑ready dates and move goods before higher rates cascade through the system. The company’s guidance and public blog posts also recommend forward‑stocking in strategic locations, use of bonded warehouses or foreign‑trade zones, alternate routings and consolidation strategies — all intended to give importers flexibility while limiting immediate tariff exposure.
Those recommendations have been amplified by broader policy developments. On 31 July 2025 leaders from the US and Mexico agreed a 90‑day negotiating window while existing tariff rates remain in place, Euronews reported. The pause provides a degree of short‑term clarity — firms know current duties will continue for the next three months — but it does not remove the fundamental uncertainty that has driven corporate strategy changes. In practice, that means some companies may accelerate moves to alternative suppliers or additional inventory buffers, while others will wait to see if negotiations yield durable relief.
Industry voices describe a two‑part effect. In the short term, tariffs are “shocks to established supply networks and an inflationary ripple effect across industries,” Thompson told DC Velocity. In the medium term, they are forcing procurement leaders to be more deliberate: running “what if” scenarios, mapping supplier tiers several steps upstream, and embedding flexibility into contracts and logistics plans. Technology vendors and freight forwarders are responding with more sophisticated modelling tools and consulting services to help customers explore scenarios and reconfigure networks without halting operations.
Yet the fix is rarely straightforward. Nearshoring or “China‑plus‑X” strategies reduce transit time and some geopolitical exposure, but they can shift cost and capacity constraints rather than eliminate them. Rules‑of‑origin requirements, supplier ecosystems upstream of final assembly, and the capital needed to expand production in alternate geographies all complicate rapid transitions. As one industry piece put it, shorter supply chains can boost resilience but “companies must understand their full supply‑chain exposures and rules‑of‑origin implications before shifting sourcing to alternatives like Mexico or Latin America.”
For shippers the practical checklist is increasingly familiar: shore up visibility (ideally to SKU level), run rigorous tariff and duty modelling, lock production and cargo‑ready dates where possible, consider consolidation and alternate routings, and evaluate warehousing strategies that enable rapid response. Logistics providers say they are working “shoulder‑to‑shoulder” with customers to model scenarios and execute quickly; C.H. Robinson and Uber Freight in particular have marketed expanded tools and advisory services to help customers make those trade‑offs.
The upshot is a new normal in which resilience and agility are no longer competing priorities but complementary ones. Tariffs have added cost pressure and prompted some immediate re‑routing or inventory plays, but they have also accelerated a longer process of network redesign and digital adoption. Whether companies ultimately achieve lower risk at acceptable cost will depend on how well they can combine detailed, data‑driven analysis with practical operational changes — and how trade policy itself evolves beyond the coming negotiation windows.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
