As the global trading system closes one of its most transformational years in decades, it enters 2026 facing renewed threats to stability and growth. While headline trade volumes have shown resilience through 2025, deeper structural shifts suggest that the coming year may prove far more volatile.
Merchandise trade worldwide held up better than many expected in 2025, even as US President Donald Trump intensified protectionist policies and erected a broad tariff wall around the world’s largest economy. Data cited by shipping industry veteran shows global container volumes rose 2.1% year-on-year in October.
Yet this aggregate strength masks important divergences. US inbound container volumes fell by 8 per cent, while imports into Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and India expanded robustly. These contrasting trends show how global trade flows are being reshaped rather than simply reduced.
Global container supply chains have already begun to adapt and reconfigure trading patterns. After the US recorded a 15.2% surge in container imports in 2024, the sharp reversal in 2025 represents a dramatic shift. Trump’s trade threats were a central catalyst for this rewiring. If 2025 was the year tariffs were imposed, then 2026 is likely to be the year their consequences fully materialise.
Other trade experts broadly agree, warning that several unresolved fault lines could converge in the year ahead. The United States, Canada, and Mexico are preparing to review the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the North American free-trade deal that took effect in 2020. The talks will break new ground, as the agreement includes a novel provision mandating a review after just six years.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told lawmakers that the government received more than 1,500 public submissions ahead of the review. While many stakeholders support extending the agreement, nearly all called for changes. That creates a dilemma. Any “improvement” sought by one member risks disadvantaging another, setting the stage for contentious negotiations.
The timing is particularly sensitive, as Canadian and Mexican industries are already under pressure from US import taxes. Relations between Washington and Ottawa have further deteriorated since Trump abruptly ended bilateral trade talks in October, following Canadian anti-tariff advertisements invoking Ronald Reagan.
The shipping industry faces its own set of potential shocks in 2026, developments that might appear positive on the surface but could ultimately destabilise supply chains. One is a possible full return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal route between Asia and Europe. Attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels have subsided since an October Gaza peace plan, allowing some carriers, including CMA CGM and AP Moller-Maersk, to cautiously resume transits.
However, according to Lars Jensen, chief executive of Vespucci Maritime, a mass return to the shorter route would suddenly inject excess capacity into the market, likely triggering severe port congestion in Europe.
A second risk lies in demand. If the US economy accelerates in 2026 as Trump administration officials predict, supported by lower interest rates and an investment boom, companies may rush to rebuild inventories. Such a surge could overwhelm shipping networks already strained by years of rerouting and inefficiency.
Another source of uncertainty stems from the nature of the Trump administration’s recent trade agreements. While the White House has touted deals struck with several major economies in 2025, these arrangements differ sharply from traditional trade agreements.
Most lack binding enforcement mechanisms, detailed legal frameworks, or long-term guarantees. The temporary truce with China, lasting just one year, leaves the US’s most imbalanced trading relationship fundamentally unresolved.
These weaknesses raise the risk that deals could unravel, particularly if Beijing applies pressure on countries seen as aligning too closely with Washington. Recent developments illustrate the fragility. Indonesia has resisted US demands it views as limiting its policy independence, even as it moves toward a late-January agreement. China has lodged complaints with Malaysia and Cambodia over their trade deals with the US, warning against actions that undermine Chinese interests.
Even long-standing allies are not immune. In recent remarks such as unresolved disputes with the European Union and India, signalling that contentious negotiations will spill into 2026. His office has also threatened retaliation against the EU over what Washington deems excessive regulation of American technology firms.
Perhaps the biggest uncertainty looming over 2026 is a pending US Supreme Court ruling on the legality of Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs. These broad levies, imposed on most major trading partners, are central to the administration’s trade strategy.
If the court rules against the government, the implications could be profound. One key question is whether importers would be entitled to refunds for tariffs already paid, an outcome officials say would be administratively difficult to execute. Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, has suggested widespread refunds are unlikely even in the event of a loss.
Betting markets currently assign roughly a 75% chance that Trump will lose the case. That would likely push the administration to seek alternative legal authorities to maintain tariffs, prolonging uncertainty for businesses and trading partners alike.
Taken together, these factors suggest that global trade in 2026 will be shaped less by outright collapse than by fragmentation, legal ambiguity, and uneven adjustment. Global supply chains are proving adaptable, but adaptation comes at a cost such as higher volatility, shifting alliances, and persistent uncertainty for companies planning investments and sourcing strategies.
As tariffs move from threat to consequence, and temporary deals replace durable rules, the risk is not just slower trade growth, but a trading system that becomes less predictable and more politically fragile. In that environment, resilience may no longer be enough.
