2026 Global Enforcement Trends to Watch Out For

Trade enforcement has changed more in just the past few years than in the previous decade. The data that regulators have access to, the advanced science they can use to test products, and the legal mechanisms available to pursue non-compliance are catching up with companies that thought they were doing enough to avoid the government’s increased scrutiny.

In our recent Global Enforcement Trends webinar hosted in partnership with AAFA, Ana Hinojosa, Oritain’s Executive Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs and former U.S. CBP Executive Director, shared her perspective on where global trade enforcement is headed and what companies need to do to stay compliant. 

Here are the key takeaways from the webinar.

UFLPA enforcement is not slowing down

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) is now close to four years into implementation. While enforcement activity naturally ebbs and flows based on available resources, the underlying scrutiny on high-risk supply chains remains firmly in place.

Companies are already seeing a resurgence of Customs Form 28 (CF-28) requests for information, with some receiving CF-29 decisions without a 28 being issued first.

For any supply chain touching high-risk origins or entities on the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) entity list, the presumption of forced labor still stands. If anything, the government’s tools for detecting violations have only gotten sharper.

Regulators have more visibility than ever before

Many companies underestimate how much the government already knows before a shipment is even questioned. Departure information from exporting countries, transit data as goods route through intermediate countries, arrival details, and carrier information is available to the government and the enforcement agencies are exchanging that information with each other, across departments and borders. 

Governments are also using AI to detect patterns that would have taken months to identify manually.

Cotton remains a closely watched commodity

The Buying American Cotton Act (BACA), a bipartisan bill introduced in both the Senate and House, proposes tax credits for companies selling products made with U.S.-grown cotton. To qualify for the credit, companies would need to verify and document the origin of their cotton. 

Separately, emerging provisions in the US-Bangladesh agreement may offer duty-free treatment for goods containing U.S. cotton. 

Both developments point in the same direction: the ability to verify and document cotton origin is becoming a commercial and regulatory necessity.

The False Claims Act: An 1863 law with very modern consequences

Originally signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to allow civilians to file fraud claims on behalf of the U.S. government, the False Claims Act (FCA), with a financial incentive built in, is seeing a dramatic resurgence. Whistleblowers who bring a successful case can receive between 20 and 30% of penalties the government collects. 

In 2024, most FCA cases settled for under $20 million. By 2025, six cases exceeded $100 million in penalties each with one whistleblower alone receiving nearly $10 million from a $54 million settlement.

The most common violations driving these cases are:

• Country of origin misstatements, particularly as free trade agreements create financial incentives to misrepresent origin
• Misclassification to avoid Section 301 tariffs
• Failure to properly mark goods

CBP can verify the origin of raw materials

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has set up its own isotopic labs across the US, which means the agency can physically test goods to determine where raw materials originated, independent of any documentation provided. 

AI and data analytics allow the government to detect anomalies in trade patterns almost in real time. 

For example, when anti-dumping duties were imposed on mattresses from China, exports from China dropped almost immediately, while a country with no prior history of mattress production suddenly began shipping significant volumes to the US. These kinds of patterns get flagged and investigated.

The EU is moving in the same direction – they are already using isotopic testing for timber and expanding forensic capabilities for anti-dumping and countervailing duty enforcement. Across both markets, objective and verifiable evidence of origin is increasingly the baseline expectation.

Growing transshipment risk

Transshipment and fraudulent Free Trade Agreement (FTA) qualifications are among the highest-priority areas for enforcement. As trade agreements multiply and duty benefits grow, so does the incentive to misrepresent where goods originate.

The US government has made clear it will continue to pursue these cases, and enforcement actions are becoming more public.

What companies should do now

The starting point is getting the fundamentals right. 

1. Audit your operations. Importers should conduct a thorough audit of their country-of-origin determinations, classification, and valuation. When government agencies review one of these areas, they typically examine all three. Finding a gap in one shipment is an invitation to look more closely at the other shipments.

2. Do not rely on supplier certificates alone. A long-standing relationship with a supplier is valuable, but it does not substitute for verification. Trust but verify, even partners you have worked with for 20 years.

3. Prioritize record keeping. This is a significant gap for many importers and customs brokers, and it’s one the government will use. Get your documentation in order now.

4. Know your exposure to the FCA. The Customs Modernization Act of 1993 places the burden of reasonable care squarely on importers. Relying on a supplier’s word, without taking steps to validate it, may not be a sufficient defense.