7 Trade Compliance Priorities Emerging from the AAEI 105th Annual Conference

One advantage of working the booth at a conference is that you hear what people are really worried about, and sometimes those concerns tell you more than the presentations themselves.

During the three days I spent at the American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) 105th Annual Conference, I spoke with compliance professionals from organizations of every size. Although their businesses were different, many asked the same questions: Will the BIS Affiliate Rule return? How should we screen for sanctioned ownership? Is AI ready to improve import classification? What role can foreign trade zone (FTZ) software play in an increasingly complex trade environment? How can we reduce organizational friction surrounding export licensing?

Those conversations, combined with the conference sessions and hallway discussions, made it clear that while regulations continue to evolve, the pressure on compliance teams keeps growing. Organizations are being asked to navigate geopolitical risk, heightened enforcement expectations, export licensing challenges, forced labor requirements, and the need to operate efficiently—often all at the same time. When that many people are circling the same issues, it usually means the industry is collectively preparing for what comes next.

Here are the seven trade compliance priorities I brought home from this year’s conference, and why I believe they’ll continue shaping the future of trade compliance programs long after AAEI 105 concluded.

1. Import and Export Compliance Risks Are Converging

One of the clearest themes I took away from AAEI was the growing overlap between import and export compliance priorities.

From Congressman Juan Ciscomani’s opening remarks to discussions throughout the event, speakers emphasized collaboration between government and industry to promote both security and prosperity. Supporting those goals increasingly calls for a more holistic view of trade compliance.

Geopolitical tensions, tariffs, forced labor regulations, sanctions programs, and export controls are becoming more interconnected. A single transaction can raise questions about sourcing, ownership, restricted parties, tariff exposure, and end use.

Forced labor compliance is a good example. It is often discussed primarily as an import concern because of UFLPA enforcement and the detention of goods at the border. However, identifying forced labor exposure depends on capabilities that support broader trade compliance programs, including supplier screening, ownership visibility, and ongoing due diligence.

Regardless of where individual policies evolve, the broader direction points to a continued rise in trade compliance expectations, and organizations need programs that can demonstrate consistent due diligence and defensible decision-making.

For importers and exporters, that means gaining clearer visibility across parties, suppliers, ownership relationships, shipments, and transactions instead of evaluating each requirement in isolation.

2. Export Controls Continue to Expand in Complexity

Export controls remain one of the fastest-moving areas of trade compliance, and that uncertainty was reflected in many of the questions I heard throughout the conference.

During the session with Descartes’ Jackson Wood, several attendees asked when the BIS Affiliate Rule would return. Jackson’s view was that renewed activity could come as early as the fourth quarter, potentially around November 2026. The same concern surfaced at the booth, where exporters were already thinking through what a change could mean for their current restricted party screening processes.

That possibility adds urgency. Geopolitical tensions, national security priorities, emerging technology, and shifts in global trade relationships can trigger new restrictions, licensing requirements, and enforcement expectations with limited lead time for organizations to adjust. Waiting until the pause is lifted may leave teams scrambling to identify affected entities, update screening logic, retrain users, and review existing business relationships.

Keeping pace increasingly depends on having processes that can adapt as regulations change, rather than treating each new rule as a separate compliance exercise.

3. Export Licensing Is Still Slowed by Internal Bottlenecks

One of the most practical and relatable discussions I attended was the session on export licensing from Descartes’ Jackson Wood. Rather than focusing solely on trade regulations, he addressed the operational challenges surrounding export licensing itself.

Lengthy approval cycles, manual coordination between departments, incomplete information, and internal handoffs often create delays that impact both compliance and business performance. In many organizations, executing decisions around export license determinations, applications, approvals, provisos, renewals, expirations, and the administrative bottlenecks that accompany them become just as significant as the export licensing requirements themselves.

Image 1: Descartes’ Jackson Wood Presentation on Improving Export Licensing Efficiency During AAEI’s Rapid Fire session.

What I found particularly telling was the audience engagement during the session. Many attendees wanted Jackson’s perspective on the return of the BIS Affiliate Rule and what it could mean for Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) licensing obligations. The volume of questions highlighted just how much global trade uncertainty organizations are trying to navigate right now.

Interestingly, the timing couldn’t be better, at the same time exporters are preparing for operational changes, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) is rolling out updates to the Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS) portal, with launch activities expected at the end of August.

This is an area where preparation can make a meaningful difference. Descartes customers already have direct access to submit and manage DOS export license applications through DECCS using Descartes OCR Global EASE™, and our platform has already been updated to align with the upcoming DECCS changes, helping minimize disruption during the transition.

Beyond operational efficiency, the importance of getting export licensing right was reinforced just days before the conference when BIS announced a multimillion-dollar enforcement settlement involving exports to a restricted Chinese company. According to BIS, the company had several opportunities to avoid the violations had it exercised the “increased vigilance” the agency expects of exporters.

The lesson for me here is that export licensing has become a strategic compliance and business capability that depends on accurate export classifications, strong denied party screening practices, efficient workflows, accurate records, and the ability to adapt quickly when regulations and government systems change.

4. Sanctions and Ownership Screening Are Receiving Greater Attention

Another topic that came up repeatedly,  both during sessions and at our booth  was sanctioned ownership. Organizations are increasingly recognizing that traditional denied party screening is only one layer of sanctions due diligence. Understanding who ultimately owns or controls a business—and how that business connects to a broader network of suppliers, affiliates, and counterparties—is just as important.

Questions about indirect ownership, OFAC 50 Percent Rule, supplier/counterparty networks, affiliate relationships, and evolving BIS requirements suggest that compliance teams know their screening programs need to identify the sanctions risks that don’t always appear as a direct name match on a watchlist.

If you’re interested in how ownership and network visibility can affect real-world enforcement outcomes, our recent analysis of a $275 million OFAC settlement involving a multinational energy company explores how sanctions exposure can remain hidden even when traditional screening and documentation appear sufficient

As regulatory expectations continue to shift toward a more data-driven enforcement landscape, screening across the full ownership chain to gain deeper visibility is critical to actively managing compliance risk.

5. Forced Labor Enforcement Continues to Intensify

In many ways, forced labor compliance has become one of the clearest examples of trade compliance convergence in action. Discussions at AAEI highlighted how closely supply chain transparency now connects import and export compliance risks.

Michael Stumo of the Office of Management and Budget noted that forced labor-related tariffs and enforcement actions have deep historical roots and emphasized that continued regulatory scrutiny is expected. That focus is already visible in CBP activity. Since the UFLPA took effect in 2022, billions of dollars in shipments have been stopped for further review or enforcement.

For importers, that means supplier due diligence, supply chain visibility, and documentation remain critical to strengthening UFLPA compliance efforts, preventing CBP detentions, and meeting other global forced labor regulations. Organizations need greater confidence in the information supporting their sourcing decisions.

Equally important for exporters is understanding their supply chains and demonstrating responsible sourcing practices, as increasingly expected by customers, partners, regulators, and investors. The same visibility required to assess forced labor risk can also support sanctions compliance, ownership screening, third-party risk management, and broader trade compliance objectives.

6. Tariffs Are Driving Compliance and Operational Decisions

Tariffs—and particularly the continued discussion around Section 232 measures—were a recurring topic in almost every major session I attended. The conversation wasn’t only about tariff rates; it centered on how changing trade policy influences sourcing strategies, manufacturing decisions, FTZ utilization, trade compliance processes, and long-term operational planning.

One particularly interesting point raised during the conference was that expanding FTZ capacity can take years. That challenge explains why there was considerable interest at our booth in FTZ software and tools that can help organizations better manage changing trade requirements.

Beyond the tariff implications themselves, shifts in trade policy also increase exposure to sanctions, export controls, and denied party risks. As organizations qualify new suppliers, expand into different markets, or restructure supply chains to mitigate tariffs, they also introduce new business relationships and jurisdictions that need to be screened. We recently explored this connection in more detail in an article that examines why tariff mitigation strategies should be accompanied by stronger denied party screening and broader trade risk management.

Another important development to keep on the radar is HS 2028, which will include 299 amendment sets that will affect tariff classification, trade remedies, free trade agreement eligibility, and other aspects of compliance. Learn more in our expert overview about the upcoming HS 2028 changes and what they mean for global trade compliance and classification strategies.

7. Compliance and Business Efficiency Must Move Together

Perhaps the biggest AAEI takeaway  for me was that compliance professionals are under increasing pressure to accomplish two objectives that are often viewed as competing priorities: strengthening compliance while keeping legitimate trade moving.

That balance came up repeatedly in discussions around export licensing, ownership screening, AI-assisted import classification, Foreign Trade Zones, AI/ML powered review adjudication, and evolving enforcement expectations.

Image 2. From L-R: Trade Compliance Experts Max Elias, Jackson Wood, and Rajeev Malhotra at Descartes’ AAEI 105 Booth.

Interest in technologies like AI-assisted import classification also reflected a broader trend toward using automation to improve compliance efficiency while managing increasingly complex import requirements.

The organizations making the most progress are looking for ways to build trade compliance into everyday business processes so they can respond faster, reduce manual effort, and adapt more confidently as regulations change.

What Should Trade Compliance Teams Do Next?

Based on the conversations and themes that emerged throughout AAEI 105, there are several actions organizations can consider taking now:

Make Global Trade Happen with End-to-End Trade Compliance Visibility and Control

As trade compliance becomes more interconnected, organizations need technology that connects it. Descartes helps compliance teams bring together screening, licensing, classification, supply chain visibility, and risk intelligence into a single, coordinated approach.

Organizations rely on our comprehensive capabilities to derisk global trade operations and act with greater confidence, including:

AAEI 105 reinforced that modern trade compliance extends far beyond individual regulations or isolated business functions. I found that organizations are looking for connected processes, reliable information, and experienced partners that can help them respond to today’s challenges while preparing for what’s next.

With Descartes, organizations can strengthen compliance, reduce operational friction, and stay better positioned to make global trade happen safely, efficiently, and responsibly.

Want to future-proof your trade compliance program? Let’s continue the conversation. Book a personalized demo with me or reach out for more information on how our solutions can help your organization manage today’s interconnected trade compliance challenges.