Nota Bene Podcast Ep. 174
Decoupling the Supply Chain: How Global Business Is Coping with U.S. Regulations with Erika Trujillo of SEIA
Thank you for downloading this transcript.
Listen to the original podcast released June 18, 2025 here:
https://www.sheppard.com/notabene-638
In today’s episode, we’re joined by Erika Trujillo, Managing Director of SEIA GmbH. We discuss the impact of evolving U.S. export control regulations on global supply chains, particularly in Europe.
Our conversation explores the European response to aggressive U.S. extraterritorial regulation, how rules in the EU and the United States are diverging, and how multinational companies can best manage the strategic realignment with regard to China.
About Erika Trujillo
Erika Trujillo is the founder and Managing Director of SEIA, a global trade compliance data firm that leverages cutting-edge data analytics to manage risk. Before founding SEIA, Erika held a senior role at a Big Four consulting and law firm, where she advised clients on Foreign Trade Law, focusing on multi-jurisdictional export controls and sanctions.
Erika also served as the EMEA Trade Controls leader for a global automotive supplier and worked as an international trade specialist at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Throughout her career, she has led initiatives in digitizing trade compliance.
About Scott Maberry
Scott Maberry is an international trade lawyer. He counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation.
Scott’s practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements.
A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.
Transcript:
Scott Maberry:
Welcome to Sheppard Mullin's Nota Bene, a twice monthly podcast for the C-suite, where we tackle current, national and international headlines affecting multinationals doing business without borders. I'm your host, Scott Maberry. Let's get started. Welcome to episode 174 of the Nota Bene Podcast. I'm your host, Scott Maberry. My guest today is Erika Trujillo of SEIA. We're talking about how US export control regulations are changing the global supply chain, particularly in Europe. Before I introduce our guest, I'd like to thank our listeners in over 100 countries worldwide. We're glad you're tuning in and please keep feedback coming. It definitely influences our programming.
You can email me directly with your comments and suggestions. My email address is in the program description. My guest today is Erika Trujillo. She's the managing director and the founder of SEIA, the global trade compliance data firm. SEIA is a brilliant technology that uses world-class data analytics for trade compliance and risk management. Prior to launching SEIA, Erika was at one of the big four accounting firms where she advised clients in international trade law with a focus on multi-jurisdictional export controls and sanctions. Before that, she was an international trade specialist at the US Department of Commerce, among other things. Erika, welcome to Nota Bene.
Erika Trujillo:
Thank you so much for the invitation. I'm delighted to be here, Scott.
Scott Maberry:
It's great to be with you. Erika is an old friend and you'll learn a lot from her on this show. So, we've talked a lot about US National Security. And one recurring topic is the global reach of US regulation. It's an aggressive expansion of extraterritorial regulations promulgated by the United States, really since the 1990s. For companies doing business across borders, it requires constant attention to comply with these rules. And there's been a steady evolution of the mindset, in my client base at least. I used to liken it to the stages of dying with apologies to Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, as you're encountering these new and more aggressive US regulations all the time, especially if you're a global business. You kind of go through denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance, and depression.
One early anger response I want to talk about today was the ITAR-free manufacturing movement in the early 2000s. So, obviously ITAR refers to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. It was really a movement by non-US aerospace and defense companies. And they were basically forced to try to eliminate US components from their supply chains because of the difficulty of complying with the extraterritorial effects of US International Traffic in Arms Regulations. And that was ultimately solved to some extent by US Export Control Reform in the 2012 to maybe '18 timeframe. That was for military and space products. Now we've got a new development, and its development in commercial products.
There has been an aggressive increase in US commercial export controls since about 2017. The main target is China. And we've talked about this move by the United States in several of our shows, including episode 172 with John Meyer, episode 170 with Lisa Mays, and multiple episodes with our friend, Reid Whitten. So, you could check those out. The links will be in the program description. The latest response we're seeing is EAR-free manufacturing. So, the old response was ITAR-free movement where the companies were trying to avoid the application of the international traffic in arms regulations in their manufacturing of aerospace and defense products. Now, there's somewhat of a move.
We've seen this from several different clients in several different iterations, of trying to manufacture products outside the United States that aren't covered by the export administration regulations, which are the commercial export regulations in the United States. So, some of our clients have tried to figure out how to manufacture goods without any US inputs. And this is harder than it might seem because of a rule that we've talked about a lot on this show, the Foreign Direct Product Rule, which is really a constellation of US export control rules. And they've gotten more, and more, and more aggressively extraterritorial over the last few years.
And so, what it means is that if there's any US origin input of any kind, like technical data or software, or testing machines used for testing the products you're making, those inputs can subject the non-US made product to US export control regulations. So, it is very hard to comply with these rules, and some companies have started to think about whether they need to comply by just not having any US inputs. So, the question for global business for our audience is, do we continue to try to comply with these aggressive US export control rules, and how are European rules and US rules diverging or coming together, and how do we manage the strategic realignment with the United States and China as strategic adversaries? And Erika, that brings us to you. What are you seeing in your client base between the US and European sanctions in export controls? Is there a convergence or a divergence of the rules first?
Erika Trujillo:
Oh, Scott, there's already so many good points in here. So, first of all, to answer your immediate question, I think the answer is a little bit of both. And you and I have briefly touched on this in the past, but I would say that there's probably an increasing divergence in terms of the actual policies that we're seeing. So, of course, I think this is abundantly clear when we're looking at tariffs, when we're talking about some of the rules and restrictions that we have on China. Of course, there's nothing like a Foreign Direct Product Rule in Europe yet. So, I would say that the policies themselves are diverging. However, it's very, very interesting to see the convergence of mechanisms. So, how are we actually regulating export controls and sanctions? Those methodologies will say, are starting to look very American here in Europe.
Now, I've been over here more than a decade. And I remember when I first got here, people used to come to me all the time, how is the US applying extraterritorial law? Isn't that against international law? Why can they do this? How can they do this? And suddenly, we're now starting to see a lot of very extraterritorial reach-looking elements coming from the EU dual-use regulations, coming from a lot of the sanctions applications here in Europe. Of course, one recent example is the fact that EU operators are now responsible for applying best efforts to manage their subsidiaries, regardless of where those subsidiaries are in the world in terms of complying with Russia's sanctions.
And in addition to that, we're also starting to see some interesting movement in the area of strict liability. So, we've seen places like the UK already in the field of strict liability for things like sanctions violations. However, we're starting to see some also very, what I like to call interesting legal gymnastics in some of the other EU jurisdictions, like the Netherlands, where it's maybe stopping short of calling it explicitly strict liability. But let's just say those standards of knowledge are looking very interesting in terms of what you're actually required to be responsible for. So, in that way, I would say we're seeing a little bit of both, diverging policies, but really a convergence of how we're regulating those things.
And I think that becomes very interesting when we start talking about so many of the elements that you just brought up, especially this idea of going ITAR-free, going EAR-free. I think at this point we could just sum it up and say a lot of companies are trying to go US-free. So, not just eliminating, we'll say the US origin products that they have or components that they're integrating, but really trying to avoid any US nexus at all. And this is something that we see in our absolute daily business is companies scrambling to try to identify, okay, where is that US origin item that's missing a US ECCN, so we have a missed US reacts? Or how can we better identify risks of having US components that were maybe overlooked in our master data?
So, this is something that I think every company that we work with is dealing with on a daily basis. But we also see this, of course, in the defense industry as you mentioned earlier, really moving to completely US-free, especially if there are companies here in Europe that are delivering to Ukraine. Going US-free was almost cost of doing business to some extent to make sure that those processes could move smoothly on the European side.
Scott Maberry:
It's really interesting. And some of this I think is by design. The United States has spent some real time and diplomatic effort to proselytize certain methods of US export controls around the world. I think the original idea was probably, as I understood it, was to try to get the Europeans to align with the United States on what is going to be permitted to be exported to China, and Russia, and what's not. And so, there was that diplomatic effort. But I think one unintended consequence is that the more that the European regulators have looked at US regulations, the more they've thought, well, whether or not we align with US goals on certain export destinations, whether or not that's our policy, we can learn a lot from the way the United States regulates, because US regulation has always been years ahead of every other country's regulation.
We've just got a very sophisticated regulatory culture here, for better or for worse. And so, we've got a lot of people here who've been thinking about ways to make laws extraterritorial for decades. And so, it's not really surprising when you think about it, that there are other countries, including in Europe, who have started to learn how to make their laws extraterritorial.
Erika Trujillo:
I mean, it worked, right?
Scott Maberry:
It did work.
Erika Trujillo:
And I think especially when we start talking about things like strict liability, this idea of having, we'll say a very litigious legal culture and that being the way of regulating is very unusual here. However, I think especially when we're talking about sanctions violations, this idea of strict liability, to some extent it does work, because companies know that they are responsible for taking those additional steps, as opposed to just closing eyes and ears as soon as something leaves the physical territory of the border region, let's say. But I think this is why it's always so interesting, too. We'll say, compare the US legal system with the European legal system, because even though we're using so many of the same words, the legal culture behind them is, of course, very different, even in terms of what we consider to be territory.
The US is very conceptual, whereas until the last few years, Europe was very territorial. It was the physical ground that you were standing on, that was the territory of the country. But now we're starting, I think, to see as the world has become more globalized, as it's become more digital, the Europeans are slowly catching up to this idea that trade regulations and trade restrictions also to some extent need to be a little bit more conceptual, because that global trade is so interconnected internationally.
Scott Maberry:
It's true. And as you say, some of this is happening because it works. And we shouldn't overlook the international security aspect of all of this. Everybody will agree that there are certain threats out there, and there are certain actors that should not have access to certain sensitive and dangerous technologies. And by the way, I think my experience so far has been that the United States and Europe are mostly aligned most of the time, but there's some real divergences. I mean, the early examples were in the Cuba embargo. Europe didn't want to play along, and in fact passed laws throughout Europe that said it was unlawful to comply with the US-Cuba embargo, similarly to some extent with Iran, especially prior to the JCPOA. But now, it brings us to the US-China-EU realignment.
I mean, we've talked a lot on this show about how the 2017 first Trump administration national security strategy was the first policy document identifying China as a strategic national adversary to the United States, as opposed to a policy of engagement. And that has created kind of a system-wide response within US government and US regulation to deny China access to sensitive technologies. So, what's the you part of that? What's the strategic realignment mean that's happening specifically as regards China that you're seeing in the EU?
Erika Trujillo:
Yeah. This is a lot to unpack. So, I think, first, people often underestimate actually how serious some of the European member states have been taking the topic of China already for years. I think the best example of this is if you look at the German national security policy that was published, I believe it was two years ago, that also highlights China as the number one threat to we'll say national security here in Germany. I mean, it really is a very interesting read. I do recommend it. And I was a little bit shocked, actually, at how direct and aggressive that document was coming from a European member of state to really be talking about things like protecting intellectual property, as well as really focusing on a little bit of the national security elements of economics, in terms of building a comprehensive strategic policy.
So, I think that already as a starting point highlights the fact that the US and EU were not so far apart. I think, of course, now Europe has been a little bit more hesitant in terms of directly applying, we'll say sanctions or strict export controls on China in the same way that the US has, we'll say been a little bit more liberated to do in the past few years. But that's not to say that there haven't been, we'll say export controls and sanctions coming from the European side. I mean a lot of them were under the human rights bubble for a while, as that was a very, we'll say indirect way of applying that kind of lateral pressure. But I think that there was already, we'll say a fairly strong consensus in Europe that China was a threat in some areas of national security and economics.
Scott Maberry:
We'll link to that document and to the US National Security strategy in the program description here. It's really important to see where these policies are right now. And if you know that that's the policy, the national strategic policy of the country, it's a little easier to get your head around why there's so much regulation now coming, at least I can speak to the US side. The response to determination has been a conscious effort phrased by the last Trump administration as a whole of society response to the what's termed as a whole of society threat from China. So, I think those are really important documents to understand and it really helps us think about where we are right now in global kind of geopolitics.
And the question that that's raising in the minds of some big global multinationals, especially ones with a foot in Asia and a foot in the west, they're thinking, is there big divergence coming? Is there a real split coming where I'm going to have to someday choose between whether I'm going to do business with China or do business with the United States? We debate that around here all the time, and I'm interested in how you're seeing that debate playing out.
Erika Trujillo:
Yeah. This is very interesting and this is, of course, where becomes a little bit more political, we'll say, in terms of the kinds of emotions that are happening in response to the geopolitical changes. So, I think, like I said, a few years ago, there was a pretty strong consensus between the European member states and the US, in terms of where the focus of foreign policy was. However, that being said, I have seen what was maybe a reluctant but easy decision in the past, which was the EU would probably fall in line with the US, if push comes to shove. Reluctantly, but would've happened. To now a situation where you're right, there are a lot of companies that are sitting between the west and the US. And I know you often say it's hard to serve two masters. And that was always kind of the difficult challenge for companies.
How can I navigate between the rock and the hard place? How can I still do business in China, while still doing business in the United States? However, I think that reluctant but fairly straightforward decision, if anything, has become more difficult in the last, we'll say few months, because European companies are now having to, we'll say hedge their bets a little bit, especially if they're looking at quite frankly very unpredictable tariff situations with the US. Unpredictability is bad for business. If you cannot rely on the US as being a stable trading partner in the future, it's very hard to then give up your economic ties in China to support that kind of western alliance, if that is a very unpredictable western alliance. Because what these companies don't want to do is close the door on trade with China to then have tomorrow a door shut from the US and then they're in a real bind.
So, I think this is now becoming a very difficult decision for many companies to say, okay, how can we position ourselves, as you said, in some ways going US-free from a production point of view so that these options of still doing long-term business with China are available to them and that they still have some of these options, of course, of still doing business with the US, maybe in separate kind of trade conglomerations? So, I think in this case, the short answer to your question is it's becoming a more difficult decision between the US and China than I think it was a few years ago.
And I think until we start seeing the United States again as a safe, predictable, reliable market, it's going to be very difficult to ask European companies to walk away from China. If you're going to ask European companies to walk away from that China business, you need to give them somewhere to go. And ideally, that somewhere to go is friendly and safe from a business perspective.
Scott Maberry:
Well, and you raised the topic of tariffs. And we are going to have a show that's specifically dedicated to that, because it's so disruptive and so difficult right now. We have what I'm tongue in cheek calling the Sheppard Mullin CFO Tariff Call Participation Index, where if you look at the average percentage of tariff calls that I had with clients for the 30 years that I was in practice before this year, the percentage was 1% involving anybody from the C-suite. It's usually the shipping clerk, and me, and somebody talking about how to enter goods or do a valuation. And now, the average is about 100%. But I have multiple calls on tariffs per day. And most of those include at least one person from the C-suite, because we've lived in a zero tariff environment for our entire professional lifetimes. And now, the weighted average US tariff on goods imports is somewhere around 17 or 18% when you add it all together.
So, that's a major disruptor, but so is this whole thing about China and the strategic realignment. I don't want to overstate how close we are to an actual split between the United States and China, because the two economies are still extremely integrated. They're extremely closely tied, even despite all the disruptions. But the point you're making, and I think this kind of brings us to the next point I wanted to explore with you, is it was a very hard thing to do in the early 2020s, to comply with US law and still sell to China. Let's just put it that way. And today, people are still doing that, but it's even harder to do. There's more of a compliance challenge with that. So, let's talk about the compliance challenges. What are you seeing as the impact of these changes on companies trying to do business in the real world?
Erika Trujillo:
Yeah. I think a lot of this comes down to the intersection of trade compliance and business resilience. And I think, with the speed of change, of course, and really the high impact that the changes are having, whether it's tariffs or Russia sanctions, for example, I think a lot of companies had to wake up and realize that they need answers. And they need a trade compliance department that can be a strategic partner to the business and can deliver information that valuable for making, we'll say proactive investment decisions. It's not enough, just sit back and have your policies anymore. I know we've been saying that for years for operational reasons, but quite frankly now it's just too expensive to do that. And I think Russia was such, in some ways, a good test case for the resilience of so many of these organizations, because there are companies today that still do not have a handle over what is the real picture of their direct and indirect business with Russia.
They don't have an overview of, here's exactly my products that have HS codes subject to Russia sanctions. They're not sure which of their business partners are highest risk for that kind of business. So, I think that was a really good wake up call for trade compliance departments to say, we need to have transparency over our business, not just our little trade compliance function. But we really need to understand what's going on in the business. And we need a smarter way of proactively identifying where our risk exposure gaps are, so that if something happens tomorrow, we can immediately get that visibility. We can inform our leadership and we can make thoughtful decisions, because otherwise we're going to be wasting time, money, and resources for in some cases the next few years.
And I saw some very interesting statistical comparisons when the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened, where they were saying, here's the percentage of companies that did business with Russia. And they were showing the percentages of what that business represented for many of these companies. Now, of course, there are some companies that were very specialized in Russia business and that was quite difficult for them. But for many companies, this was a portion of their portfolio. Now, if we imagine the same kind of scenario was to happen with China, this is catastrophic for most companies. So, I think, in this case, we really need to see companies taking a two-pronged approach. One is absolutely getting the transparency over the business. And quite often, that usually means data.
What are they actually doing from a transactional point of view? What are the core areas of risk exposure? And how can they proactively deal with them? And then on the flip side of this is something I recommend to many of my clients, is that they kind of take that insight, and that information and they go call someone like you and say, "Okay, Scott, based on what we understand about our business, based on our operational gaps and based on some of the kind of regulatory risk exposure areas we have, whether that's from a compliance, non-compliance point of view, or actually as we said earlier, that US nexus in their business, how do we deal with this? What are our options? How should we be maybe changing the way we think about things in a way that's obviously compliant, but going to give us the best business resilience going forward?"
So, I don't have a better term for it, but maybe doing some simulations in terms of what are the potential impacts. And how can we leverage this insight to really make sure that our business is prepared for whatever that worst case scenario is, so if tomorrow I wake up and the news has changed, I just take this stack of papers out of my desk and if it's something else, I take that stack out? And I think I would love to hear a little bit of the experience that you've had in terms of running these different simulations for clients, and really helping them take a very strategic and proactive approach to some of the geopolitical changes.
Scott Maberry:
Well, the first thing you've got to do is know your data. And so, for our audience, I think the key takeaway for this part of the conversation is that as this compliance challenge gets more and more difficult, the old ways that we used to do compliance are less and less effective. Before the age of good data analytics, we were kind of forced to eyeball risk, and figure out what we thought the patterns of diversion might be, and how we might write terms and conditions in our contracts to minimize the risks of those things. And those are still important tools, but they're not as deep as the tools that you really need to understand it, especially now, especially if you're doing business across borders in goods or services, and especially if you're at all China exposed. So, your point I think about data is really right.
And for our listeners, it's not an ad for SEIA, but it's going to point you to them. And if you're not using some kind of analytics that can read all of the different data that your business is creating. Because remember, your business is creating massive, massive mountains of data. And it's not good enough to get me or your CFO, or your shipping clerk to try to sort through that data. We don't have the processing power. So, you need algorithms to start looking at those things. You need them to be able to talk to each other. You need to be able to read them all.
And then you have an output that says, okay, we've got some risk right here. And then the lawyers can help you write really, really targeted strategies for those things. And sometimes that's a better contract, and sometimes that's an export control license or sometimes that's a discussion with a regulator. But we can have much, much more focused responses, and by the way, much more dollar-efficient responses if we have a little bit more transparency and a little bit more access to data. And fortunately, we live in an age of data miracles right now, and your company is just one example of that.
Erika Trujillo:
Yeah. No, Scott, I think you make such a good point when it comes to how we can best utilize our time and resources effectively, because I think one thing is universally true, and that's trade compliance officers are working unbelievably hard. The resources are always on the decline and the liability is always on the increase. So, I have been a trade compliance officer myself for many years in the German automotive industry, so I understand what it's like to really be under that pressure that you have to do more with less. And this is really where I think we can be good partners to our business organizations, if we are making sure that I'm having the biggest impact on my risk exposure with the least amount of effort, because I don't have six months anymore to do a risk assessment. I need to know every single day what the new risk assessment is to keep up.
And I don't want to waste my precious budget having my lawyers do work that's also not maybe interesting for them. I want to be really using that time and using those resources effectively to really engage with my law firms and say, okay, how can we make good investment decisions? How can I proactively target risk? How can I deal with this maybe critical issue that we identified? And I really want to make sure that I am using the full brain power of my law firms to be doing the really impactful work. And I think that's where there's this nice partnership between partner using your data internally, becoming a more strategic trade compliance function, but then also being able to really effectively use outside counsel.
Scott Maberry:
I think there's a big takeaway here for CFOs and chief legal officers about the way you're using your outside compliance resources and your internal compliance team, too. There's an older model that I used to be a very big proponent of, which is engage me for a six-month risk assessment. Pay me the hourly rate of thousands of dollars an hour to do that. And we will give you the best idea you can get of what your risk is, and then we won't focus a lot of additional legal time on the low-risk stuff. We'll take the high-risk stuff and really start to mitigate that. But you can eliminate a big part of that first step because of the processing power and the power of data that we didn't really have access to even just a few years ago. So, the whole idea has changed.
And in a way, I think in a very big way, it's an improvement from the perspective of the CFO and the chief legal officer. You're not going to spend, I would say less on compliance. In fact, you might have to just continue to try to get more resources for this. But you're going to have a way better allocation of those expenditures between really high volume, really high output, really refined data analytics, and then a little less of spend on legal work. But as you point out, for my team that's a benefit, because then we're really focused on where we can help. We're really adding value. And the more of that kind of really high value work that we can do, the better for our group and the better for our clients.
Erika Trujillo:
Well, it means you actually getting value out of your trade compliance department, aside from just checking the regulatory box. And I think that's something that a lot of, I hope, C-suite officers are starting to realize, is that the trade compliance department can be a wealth of information and insight in terms of, as we've discussed earlier, things like making good investment decisions. If you're the CFO, you want to make sure that those resources are not only allocated efficiently, but that you're also getting value delivered back to the organization. And if that's in terms of really understanding how to build your supply chain so that they're going to be more resilient going forward, if there is a crisis, you are way faster to adapt to that crisis. These are all of the kinds of things that not only save money, but actually deliver, we'll say inefficiency in terms of the operations of the business and that we see this especially with our customs clients.
But of course, for export controls and sanctions, I think it's the same. So, for me, this really highlights, I would say, kind of two core trends. The first is this move towards trade compliance being more strategic and more proactive. But the second is this move towards how trade compliance can actually deliver value back to the organization. And I think, again, if I'm using my legal counsel, I can get so much more value out of that relationship in terms of building a strong company, not just building strong trade compliance processes. So, I think you're absolutely right. I think it's in some ways a very positive change, because we have answers if we do this correctly. And I think it's great that trade compliance is really being brought to the table, or in some cases the CFO being brought to your table. I think that's a very positive change in our industry.
Scott Maberry:
Yeah. It certainly is. And so, if you're a chief compliance officer, there's a takeaway here for you, too, which is that there's a way to move your organization into a more strategic position within the company. And there are even ways this is starting to point to ways to make the trade controls function a real contributor to the bottom line of the company, because you've got access to a lot of data, and you've got reasons to look at those data and really think about what they mean. And you've got resources out there now who are able to get this data and put it all in one place where you can start to see it and see what it means for your company.
Erika Trujillo:
Exactly. And then start really demanding, we'll say metrics from your trade compliance department that are directly relevant for different C-suite functions, whether that's for the CFO, the CEO, or if that's, of course, for your general counsel. I think you really can be demanding these kinds of answers from those departments if they have the right infrastructure. So, I'm really interested to see how that kind of develops, we'll say in that relationship. But certainly, I think it's a great opportunity for the C-suite to not only start to really grasp what these industry topics mean for their functions, but really would say get a little bit of control in the chaos of what's going on today.
But if I had one kind of strong recommendation, it would be don't wait until tomorrow to try to sort those things out, because I think the complexity of our relationship with China from a US perspective is only going to get a little bit more of a quagmire than it already is now. And I think for the European companies that are sitting in between the two, they absolutely should be proactively having these discussions with their outside counsel to really understand what those legal impacts could be in different scenarios. Because again, that's the only way that I think the businesses are going to be resilient to kind of tumultuous changes.
Scott Maberry:
Well, and we've now brought it full circle, because we started out talking about geopolitics and the convergence and divergence of regulation, and how the US-EU-China triangle is playing out in global politics, and international relations and international security. And then we talked about how that affected the company and what the response really should be. And that kind of means that we started thinking about the convergence between the real-world situations that companies are now facing that have gotten way more complex, and the fact that we've gotten much more sophisticated tools to deal with the data within our companies to help confront some of those realities. So, I think we'll leave it there. Erika, it's been a real pleasure having you with us. And so, thank you so much for your time.
Erika Trujillo:
Thank you so much, Scott, for the invitation. It was lovely being here.
Contact Information:
Additional Resources
2017 U.S. National Security Strategy
* * *
Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to FOLLOW the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week.
If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.
Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns:
This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.