Dominic Bianchi is an international trade lawyer with extensive experience as the former General Counsel of the U.S. International Trade Commission and several years at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. This background shapes his legal and strategic counsel on international trade policy to support companies in intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices or regulatory challenges.

Dominic’s practice covers all facets of unfair trade litigation and trade remedy advocacy. With a deep understanding of the complexities of trade law, he represents clients in high-stakes disputes and provides strategic guidance on navigating regulatory challenges. Dominic’s practice includes advising on trade remedy actions, ensuring compliance with export control regulations and managing the implications of economic sanctions.

Dominic has extensive experience as general counsel, lawyer and congressional liaison. During his decade as general counsel, he successfully managed the ITC’s complex litigation before U.S. courts and international dispute settlement tribunals, building an agency affirmance rate nearing 90 percent before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and provided guidance to the commission in investigations involving allegations of patent, trademark and copyright infringement, antidumping and countervailing duty and global safeguard investigations under the Trade Act of 1974. Prior to serving at the ITC, he served both Ambassadors Michael Kantor and Charlene Barshefsky as the Acting Assistant USTR for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison and Congressional Relations Specialist. Through his extensive experience, Dominic helps clients effectively address legal and regulatory issues in a rapidly evolving global trade environment.

Education

  • Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1997)
    • Northwestern University (B.S., 1991)

      Bar Admission

      • District of Columbia

      Court Admissions

      • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
      • U.S. Court of International Trade

      Professional Affiliations

      • Customs and International Trade Bar Association
      • Federal Circuit Bar Association
      • ITC Trial Lawyers Association
      • Georgetown Law International Trade Update (Advisory Board)
      Publications
      All Publications
      Tariff Heat Wave: Importers Face New Section 301 Proposals, Section 232 Risk and Heightened Customs Enforcement
      The summer tariff landscape is developing quickly. As Section 122 duties approach their July 24, 2026 expiration, the Administration is advancing alternative mechanisms to preserve, replace or supplement the current duty structure. For businesses, the central issue is no longer whether a single tariff applies, but how multiple tariff programs could overlap. Several recent proposals contemplate duties that would apply in addition to other applicable duties unless an exemption applies. In this report, we review 10 key tariff and trade developments shaping tariff exposure, supply-chain planning and customs compliance, and offer practical steps importers should consider now to assess cumulative duty exposure and prepare for potential changes. Read the Report
      Read More
      U.S. Court of International Trade Invalidates Trump Section 122 Global Tariffs, the Administration Appeals, and Tariffs Likely Will Remain in Effect for Most Importers
      Key Takeaways The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) invalidated President Trump’s Section 122 10% tariffs, holding that the Administration exceeded the authority delegated by Congress under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Administration has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CIT’s injunction is limited. The court granted relief only to the plaintiffs – the State of Washington, Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun! – and declined to issue nationwide relief. The tariffs remain in place for most importers pending appeal, and continue to apply broadly unless additional importers seek and obtain relief. The decision increases pressure on the Administration to pivot to alternative statutory authorities, including Section 301 and Section 232, for
      Read More