Resources

On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that all tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, holding that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Court did not address the issue of refunds, leaving that question to be resolved by the U.S. Court of International Trade. For more details on the status of refund litigation, see the Special Topic section.

In response to the ruling, the Trump Administration took the following immediate actions:

• Ended all tariffs imposed under IEEPA and the collection of IEEPA duties, effective February 24, 2026 (Executive Order and CSMS # 67834313).
• Imposed a temporary 10 percent additional tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective February 24 through 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24. The Section 122 tariff includes several exceptions, including: products listed in Annex II that were previously also exempt from the Reciprocal tariffs; USMCA-compliant goods from Canada and Mexico; DR-CAFTA textiles and apparel; products subject to existing or future Section 232 tariffs (applies only to metal content for steel, aluminum, and copper); and donations and informational materials. Duty drawback and Chapter 98 exemptions are available (Proclamation and CSMS # 67844987).
• Continued the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments from all countries, including for goods shipped through the international postal system, which will be subject to the temporary import duty imposed under Section 122 in place of the terminated IEEPA tariffs (Executive Order and CSMS # 67845486).

Virginia businesses should continue to monitor tariff developments closely. The Trump Administration has indicated that it may increase the temporary tariff to 15 percent, although no such change has been formally implemented to date. The Administration also intends to use other statutory authorities, including Sections 301 and 232, to replace the IEEPA tariffs.

The Trump Administration launched two new investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, laying the groundwork for potential new import tariffs to replace the IEEPA tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court in February.

On March 11, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a Section 301 investigation into the acts, policies, and practices of certain trading partners related to structural excess capacity and manufacturing production. The investigation covers the following trading partners: China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.

USTR cited numerous sectors in these economies where export levels are high. These vary by country and include steel, aluminum, non-ferrous metals, automobiles and auto parts, batteries, cement, chemicals, electronics, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, machinery, information technology products, semiconductors, energy products, footwear, textiles and apparel, furniture, plastics, processed food and beverages, and ships and vessels, among others.

On March 12, USTR initiated a second Section 301 investigation covering 60 trading partners, relating to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. The targeted economies include all 16 subject to the March 11 structural excess capacity investigation, as well as an additional 44 economies.

Virginia companies operating in the affected sectors or doing business with the countries under investigation should monitor the investigations and consider whether to submit written comments, which are due by April 15 for both investigations.

For more information, click here and here.

Over the past quarter, the United States has signed Agreements on Reciprocal Trade with six countries, including Bangladesh, Taiwan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, and Ecuador.

Under the first five agreements, the U.S. committed to offering a reduced Reciprocal tariff rate (since terminated), along with certain product- and sector-specific exemptions. Under the agreement with Ecuador—signed after the termination of the Reciprocal tariffs—the U.S. committed to provide “preferential” treatment for originating goods of Ecuador in future tariff actions, excluding antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD), Section 232 (national security), and Section 201 (safeguards) tariffs. In addition, the U.S. will apply only the most-favored-nation (MFN) rate of duty to certain goods from Ecuador.

In return, partner countries made a range of commitments that could benefit U.S. exporters once implemented. 

These commitments include, among others: eliminating or lowering tariffs on a wide range of U.S. exports; refraining from imposing quotas on U.S. goods; avoiding discriminatory value-added taxes or digital taxes; refraining from imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions; easing import licensing requirements for U.S. products; accepting U.S. or internationally recognized testing standards; refraining from restricting U.S. market access based solely on the use of certain cheese and meat terms; and ensuring that state-owned enterprises do not discriminate against U.S. goods or services in their commercial activities.

Although the agreements have been signed, none have yet entered into force.

• For the U.S.-Guatemala Agreement and tariff schedule, click here.
• For the U.S.-El Salvador Agreement and tariff schedule, click here.
• For the U.S.-Taiwan Agreement, click here. To read the tariff schedule, click here.
• For the U.S.-Argentina Agreement, click here. To read the tariff schedule, click here.
• For the U.S.-Bangladesh Agreement, click here. To read the tariff schedule, click here.
• For the U.S.-Ecuador Agreement, click here. To read the tariff schedule, click here. 

In 2025, Virginia exported just over $1 billion in goods to these six countries, approximately 75 percent of which went to Taiwan. Once these agreements enter into force, exporters may see increased market access to these destinations. However, the elimination of the IEEPA reciprocal tariffs and the imposition of the Section 122 tariffs in some instances caused tariff rates agreed in these arrangements to be higher, and sometimes to be lower. It is not clear if or how the agreements on reciprocal trade (ART) will be implemented. This new threat of tariffs is reportedly intended to spur other countries to uphold their prior commitments.

On February 3, President Trump signed into law legislation that reauthorizes the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Haiti HOPE/HELP trade preference programs through December 31, 2026, with retroactive effect to September 30, 2025.

The law provides for retroactive duty refunds (without interest) of ad valorem duties paid on eligible imports entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the lapse of these programs from October 01, 2025, through February 03, 2026.

According to guidance issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), retroactive duty refunds are applicable only to the general ad valorem duties paid during the lapse, and are not available for merchandise processing fees, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)/Reciprocal duties, or any other type of duties.

Virginia imported approximately $89 million under both trade preference programs in 2025, all of which were under AGOA.

On January 14, President Trump issued two proclamations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 outlining findings and actions from national security investigations initiated last year into imports of critical minerals and semiconductors.

The critical minerals proclamation does not impose tariffs, instead directing the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to negotiate agreements with trading partners and “consider price floors for trade in critical minerals and other trade‑restricting measures.” Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, the President may consider alternative remedies in the future, including minimum import prices for specific types of critical minerals or other measures to adjust imports of processed critical mineral derivative products (PCMDPs).

The semiconductor proclamation established a two‑phase process. In the first phase, Commerce and USTR are directed to negotiate agreements with trading partners, while a 25% ad valorem tariff is imposed effective January 15, 2026, on certain narrowly defined “semiconductor articles.” In practice, these products are largely limited to advanced semiconductors intended for reexport and are exempt from other Section 232 or IEEPA tariffs. Following the conclusion of negotiations, the President may impose broader tariffs on semiconductor imports “at a rate of duty that is significant,” potentially accompanied by a tariff offset program to incentivize domestic manufacturing.

Virginia businesses involved in these sectors should monitor U.S. actions in these sectors for any changes or new tariffs.

The International Trade Administration (ITA) has announced the opening of the April 2026 inclusion window for requests to add additional automobile parts to the scope of duties imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

The inclusions window will open on April 1, 2026, and close at 11:59 p.m. ET on April 14, 2026. After the window closes, ITA will post non‑confidential versions of accepted requests on Regulations.gov, where they will be open for public comment for 14 days.

Under procedures adopted in September 2025, ITA established recurring two‑week submission windows each year in January, April, July, and October, beginning on the first day of each month. These windows allow domestic producers, or their industry associations, to request that additional automobile parts be included within the scope of the Section 232 automobile parts tariffs.

To date, ITA has not yet issued determinations on requests submitted during earlier inclusion windows. Under the established procedures, ITA is required to issue a determination on each request within 60 days of receipt.

On March 2, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2026 Trade Policy Agenda, stating that the administration is “doubling down” on its America First Trade Policy in 2026.

The agenda laid out six core areas that the administration intends to focus on this year in furtherance of its America First Trade Policy:

• Continue the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) Program; 
• Pursue Robust Enforcement of ARTs, Other Trade Agreements, and United States Trade Laws;
• Secure Supply Chains for Critical Minerals and Sectors; 
• Conduct the Review of the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA);
• Manage Trade with China for Reciprocity and Balance; and
• Promote American Interests in International Fora.

To read the 2026 Trade Policy Agenda and 2025 Annual Report, click here.

On March 13, President Trump issued an executive order to further combat fraudulent “Made in America” claims by foreign manufacturers and sellers. Specifically, the EO:

• Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize enforcement actions against sellers and manufacturers who falsely claim their products are “Made in America” or make similar American-origin claims in violation of existing law;
• Directs all agencies with country-of-origin labeling oversight, in consultation with the Chairman of the FTC, to consider new regulations and consistent guidance promoting voluntary country-of-origin labeling for products made or manufactured in the U.S.; and
• Requires agencies overseeing government-wide acquisition contracts and schedules to periodically review and verify American-origin claims for products sold to the federal government, remove misrepresented products from procurement, and refer violators to the Department of Justice for False Claims Act actions.

Virginia manufacturers may need to review their operations for inputs that are imported if they are making claims of “Made in America.” For more information, click here.

On February 4, USTR announced the launch of a U.S.–Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals, to be implemented over the next 60 days, focused on coordinating trade policies (including exploring border-adjusted price floors), enhancing supply chain resilience, and identifying jointly beneficial critical minerals projects. It also contemplates broader cooperation on standards, trade measures, investment, R&D, stockpiling, and crisis response. 

The same day, the U.S., European Union, and Japan issued a joint statement committing to deeper cooperation on critical minerals, including concluding a U.S.–EU Memorandum of Understanding within 30 days to support mining, processing, recycling, innovation, and supply chain security. All three parties plan to develop Action Plans and explore a plurilateral trade initiative with like-minded partners, potentially incorporating coordinated trade mechanisms such as price floors and standards-based markets (the U.S. and Japan announced an Action Plan on March 19 similar to the one with Mexico).

Separately, on February 24, USTR invited public comments on the design of a plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals and policy actions to enhance the resilience of critical mineral supply chains and the downstream industries that depend on them.

To read the U.S.–Mexico Action Plan, click here.

To read the U.S.-EU-Japan Joint Statement, click here.

To read the U.S.-Japan Action Plan, click here.

To read USTR’s notice on the design of a Critical Minerals Agreement, click here.

At least two separate cases have now been filed at the Court of International Trade challenging President Trump’s new global 10 percent tariff imposed under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Section 122 allows the president to impose a temporary import tariff of up to 15 percent, temporary quotas, or both on imported merchandise in order to (1) deal with large and serious U.S. balance of payments (BOP) deficits, (2) prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or (3) cooperate with other countries in correcting an international BOP disequilibrium. Measures may be imposed for up to 150 days unless extended by an act of Congress.

The lawsuits, filed by Democratic attorneys general and governors from 24 states (March 5) and two importers (March 9), claim that the administration misrepresented the U.S. balance of payments situation, which shows no “large and serious” deficit when all accounts are properly considered. 

They further argue that the tariff violates Section 122 statutory requirements for nondiscriminatory, broad tariff application because of numerous country and product exemptions provided. 

Finally, the plaintiffs assert that using Section 122 in this manner violates the major questions doctrine, which “requires Congress to speak clearly in granting such a broad and consequential power,” and the non-delegation doctrine because it “would constitute a ‘sweeping delegation of legislative power’ of the kind rejected in previous Supreme Court cases.”

Both suits are asking the CIT to declare the Section 122 tariffs unlawful, to stop the federal government from enforcing them, and to order refunds of such tariffs already paid. The CIT has scheduled a joint hearing for April 10 for both sets of plaintiffs and the Justice Department to present their arguments.

Virginia companies need to monitor these cases to determine if they may be entitled to further refunds sometime in the future.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the IEEPA tariffs, the Court of International Trade (CIT) has lifted its hold on a lawsuit challenging the elimination of the China de minimis exemption.

President Trump previously issued an executive order ending the de minimis exemption for low‑value shipments from China and Hong Kong, effective May 2, 2025. Several weeks later, an auto parts retailer and distributor filed suit asking the CIT to declare the change unlawful and halt its enforcement.

The case was then put on hold while courts considered a separate challenge to tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the same statutory authority used for the China de minimis executive order. During that pause, two additional developments occurred: Congress enacted legislation terminating the de minimis exemption for commercial shipments from all countries as of July 1, 2027, and President Trump issued a separate executive order accelerating that date to August 29, 2025.

The CIT is now instructing the federal government to submit by March 26, and the plaintiff company to submit by April 9, responses that address (1) how the Supreme Court’s decision may affect the China de minimis EO, (2) whether the congressionally-specified date for termination of the de minimis exemption has any impact on the interpretation of IEEPA in relation to the EOs at issue, and (3) the implementation of the special procedures for collection of duties as specified in the EOs at issue.

It is important to note that in the interim period, Congress passed a law terminating de minimis effective July 1, 2027. Thus, regardless of the outcome of this litigation, by July 1, 2027, there will no longer be a de minimis provision. 

For more information, click here.

On January 21, an Illinois-based importer filed suit against CBP at the Court of International Trade, challenging CBP’s reliance on unpublished guidance to assess Section 232 tariffs on the full value of its steel and aluminum products. 

Section 232 tariffs on imported articles containing steel and aluminum apply only to the articles’ steel or aluminum content. According to frequently asked questions published on CBP’s website, the value of steel or aluminum content of an article refers to the invoice price paid by the buyer of that content. However, an informal memo issued by CBP’s Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise in December 2025 states that, for articles wholly of steel or aluminum, the tariffs are to be assessed on the full value of the article (including production costs) rather than solely on the value of the steel or aluminum content.

The complaint alleges that CBP violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and 19 USC 1625 by failing to subject the informal memo to notice and comment procedures. The plaintiff also claims that CBP’s assessment of Section 232 tariffs on the higher of two values—the full value of steel derivative products like its screws and bolts rather than just their steel content—violates the valuation statute (19 USC 1401a(f)(2)). Finally, the case alleges that CBP violated the Paperwork Reduction Act by demanding additional non-steel content reporting without Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval.

In light of this lawsuit, it is likely that CBP will suspend all current and future protests concerning the same issue pending a decision by the CIT. Virginia importers should consider filing protests on this issue to preserve their right to a refund of the challenged tariffs if the court rules against CBP. Recall that protests are due within 180 days of an entry’s liquidation.

The U.S. International Trade Commission is accepting input from interested parties through April 13 as part of a new fact-finding investigation on the impact on the U.S. economy, U.S. industry, and product sourcing over a six-year period of revoking permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment for all products of China.

Revoking PNTR treatment with respect to Chinese goods would result in a substantial increase in U.S. import duties for those products, as column 2 duty rates are typically markedly higher than regular (column 1) rates.

Due to the accelerated timeline of this investigation, the USITC does not plan to hold a public hearing in connection with the preparation of this report. Revoking the PNTR could mean higher baseline tariffs ranging generally from 35% to 100% on certain products, to which any additional tariffs (such as Section 301, or Section 122, etc.) would be added.

For more information, click here.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has launched a probe into Chinese state support and pricing practices in the biotechnology sector and will assess how these practices may be affecting the market share and competitiveness of the U.S. industry.

The USITC will hold a hearing in connection with this investigation on May 27-28. Requests to appear at the hearing are due by May 11, prehearing briefs and statements must be submitted by May 14, electronic copies of hearing oral arguments are due by May 20, post hearing briefs are due by June 11, and all other written submissions must be filed by July 17.

For more information, click here.

The U.S. International Trade Commission initiated on February 19 an investigation into the impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) automotive rules of origin on the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness, as well as their relevancy considering recent technology changes.

The USITC is required to submit reports on the USMCA automotive rules of origin every two years until 2031, for a total of five reports. The report will be transmitted to the President and key Congressional Committees no later than July 1, 2027.

The USITC will hold a public hearing in connection with this investigation on October 14, 2026. Requests to appear at the hearing are due by September 29, prehearing briefs and statements are due by October 1, electronic copies of hearing oral statements must be submitted by October 6, post hearing briefs must be filed by October 21, and all other written submissions are due by November 2.

For more information, click here.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is accepting comments through April 13, 2026, on a proposed rule that would require the advance submission of export manifest data electronically in the Automated Commercial Environment for cargo transported by vessel. 

The proposed rule identifies and clarifies the responsibilities of different parties to transmit information, describes the time frames for transmission of information prior to cargo loading or conveyance departure, identifies enforcement actions available as well as the consequences of default, and limits post-departure filing for cargo transported by vessel.

Virginia exporters should monitor any changes that result from this proposed rule.

For more information, click here.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued an interim final rule amending the CBP regulations to reflect that the agency will begin issuing all refunds electronically (subject to certain exceptions) beginning February 6.

This applies to refunds issued to all importers, brokers, filers, sureties, service providers, facility operators, foreign-trade zone operators, and carriers as well as any designated third parties. After February 6, CBP will not issue any refunds by check unless a waiver has been approved.

To avoid delays or disruptions in receiving import duty refunds, antidumping and countervailing duty refunds, and other CBP‑issued payments, Virginia importers should ensure they have created an account in the Automated Commercial Environment and linked a current bank account particularly in light of the potential IEEPA refunds.  Note that despite the Feb. 6 deadline, many importers did not get their account established and there is currently a backlog.

Importers may wish to view this video (which is free to view, though registration is required) for a practical, step-by-step walkthrough of how to ensure your company is fully enrolled for electronic refunds through the ACE Secure Data Portal.

For more information, click here and here.

The Bureau of Industry and Security has issued a final rule that, effective January 15, 2026, eases its licensing policy for exports of certain semiconductors to China and Macau from a presumption of denial to a case-by-case review.

BIS states that the semiconductors covered by this rule are the Nvidia H200 and its equivalents as well as less advanced chips. To qualify, the chips must have been commercially available in the U.S. as of January 15 and the exporter must certify that: there is sufficient supply of this product in the U.S.; production of this product for exports to China will not divert global foundry capacity for similar or more advanced products for end users in the U.S.; the recipient has demonstrated sufficient security procedures; and the item undergoes independent, third-party testing in the U.S. to verify its performance specifications.

This case-by-case review process is reportedly linked to the President’s action to impose 25% Section 232 tariffs on certain semiconductors that are imported to make the super chips.  Because it is difficult to know if the imported chips are going to subsequently be used for exporting the high-value super chips, by reviewing export requests, the government will at that point be able to assess the 25% on the imported chips used to make the intended chips for exports.

For more information, click here. 

The Bureau of Industry and Security has issued an interim final rule that, effective January 20, 2026, eases export controls on certain civil unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and related technologies that previously needed a license to be exported to most countries.

BIS states that this rule allows less-sensitive UAVs to be exported to most Wassenaar Arrangement participating states (Country Group A:1) without a license. The rule also allows more capable non-military UAVs to be exported to certain U.S. partners and allies (Country Group A:5) under license exception STA (strategic trade authorization).

For more information, click here.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced a new Withhold Release Order (WRO) that, effective January 29, requires the detention at all U.S. ports of entry of coffee harvested by Finca Monte Grande, a Mexican coffee farm. 

CBP said that this WRO is based on evidence that workers at this facility are subject to six International Labor Organization indicators of forced labor.

According to CBP, importers of detained shipments may seek to destroy or export those shipments or demonstrate that the goods were not produced with forced labor. 

Virginia companies importing coffee from Mexico need to review their supply chain to ensure they remain in compliance.