Overview & Key Findings

The Four Phases of Trump 2.0 Tariff Policy

The tariff actions of the second Trump administration fall into four distinct phases. Each phase was driven by different statutory authorities, different economic and political objectives, and different court challenges. Understanding the phases is essential to understanding what is — and is not — still in effect today.

Phase 1 — Opening Moves: IEEPA Against Canada, Mexico, and China (January–March 2025)

The administration’s first tariff actions used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — a 1977 statute designed to let the President respond to foreign threats by blocking transactions, not by imposing import taxes. The declared emergency was the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. The initial tariffs targeted Canada, Mexico, and China at rates of 10% to 20%, with USMCA-qualifying goods from Canada and Mexico carved out.

Phase 2 — “Reciprocal” Tariffs and Section 232 Expansion (April–August 2025)

On April 2, 2025, the administration announced what it called “reciprocal” tariffs — a universal 10% tariff on imports from nearly every country, with higher country-specific rates layered on top of that. The same executive order declared a new national emergency: the U.S. trade deficit. The reciprocal tariffs drove the average U.S. effective tariff rate to approximately 27% by April — the highest in over a century — and triggered the April 2025 stock market selloff that preceded the 90-day pause announced on April 9. In parallel, the administration doubled Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs from 25% to 50% effective June 4, 2025, and imposed new Section 232 tariffs on copper, automobiles, auto parts, lumber, and upholstered furniture.

Phase 3 — Trade Deals, Court Challenges, and Consolidation (September 2025–February 2026)

Through the second half of 2025, the administration negotiated framework agreements with the United Kingdom, European Union, Japan, South Korea, and several other partners, establishing negotiated rates below the “reciprocal” defaults. Meanwhile, the legal challenges that began in May 2025 in the Court of International Trade moved through the Federal Circuit and to the Supreme Court. Nearly 2,000 importer lawsuits were filed seeking refunds of IEEPA tariffs. The CIT stayed new cases pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

Phase 4 — SCOTUS Ruling and the Section 301 Pivot (February 20, 2026–Present)

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced a 10% Section 122 global surcharge effective February 24, 2026 — the first-ever presidential use of Section 122. USTR initiated new Section 301 investigations targeting 15 countries and the European Union on March 11, 2026, setting up the legal framework expected to replace the Section 122 stopgap when it expires on July 24, 2026.

Chronological Timeline: Every Major Action

The Supreme Court’s IEEPA Decision

What the Court Held

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined in full by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, and joined in part by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented.

The majority’s reasoning was textual. IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate . . . importation or exportation,” but the Court held that “regulate” does not include the power to tax. The Court emphasized that the power to impose tariffs is “very clear[ly] . . . a branch of the taxing power” belonging to Congress, and that IEEPA “contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” The Court also invoked the major-questions doctrine: a power of such “economic and political significance” would require a clear statement from Congress, which IEEPA does not provide.

What the Ruling Invalidated

The decision invalidated every tariff imposed under IEEPA, including:

• The “fentanyl emergency” tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China imposed beginning February 2025
• The “reciprocal” tariffs imposed under EO 14257 on April 2, 2025, along with all country-specific modifications and the negotiated rates under framework agreements
• The 25% secondary tariff on India tied to Russian oil purchases (EO 14329)
• The de minimis suspension as originally imposed under IEEPA (the administration re-authorized it on a different legal basis on February 20, 2026, but that re-authorization is itself under challenge in Axle of Dearborn v. Department of Commerce)

What the Ruling Did Not Touch

The Court’s decision addressed only IEEPA. It left in place every tariff imposed under other statutory authorities:

• Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) — tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, auto parts, lumber, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and advanced semiconductors
• Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974) — tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration on Chinese imports under the original USTR Section 301 investigation
• Antidumping and countervailing duties — ongoing AD/CVD orders unaffected by the ruling

The Section 122 Stopgap: A 150-Day Clock

Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling on February 20, 2026, President Trump issued a proclamation imposing a new 10% global import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a statutory authority that had never been used by any prior president. Section 122 permits the President to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” The new tariff took effect on February 24, 2026, and is scheduled to expire on July 24, 2026, unless Congress acts to extend it.

Section 232: The Tariffs That Survived

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to impose import restrictions — including tariffs — when the Secretary of Commerce determines that imports “threaten to impair the national security.” Section 232 tariffs are not subject to the limitations that doomed the IEEPA tariffs at the Supreme Court: the statute expressly contemplates presidential authority, is grounded in a formal Commerce Department investigation, and has been upheld by the courts for more than six decades. Every Section 232 tariff imposed in 2025 remains in force today.

Commerce has ongoing Section 232 investigations into pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, aircraft, drones, polysilicon, wind turbines, robotics, medical supplies, and additional semiconductor categories. Any of these investigations could produce new tariff actions during 2026.

The Refund Question

Neither the Supreme Court’s opinion nor the executive order revoking the IEEPA tariffs addressed the question of refunds for the $164.7 billion in IEEPA duties collected between February 2025 and January 2026. Both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court acknowledged that an adverse ruling for the government could open the door to recovery of IEEPA duties. The mechanics remain unresolved.

What the Administration Has Said

On January 8, 2026 — before the Supreme Court ruling — the administration stipulated in CIT litigation that it would refund IEEPA tariffs to “all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs” following a “final and unappealable” decision ordering refunds. That condition has now been satisfied by the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision. The mechanics for processing refunds, however, have not been established by CBP or Treasury as of the publication of this report.

The 2,000+ Pending Cases

Before the Supreme Court ruled, nearly 2,000 importer lawsuits had been filed at the Court of International Trade seeking refunds of IEEPA tariffs. The CIT stayed all new cases pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Companies have continued to file “tag-along” suits since the decision, and more than 1,000 additional cases are reportedly on file.

Administrative Paths

Separate from litigation, importers have several administrative remedies available to preserve refund rights:

• Protests under 19 U.S.C. §1514 — must be filed within 180 days of liquidation
• Post-summary corrections (PSCs) — available for entries that have not yet liquidated
• Requests to extend liquidation — to preserve protest rights on entries approaching the liquidation deadline
• Prior disclosures — where an importer identifies compliance issues during review of IEEPA entries

The Fiscal Scale

The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that reversing the IEEPA tariffs will generate up to $175 billion in refunds. The Congressional Budget Office estimated on March 5, 2026 that the Supreme Court ruling will reduce federal revenue by $1.6 trillion through 2036 assuming refunds are issued — matching prior Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that included refunds.

What Comes Next: The Section 301 Pivot

The administration has made clear that the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision will not end its tariff policy. The strategy announced by President Trump in his February 20, 2026 response to the ruling — and subsequently detailed by USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer — is a two-stage replacement. Section 122 acts as a short-term bridge for roughly five months. Section 301 investigations, launched March 11, 2026, produce the durable long-term framework.

The Section 301 Investigations

On March 11, 2026, USTR initiated Section 301 investigations targeting 15 countries plus the European Union, under two distinct theories: “excess manufacturing capacity and production” (16 economies including China, the EU, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India) and forced labor enforcement (60+ economies). Public comment periods closed on April 15, 2026. USTR has signaled intent to conclude the investigations on an accelerated timeline before Section 122 expires on July 24, 2026.

Why Section 301 Is Different from IEEPA

Unlike IEEPA, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 expressly contemplates presidential tariff authority. The statute requires a USTR investigation into foreign “unfair trade practices,” public notice, and an opportunity for comment — all of which build an evidentiary record supporting the eventual tariff action. Section 301 tariffs carry no cap on tariff rates and no statutory time limit. The Section 301 tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration on Chinese imports have been in force since 2018, surviving multiple court challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions