In a major shift in American trade policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it will stop collecting tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) starting at 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24, 2026. The decision comes more than three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that many of the tariff measures introduced by former President Donald Trump under IEEPA were unlawful.
This decisive move has significant implications for U.S. trade policy, importers, and global markets as Washington navigates legal setbacks while pursuing alternative tariff strategies.
The Supreme Court’s decision on February 20, 2026, found that the emergency powers granted by IEEPA do not authorize the president to impose broad import tariffs without Congress’s approval. This ruling overturned a series of wide-ranging tariff actions that had applied to goods from countries around the world.
In response, CBP notified shippers via its Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) that duties levied under the IEEPA authority would no longer be collected or enforced after February 24. The agency also stated it would deactivate all related tariff codes tied to those orders.
However, tariffs imposed under other legal frameworks remain in effect. These include levies applied under national security and trade law statutes like Section 232 and Section 301, which continue to affect imports such as aluminum and automobile parts.
The CBP announcement clarified that only tariffs based on IEEPA will be stopped. These include:
IEEPA-based duties on fentanyl-related imports
IEEPA tariffs targeting Venezuela oil and other trade imbalances
Comprehensive “reciprocal” tariffs imposed under emergency powers
25% tariffs on aluminum imports
25% levies on automobile parts
Other tariffs imposed under Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices)
This distinction highlights the narrow scope of the court’s decision and the continued use of other statutory authorities to enforce trade barriers.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump quickly unveiled new global tariffs under a separate provision known as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Initially set at 10%, this universal import surcharge was increased to 15%, marking a rapid policy shift intended to maintain protectionist pressure on U.S. trading partners.
Unlike IEEPA measures, tariffs under Section 122 are temporary by design and require Congressional approval if they are to remain in place beyond 150 days. Because Section 122 has never been used in this way before, legal challenges are widely anticipated.
This legislative uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to U.S. trade policy as global businesses seek stability and predictability in tariff rules.
The suspension of IEEPA tariffs has triggered mixed reactions from economic and political players worldwide:
Global stock indices dipped as trade uncertainty deepened, while safe-haven assets saw increased demand. Markets responded not only to legal uncertainty but also to questions about the future direction of U.S. tariff policy.
The European Union urged the U.S. to honor existing trade agreements and criticized unpredictable tariff shifts, warning that such policies could disrupt supply chains and investment planning. Beijing also condemned the unilateral nature of the actions, calling for tariff removals in compliance with international trade norms.
Experts warn that Section 122’s use may spark fresh legal challenges, as its application in this context is untested. Meanwhile, congressional scrutiny could slow or alter the fate of these tariffs if lawmakers oppose extending them beyond the temporary window.
One of the biggest unresolved questions is whether companies that have already paid IEEPA-based duties will be eligible for refunds. Estimates suggest that tariffs collected under these emergency powers may total more than $175 billion, posing a potentially massive reimbursement burden for the government if refund demands proceed.
So far, CBP has not issued formal guidance on refunds, leaving importers and trade groups waiting for clarification.
The Supreme Court’s rebuke of IEEPA tariffs underscores a constitutional reality: only Congress can enact broad-based tariff measures. The ruling reinforces the separation of powers and limits executive overreach in trade policy. However, the swift adoption of alternative legal authority by the current administration suggests that trade tensions are likely to persist.
As a result:
U.S. trade policy may become more fragmented and unpredictable.
Businesses may face overlapping tariff regimes and legal complexities.
Global negotiations could grow more contentious as countries push back on unilateral measures.
The evolving landscape underscores the need for clearer legislative frameworks and international dialogue to stabilize global trade relationships.
The halting of IEEPA tariff collections marks a significant victory for constitutional limits on executive power. Yet, it opens a new chapter in U.S. trade policy, with temporary tariffs under Section 122 and ongoing use of other trade authorities. While the immediate suspension may offer temporary relief to some importers, the broader implications for global markets and long-term trade relations remain uncertain.
In a world still navigating post-pandemic supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tension, the U.S. approach to tariffs will continue to be a critical economic barometer — one watched closely by governments, investors, and companies alike.
.png){kind=logo}
Tiếng Việt
English
