1. ECA Opposes New Tariff Investigations

Last week, ECA registered its opposition to potential new tariffs due to “structural excess capacity” in global manufacturing—targeting industries where foreign governments may be artificially boosting production that leads to global oversupply. This sweeping investigation could set the stage for new tariffs on approximately 60 countries, including key partners including the European Union, Canada, and Mexico, as well as competitors like China and Russia. Administration officials, including U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, have signaled that these investigations are part of a deliberate strategy to shift away from recently invalidated emergency tariff authorities and toward more durable legal tools.

Why this matters: These investigations could lead to new tariffs or import restrictions across a wide range of countries and industries. The scope is unusually broad, which increases the likelihood of global trade disruption.

2. Trade Agencies Could Receive Major Funding Increases

Congress is beginning work on the fiscal year 2027 budget, and senior administration officials are making the case for increased funding for key trade agencies. During a recent hearing, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer emphasized the need for additional staff and resources to enforce trade laws and oversee a growing number of trade agreements. The administration’s proposal includes funding increases for USTR; the Bureau of Industry and Security (with a focus on enforcement and investigations); the International Trade Administration; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Why it matters: Increased enforcement could mean (a) more scrutiny of imported goods used in exhibitions (booths, materials, technology) and (b) additional compliance steps and potential delays at ports of entry, which could affect timelines and costs.

3. Lawmakers Push to Preserve USMCA

With the required 2026 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaching, more than 40 U.S. senators from both parties have formally urged the administration to maintain the agreement’s core structure. Their letter to USTR Greer highlights the importance of the agreement for U.S. exports—particularly agriculture—while encouraging targeted updates rather than sweeping changes. At the same time, administration officials are actively engaging with counterparts in Canada and Mexico. Recent discussions have focused on potential updates to rules of origin and broader economic coordination, including supply chain issues.

Why it matters: For the industry, the stakes are high: a stable USMCA supports predictable, more affordable participation in U.S. events. That's why ECA is part of the Coalition for North American Trade, which is advocating in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, and Mexico City for USMCA renewal.

4. Progress on Tariff Refunds 

CBP continues to work the process for returning funds collected from tariffs struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court to importers. The rollout of the tariff refund system will be phased, initially handling simpler cases while more complex claims (including those involving anti-dumping and countervailing duties) will take longer. CBP officials have indicated that a significant portion of eligible refunds—potentially covering tens of billions of dollars—can now be processed electronically, though many claims will still require manual review. Submissions will be accepted starting on Monday, April 20.

Why this matters: Many industry companies may be eligible for tariff refunds, but the process is complex and uneven, particularly for more complicated shipments. ECA's public policy counsel, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, can provide additional information on the tariff refund process. 

5. House Bill Targets New Temporary Tariffs

Rep. Jimmy Panetta has introduced new legislation aimed at limiting the executive branch’s ability to impose broad, temporary tariffs. His recently introduced bill would eliminate tariffs implemented under Section 122 of the Trade Act and block similar future actions unless Congress provides approval. This comes amid broader debate on Capitol Hill over the appropriate use of tariff authorities, with some lawmakers favoring more durable tariff authorities (such as Section 301) and others pushing to reassert congressional oversight.

Why this matters: Despite February's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, ongoing tariff policy debates create uncertainty around future tariff actions. The rules governing tariffs are still evolving, which will continue to add uncertainty to long-term planning going forward.