White House Quickly Invokes Section 122 Post-IEEPA Decision: On February 20, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the consolidated cases Trump v. V.O.S. Selections (No. 25‑250) and Learning Resources v. Trump (No. 24‑1287), holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In response, President Trump acted quickly to reinstate tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the president to impose import quotas and surcharges of up to 15% for 150 days on a country or group of countries with whom the United States has a “large and serious” trade deficit. The White House issued a proclamation implementing a 10% tariff on all imports, effective February 24, 2026. The tariff will remain in effect through July 24, 2026, unless extended by Congress.
 
On February 21, President Trump announced via social media that the tariff would increase to 15% “effective immediately.” As of this writing, the administration has not taken any official action to raise the duty. However, if implemented, a 15% tariff would subject many trading partners to higher duties than imposed under IEEPA. For example, under the general terms of the United States-United Kingdom (UK) Economic Prosperity Deal, UK goods were subject to only a 10% tariff. Many other nations were similarly subject only to the 10% baseline tariff, rather than the higher country-specific “reciprocal tariffs.”

Trump-Xi Summit Confirmed: On February 20, the White House confirmed President Trump’s state visit to Beijing will occur from March 31 to April 2. Although plans for the summit were finalized before the Supreme Court invalidated the president’s IEEPA-based tariffs, both nations maintain their commitment to the meeting. USTR Jamieson Greer affirmed that the administration intends to maintain U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods at current levels, despite the imposition of new Section 122 tariffs on all countries following the SCOTUS ruling. On February 24, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement warning against any increase in tariffs on China and reiterated its call for existing tariffs to be removed.
 
However, despite these commitments, on February 26, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) initiated an investigation to examine the impact of revoking permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status for Chinese imports. The results of the investigation are expected by August 21, 2026. The probe stems from congressional direction included in the FY2026 Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act (Pub.L 119-74). President Trump previously directed relevant agencies to assess legislative proposals regarding the revocation of China’s PNTR status in the “America First Trade Policy” executive order (EO) issued on January 20, 2025.
 
Democratic Senators Introduce the Tariff Refund Act of 2026: On February 24, a group of 25 Democratic senators, led by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced the Tariff Refund Act of 2026 (S.3905) to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to provide eligible importers with refunds for tariffs paid under IEEPA. Because the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, every duty collected under that authority lacks a valid statutory basis. However, the court did not address whether refunds are required, nor did it provide guidance on how refunds should be administered. As a result, both the legal obligation to return the funds and the mechanics of repayment remain unresolved. The bill would mandate that CBP provide tariff refunds, with interest, within 180 days of enactment, prioritizing returns to small businesses. For entries liquidated prior to enactment, CBP would be directed to reliquidate the entries using the duty rate that would have applied absent the IEEPA-based tariffs and issue the corresponding refunds.
 
In addition, several House Democrats have introduced similar bills, including the Restoring Economic Lifelines for Independent Enterprises and Family Businesses (RELIEF) Act (H.R.7615), the Illegal Tariff Refund Act (H.R.7636) and the Payback Act (H.R.7646). Notably, several lawmakers have argued that refunds should be directed to American consumers rather than importers because businesses may have raised prices in response to the tariffs.
 
Trump Administration Prepares to Initiate New Section 301 and Section 232 Investigations: On February 20, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced its intentions to launch a series of Section 301 investigations covering “most major trading partners” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA tariffs. The new Section 301 investigations will be conducted on an “accelerated basis,” according to USTR Jamieson Greer, and are meant to “ensure continuity” with the pre-IEEPA ruling tariff framework implemented under the Trump administration. UTSR General Counsel Jennifer Thornton emphasized that the goal of the Section 301 probes is leverage, rather than revenue generation, to ensure trading partners adhere to finalized trade agreements or active negotiations.
 
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade William Kimmitt indicated similar plans for Section 232 tariff investigations, stating that “it’s certainly likely that more [Section] 232s will come out.” Kimmitt emphasized that new Section 232 probes were not directly linked to the SCOTUS IEEPA ruling, as the Commerce Department “constantly evaluates” national security threats in international trade. According to recent reports, Section 232 probes could cover a wide range of sectors, including large-scale batteries, cast iron and iron fittings, and power grid and telecommunications equipment. The administration is also considering levies within existing Section 232 probes into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, drones, industrial robots and solar panel materials