1. Administration Proposes New Tariffs Tied to Forced Labor

The Trump administration has announced a new proposed tariff framework under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 following an investigation into unfair trading practices tied to forced labor. The proposal would impose two tiers of tariffs, 10% and 12.5%, on imports from approximately 60 economies.

The proposal will go through a public comment period and bilateral discussions before any duties are implemented. The proposed exemptions appear to mirror the current Section 122 tariff exemptions, including products used by the industry already subject to Section 232 tariffs, such as steel and aluminum. That approach would avoid layering multiple tariff measures on the same products.

Business groups have raised concerns that applying one tariff framework across such a large number of trading partners could increase uncertainty and add new compliance burdens for companies already navigating a complicated tariff environment.

Why it matters: This proposal could create new cost and compliance challenges for the industry. Exhibitions and conferences depend on global supply chains for booths, displays, signage, flooring, technology, equipment, promotional products, and other event materials. Even if the proposed tariff rates are lower than the previous emergency tariffs, the broad scope of the action could still increase planning uncertainty, import costs, and administrative burdens for event organizers, suppliers, exhibitors, and contractors.

2. Court Declines to Pause Ruling Against Section 122 Tariffs

On May 20, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade declined a request from the Department of Justice to suspend the court’s earlier ruling that found the administration’s 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to be unlawful.

The court rejected the government’s argument that enforcement of the ruling would cause irreparable harm to trade negotiations, U.S. economic interests, and national security. However, the May 20 decision does not immediately end the tariffs. On May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indefinitely stayed the original ruling while the government’s appeal moves forward.

The case is expected to continue through the appeals process and could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why it matters: The legal status of Section 122 tariffs remains unresolved. For the industry, that means companies should continue to expect tariff uncertainty as litigation continues. Suppliers, contractors, and exhibitors importing event-related materials may still face unpredictable costs, complicated refund questions, and shifting compliance requirements depending on how the courts rule.

3. Democrats Outline Priorities for USMCA Review

House and Senate Democrats have begun outlining their priorities for the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is expected to formally begin in July.

Their priorities include stronger enforcement of forced-labor rules, tighter rules of origin to address concerns about Chinese goods moving through Mexico, and improvements to USMCA’s rapid-response labor mechanism. Senate Democrats highlighted autos, aerospace, and heavy machinery as sectors where they believe rules of origin should be strengthened. House Ways and Means Committee Democrats similarly urged the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to pursue stronger enforcement of forced-labor input bans and address delays in labor dispute investigations.

Why it matters: A stable USMCA is critical for the business and professional events industry. Canada and Mexico are among the most important markets for cross-border exhibitors, attendees, suppliers, and event partners. While targeted updates to USMCA may be appropriate, major changes to rules of origin or forced-labor enforcement could create additional documentation, sourcing, and compliance requirements for companies moving goods across North America for trade shows, exhibitions, and conferences.

4. USTR Signals Progress in Trade Talks With India

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Brendan Lynch recently expressed confidence in ongoing trade negotiations between the United States and India. According to Lynch, India understands that without a trade agreement, it risks tariffs that could negatively affect its position in the U.S. market.

Lynch indicated that the current interim agreement under discussion would be one part of a broader bilateral trade agreement that the two countries expect to negotiate over the coming years. The talks come amid continuing uncertainty following court rulings that invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and raised questions about other tariff authorities.

Why it matters: India is an important and growing market for U.S. business events, including international exhibitors, attendees, and suppliers. Progress toward a U.S.-India trade agreement could help reduce tariff uncertainty and support stronger commercial ties. At the same time, the risk of new tariffs if talks stall remains a concern for companies that depend on predictable international trade relationships.

5. CBP Provides Update on IEEPA-Based Tariff Refunds

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has provided a new status update on the implementation of its electronic refund system, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries program, known as CAPE, for tariffs that were previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

As of May 11, CBP had received 126,237 CAPE declarations, of which 86,874 had been validated. Of more than 15 million entries accepted, approximately 8 million had been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties. For processed entries, CBP has issued $35.46 billion in refunds, including interest.

However, CBP has also indicated that this represents only a portion of total IEEPA duties collected, and it has not yet provided details on additional CAPE phases that would be needed to process more complex entries.

Why it matters: The IEEPA tariff process remains complicated. Suppliers, contractors, exhibitors, and other importers should continue reviewing whether they paid IEEPA-based tariffs and whether their entries are eligible for refunds. Companies with more complex import entries may need to wait for future phases of CBP’s refund process or seek additional guidance from customs professionals.