1. European Union Finalizes U.S. Trade Deal

On June 25, the Council of the European Union formally adopted a regulation needed to implement the tariff-related commitments of the Turnberry Accord, the U.S.-European Union trade agreement reached last fall.

The action allows the agreement to enter into force before the July 4 deadline set by President Trump, who had threatened higher tariffs on the European Union if the bloc did not ratify the deal in a timely manner. The European Parliament approved the agreement on June 16.

The regulations include a safeguard mechanism allowing the European Commission to suspend trade preferences and tariff concessions if the United States fails to meet its commitments or takes discriminatory action. The EU also agreed to eliminate tariffs on certain U.S. industrial and critical products, while expanding market access for American agricultural goods and seafood.

Why it matters: The European Union remains one of the most important international markets for U.S. business and professional events. Finalizing the agreement could help reduce near-term tariff uncertainty for companies importing goods, sourcing products, or working with exhibitors and suppliers across the Atlantic. However, the EU’s safeguard mechanism underscores that trade tensions could quickly reemerge if either side believes the agreement is not being honored.

2. Court Considers Challenge to Suspension of De Minimis Exemption

On June 23, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments in Detroit Axle v. Department of Commerce, a case challenging the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to eliminate the de minimis exemption.

The de minimis exemption allows certain low-value imports to enter the United States duty-free. The plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the president’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA should also apply to the administration’s effort to revoke de minimis treatment.

The court questioned that argument, noting that IEEPA provides the president authority to nullify or void certain rights, powers, or privileges involving foreign property and that de minimis is characterized in statute as a privilege. The judges also questioned whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on new tariffs under IEEPA necessarily applies to ending an existing trade preference.

Separately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection released two interim final rules intended to suspend the de minimis entry program independently of the IEEPA action. One rule, governing non-postal shipments, took effect immediately on June 24. A second rule governing postal shipments will take effect after a 30-day waiting period. Public comments on both rules are due July 24.

Why it matters: The de minimis exemption has been an important tool for industry companies receiving low-value shipments from abroad. Its suspension could increase costs and compliance requirements for event-industry businesses that import samples, promotional items, replacement parts, small technology components, and other lower-value goods. The legal and regulatory uncertainty also makes it more difficult for companies to predict landed costs and delivery timelines.

3. U.S.-India Trade Deal Moves Closer to Completion

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer concluded a two-day visit to India on June 24, holding multiple rounds of discussions with Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

According to India’s Ministry of Commerce, the two countries made substantial progress toward finalizing the bilateral trade agreement first announced in February. Discussions focused on expanded market access, digital trade, supply-chain resilience, and reducing non-tariff barriers.

The agreement has reportedly been expected to establish an 18% tariff rate on Indian goods while India lowers selected trade barriers and commits to purchases of U.S. commercial and agricultural products. However, the legal landscape has changed following the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the administration’s use of IEEPA tariffs, which had been central to the proposed tariff structure.

India is also subject to a separate proposed 12.5% tariff under the administration’s Section 301 investigation into forced labor practices. Although both governments have indicated that an agreement could be finalized soon, no formal timeline has been announced.

Why it matters: India is an important and growing market for exhibitions, conferences, and other business events. A completed agreement could support stronger commercial ties and greater certainty for companies moving goods, services, exhibitors, and attendees between the two countries. However, the continuing possibility of Section 301 tariffs means that companies with India-related supply chains should remain prepared for additional costs and compliance obligations.

4. USTR Launches Section 301 Investigation Into German Pharmaceutical Policies

On June 18, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative launched a Section 301 investigation into Germany’s pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies.

USTR cited what it described as Germany’s persistent underpayment for innovative pharmaceutical products, arguing that the country’s policies shift a disproportionate share of research and development costs to the United States. The investigation also references German legislation that would introduce a pharmaceutical rebate mechanism beginning in 2027, with the rebate projected to reach 20% by 2030.

The investigation follows a letter from a group of Republican senators urging USTR to examine pharmaceutical policies in high-income countries, including Germany. USTR has scheduled a public hearing for September 22. Requests to testify, public comments, and testimony summaries are due August 10.

Why it matters: Although this investigation is focused on pharmaceuticals, it illustrates the administration’s continued reliance on Section 301 to address foreign policies it views as unfair trade practices. New Section 301 investigations can ultimately result in tariffs or other trade actions that affect broader commercial relationships. Companies across the business and professional events industry should continue monitoring these actions because they add to the overall uncertainty surrounding international trade policy.

5. Supreme Court Declines to Review Challenge to Modified China Tariffs

On June 15, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the first Trump administration’s expansion of Section 301 tariffs on China.

The case was brought by HMTX Industries, a Connecticut flooring company, and other importers. The plaintiffs argued that USTR exceeded its authority when it expanded the value of Chinese goods subject to Section 301 tariffs from approximately $50 billion to $370 billion.

The importers contended that the Trade Act allows USTR to “modify or terminate” existing tariff actions but does not permit such a substantial expansion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that argument in 2025, and the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case leaves that ruling in place.

Why it matters: The decision strengthens the legal foundation for broad Section 301 tariff actions and could make future challenges more difficult. As the administration rebuilds its tariff framework through Section 301 investigations, the ruling increases the likelihood that tariffs affecting a wide range of imported goods could remain in place even when challenged by importers. For the business and professional events industry, that means continued exposure to higher costs for China-sourced materials, equipment, fixtures, promotional products, and technology.