Keeping track of tariff rates and reasons can get confusing, especially when things are shifting every few months. Overnight, the Trump administration imposed new levies on 60 trading partners across the globe, collecting duties of between 10% and 12.5%. The tariffs span immediate neighbors like Canada and Mexico to more distant countries and blocs such as Japan and the European Union.
Backdrop: These levies are the latest iteration of President Trump's original "Liberation Day" tariffs imposed back in April 2025. Those only lasted 10 months until the U.S. Supreme Court shot down their legality due to reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. In a 6-3 decision in February, the justices ruled that IEEPA law does not give the president sweeping authority to impose global tariffs.
A new provision, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, was then used to address the "large and serious" U.S. balance-of-payments deficit. Section 122 set a flat 10% levy on imports, but it only bought the administration 150 days until the provision would expire without an act of Congress. As a result, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 was just brought into play, though significant carveouts were made for items like energy, fertilizer, and pharmaceuticals. See the different country responses here
Stronger case? U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer commented on the legal basis of the new order, stating that the 60 trading partners had failed to either pass or enforce bans against goods made with forced labor. "The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it," he declared, following a USTR investigation into the matter that included rapid public review. Even if things get challenged again, there are separate Section 301 investigations ongoing into structural excess capacity, as well as significant tariffs already imposed under Section 232 and 338.
SA commentary: "[IEEPA] was always scaffolding, never the building," ING Economic and Financial Analysis noted. "Section 301 has no statutory rate cap and no built-in expiry date. These tariff rates are probably low enough for most US trading partners not to oppose them. The European Commission, for example, has already signaled that these duties are unjustified but that it would accept them as long as they stay under the 15% Turnberry cap. Pragmatism dressed as principle, or principle dressed as pragmatism?" (5 comments)
