Ahead of the July 2026 “joint review” of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), the United States, Mexico, and Canada have each launched public consultation processes to solicit input from stakeholders on the operation of the USMCA, and possible changes those governments should seek to the Agreement as part of the review.
Continue Reading The United States, Mexico, and Canada Launch Domestic Consultation Processes on Upcoming USMCA Review
Trump Administration Imposes Secondary Tariffs on India
On August 6, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) (“Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of the Russian Federation”) invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to impose a tariff of 25% on most products imported from India, effective August 27, in
Continue Reading Trump Administration Imposes Secondary Tariffs on IndiaUN World Court Finds Consequences of Climate Change Underscore Its Existential Threat
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (the “Court”) issued its highly anticipated advisory opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. In a lengthy, unanimous opinion, the Court clarified States’ obligations under international law “to ensure the protection of the climate system and other
Continue Reading UN World Court Finds Consequences of Climate Change Underscore Its Existential ThreatStatus of Section 232 Actions by the Trump Administration
Since taking office in January, President Trump has taken a number of actions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“Section 232”), a statute that authorizes the President to “adjust” imports—including through application of tariffs, quotas, tariff rate quotas, and license fees—where the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)
Continue Reading Status of Section 232 Actions by the Trump AdministrationTrump Administration Issues Executive Order on “Most-Favored-Nation” Prescription Drug Pricing
On May 12, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” and an accompanying “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Announces Actions to Put American Patients First by Lowering Drug Prices and Stopping Foreign Free-riding on American Pharmaceutical Innovation
Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues Executive Order on “Most-Favored-Nation” Prescription Drug PricingTrump 2.0 Tariffs and Commercial Disputes: Key Questions to Consider
Introduction
The Trump Administration’s implementation of significant and widespread tariffs – and the potential for additional and farther-reaching tariffs – represents more than just a trade challenge. For companies engaged in international commerce, the uncertainty created by these measures increases the risk of commercial disputes. Among other things, tariffs can increase costs, reduce margins, and reveal contractual assumptions and ambiguities that lead to disputes throughout the supply chain: between buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, and in a variety of other business dealings.
Below we highlight four key questions for assessing and mitigating commercial dispute risks. Whether reviewing existing contracts or negotiating new ones, companies should take strategic steps to protect their interests and minimize potential disputes and supply chain disruptions.
Background: Tariffs Under the Trump Administration
Since the America First Trade Policy memorandum that President Trump signed on the first day of his second term, the current administration has imposed a variety of country- and product-specific tariffs, threatened additional tariffs, and promised other future actions. Importers, foreign producers, and U.S. purchasers of imported products all face a heightened risk that products that they have contracted to purchase or supply may be impacted by tariffs, at times potentially altering the fundamental bargain between the parties. The threat of retaliatory tariffs leads to even further uncertainty.
At the time of publication, the Trump Administration has imposed or threatened to impose a variety of tariffs under an array of different statutory authorities. For instance:
- Canada, Mexico, and China Tariffs: President Trump ordered 20% tariffs on products from China and 25% tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”).
- Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Separately, for the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, President Trump removed country-specific exemptions, is phasing out the product-specific exclusions and removing General Approved Exclusions, and is creating a petition process for the expansion of the tariffs to derivative steel and aluminum products not already covered.
- Reciprocal Tariffs: Meanwhile, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce are leading a broad review of foreign trade partners to determine whether they are imposing nonreciprocal tariffs and other trade restrictive measures, for the United States to respond in kind (possibly with higher tariffs of its own).
- Other Potential Tariffs: All the while, myriad agencies are reporting to the President in April on a variety of trade and tariff issues, which could serve as the foundation for additional, future tariff actions by the Trump Administration.
Continue Reading Trump 2.0 Tariffs and Commercial Disputes: Key Questions to Consider
USTR Seeks Public Comment on Unfair or Non-Reciprocal Trade Practices
On February 20, 2025, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced that it is seeking public comments on any unfair trade practices and non-reciprocal trade arrangements implemented by foreign trading partners. The comment period is currently open and the deadline for submitting comments is March 11, 2025.
According to the Federal Register notice, comments can be submitted through a portal accessible at https://comments.ustr.gov/s/, under docket number USTR-2025-0001. USTR will accept comments from any interested party, including businesses, individuals, and trade associations, among others. Interested parties are able to include business confidential information in their submissions, which will not appear in the public version of their comments.
USTR’s announcement also stated that the public comment process is not the only opportunity to provide information to the agency on these issues, and that USTR “welcomes ongoing engagement with and information from any interested party.”
This comment period offers a new opportunity for U.S. exporters to seek the Administration’s potential support in eliminating foreign market access barriers. If you are interested in submitting comments to USTR as part of this process, Covington can assist in the preparation and transmission of these comments. We would also be happy to assist in crafting a broader strategy for engaging USTR and other relevant agencies on these or other trade-related issues.
Background
USTR’s launch of this public comment process follows the issuance of the “America First Trade Policy” memorandum by President Trump on his first day in office, which directed USTR to lead a review of unfair foreign trade practices and to recommend appropriate remedies. USTR also linked the comment process to President Trump’s “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs” memorandum issued on February 13, which directed USTR and the Commerce Department to investigate “the harm to the United States from any non-reciprocal trade arrangements adopted by any trading partners” and to recommend actions in response. Covington’s alert on this memorandum is available here.
Scope of Requested Comments
USTR has invited comments on a country-by-country basis (or also on an economy-wide basis in the case of the European Union) regarding (i) “any unfair trade practice by a foreign country or economy”; or (ii) “any non-reciprocal trade arrangements.” USTR has defined unfair trade practices broadly, to include “policies, measures, or barriers that undermine or harm U.S. production, or exports, or a failure by a country to take action to address a non-market policy or practice in a way which harms the United States.” USTR has also requested that comments quantify the harm caused by such practices—ideally with a corresponding dollar amount—and to explain the underlying methodology used to calculate that figure.Continue Reading USTR Seeks Public Comment on Unfair or Non-Reciprocal Trade Practices
Trump Administration Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico, and China
On February 1, President Trump issued three executive orders (“EOs”) imposing broad tariffs on U.S. imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, initially to be effective on February 4. Invoking Presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), the EOs expand the national emergency declared by
Continue Reading Trump Administration Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico, and ChinaSection 301 Tariffs and Proceedings: Recent and Potential Developments
Alert December 19, 2024
As discussed in our prior client alert, President-elect Trump’s second term is expected to bring important changes to U.S. trade policy, including with respect to U.S. tariffs. Among the tools Trump may use to modify existing U.S. tariffs is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”), which provided the vehicle for imposition of tariffs against China under the first Trump administration. More recently, the Biden administration has initiated new proceedings under Section 301, while also modifying existing Section 301 tariffs against China. This alert provides an overview of Section 301, explores how Section 301 has been used by recent administrations to increase tariffs on imports from China, and surveys other Section 301 actions, including currently pending investigations. This alert also examines how a second Trump administration could reactivate or modify Section 301 tariffs that were previously announced, but have been suspended or terminated.
Overview of Section 301
Section 301 is an investigative tool under U.S. trade law that allows the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) to pursue unilateral trade retaliation against countries that impose unfair trade barriers against the United States. USTR may launch Section 301 investigations in response to the filing of a petition submitted by an “interested party,” or upon USTR’s own initiative. Once a Section 301 investigation is launched, the statutory deadline for completion is typically between 12 and 18 months. Under the first Trump administration, USTR often did not use the full period provided under the statute, instead completing certain investigations several months before the statutory deadline.
As part of the investigative process, USTR must request consultations with the foreign government whose conduct is at issue, and it will generally also solicit public comments and hold a hearing as part of its investigation. At the end of the investigation, USTR is authorized to impose duties or other trade restrictions where it has determined:
- that the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied;
- that an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country violates, is inconsistent with, or otherwise denies the United States the benefits of any trade agreement; or
- that an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.
Once imposed, Section 301 tariffs must be terminated after four years unless an extension is requested. As explained below, USTR under certain conditions can also modify existing Section 301 duties or reinstitute previously suspended or terminated Section 301 actions.Continue Reading Section 301 Tariffs and Proceedings: Recent and Potential Developments
Trade Policy Under a Second Trump Administration and Implications for Business
November 25, 2024, Covington Alert
The inauguration of President Trump on January 20 is expected to bring important changes to U.S. trade policy that are likely to affect companies that supply international customers, or are reliant on global supply chains. As discussed in our prior client alert, international trade is expected to be a key focus of President Trump, who has repeatedly expressed a preference for using tariffs as a policy tool to create perceived leverage for dealmaking with international partners on both economic and non-economic issues. Recent announcements by the Trump transition team regarding cabinet and staff appointments reinforce the view that trade policy under a second Trump administration could involve significant unilateral U.S. action, including the imposition of substantial new tariffs and a hawkish stance toward China. These new tariffs could be implemented swiftly after Trump takes office, or could alternatively be subject to more extensive investigative and reporting procedures, depending on the legal authority invoked. New tariff measures, as well as other trade actions Trump has proposed, could lead to retaliatory responses by U.S. trading partners, including key U.S. allies. This alert explores how trade policy may be implemented by a second Trump administration, and considers how companies may prepare for and mitigate the risks associated with these developments.
Cabinet Nominations and Other Economic Appointees
In recent weeks, Trump has announced several cabinet and staff appointments for his second administration, including individuals responsible for implementing trade policy. Key among them is Howard Lutnick, chairman and CEO of a Wall Street investment firm and co-chair of Trump’s transition team, whom Trump has selected to be Secretary of Commerce. Echoing Trump’s own views, Lutnick has been a strong advocate for using tariffs as an industrial policy tool and bargaining chip to rebalance U.S. trade, though he has suggested tariff measures under a second Trump administration may be more “targeted” than the universal 10 to 20 percent tariffs proposed by Trump during his campaign. In announcing Lutnick’s forthcoming nomination, Trump noted Lutnick would lead the administration’s “Tariff and Trade agenda,” and that he would have direct responsibility over the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”). As USTR is a separate agency established by Congress within the Executive Office of the President to lead on trade issues, it is uncertain if the announcement was referring to informal oversight over USTR or a formal restructuring of the agency. Should Trump seek to consolidate USTR within or under the Commerce Department, he may face opposition from Congress, whose approval would be required for such a reorganization. Continue Reading Trade Policy Under a Second Trump Administration and Implications for Business