Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“Section 232”) authorizes the President to “adjust” imports—including through application of tariffs, quotas, tariff rate quotas, and license fees—where the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) determines imports threaten to impair U.S. national security. Since February 2025, President Trump has invoked Section 232
Continue Reading Current and Forthcoming Section 232 Actions by the Trump Administration
IEEPA Tariffs Terminated, Replacement Section 122 Tariffs Take Effect
On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the case challenging the legality of the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). By a 6-3 majority, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President
Continue Reading IEEPA Tariffs Terminated, Replacement Section 122 Tariffs Take EffectA Month in Semiconductor Policy: Section 232 Measures, BIS Rule, and Taiwan Deal Signal Strategic Push
January brought several significant, long-awaited developments in the U.S. semiconductor policy space, marking an inflection point in how the Administration is deploying trade tools to advance national security and industrial policy objectives.
On January 14, 2026, the White House issued Presidential Proclamation 11002 (the “Proclamation”) and an accompanying Fact Sheet adopting
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 IndiaStatus 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 AdministrationUSTR 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 PracticesTrump 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 ChinaCPSC Revises Requirements for Certificates of Compliance
On January 8, 2025, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) published in the Federal Register a Final Rule that significantly changes the requirements for filing certificates of compliance for imported products under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). The publication of the Final Rule followed the CPSC’s vote to approve the Final Rule on December 18, 2024.
The Final Rule is intended to provide the CPSC and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) with significantly more information about imported products, which will likely enhance enforcement against noncompliant products. Companies should take proactive measures to ensure that all imported products comply with the CPSA. They should also prepare for increased scrutiny of products upon import, which may result in delays and potential seizures of products, and ensure that they have processes in place for complying with all aspects of the Final Rule.
The Final Rule makes two major changes to existing CPSC requirements for filing certificates of compliance, which will take effect on July 8, 2026 (except that for products entering from a foreign trade zone for consumption or warehousing, the rule will take effect on January 8, 2027).
First, the Final Rule requires that for all imported products subject to a mandatory safety standard under the CPSA, importers must electronically file (“eFile”) the requisite certificate of compliance at the time of entry with Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), which will then share the certificate with CPSC. Notably, products claiming a de minimis duty exemption under 19 U.S.C. § 1321 (“Section 321”)—i.e., products valued at less than $800—are also subject to this eFiling requirement. By requiring eFiling of certificates of compliance, including for de minimis products, the Final Rule is intended to improve the CPSC and CBP’s ability to collect data on imported products and bolster their monitoring and enforcement capabilities.
Second, the Final Rule newly defines the term “importer” in the CPSC regulations to be synonymous with the importer of record (“IOR”). This change places the responsibility for filing certificates of compliance for most imported products on the IOR. However, if the IOR is a customs broker, the broker is responsible for filing the certificate but can designate the “owner, purchaser, or consignee” as legally responsible for complying with the CPSC’s testing and certification requirements, including for the accuracy and validity of the data submitted on the certificate.
For mail and de minimis shipments, which do not have an IOR, the Final Rule clarifies that the “importer” can be an owner, purchaser, consignee, or authorized customs broker. Similar to products that do not fall under the de minimis exemption, the customs broker may file the certificate for a de minimis shipment but identify the owner, purchaser, or consignee as the party responsible for compliance.
Continue Reading CPSC Revises Requirements for Certificates of ComplianceSection 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 DevelopmentsTrade 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