US-China Tariffs Explained (2026)
What Actually Changed and What It Means for Shoppers
Last updated: May 9, 2026 | Updated: U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Section 122 tariffs on May 7 for named plaintiffs. CAPE refund portal continues processing IEEPA refunds.
Breaking: The Supreme Court Changed Everything — Sort Of
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the president may not set tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The majority held that the power to impose tariffs belongs to Congress under Article I of the Constitution — not the executive branch.
The IEEPA tariffs stopped being collected as of midnight on February 24, 2026, per US Customs and Border Protection guidance.
Two months later, the refund process has officially begun. On April 20, 2026, CBP launched the CAPE portal (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries), a court-ordered electronic system for importers to claim back IEEPA duties. The numbers are significant: approximately $166 billion was collected from over 330,000 importers across 53 million shipments between April 2025 and February 2026. Refunds are expected to take 60–90 days after approval — though the process is phased, and smaller businesses without customs brokers or legal counsel may face hurdles.
Here’s the catch: the tariff story is far from over.
Within hours of the ruling, President Trump signed a new proclamation imposing a 10% global import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (balance of payments), effective February 24 — the same day the IEEPA tariffs ended. The administration has also signaled it plans to use Section 301 (unfair trade practices) investigations and Section 232 (national security) authority to reimpose duties on specific countries and products. They stated publicly that the intent is to maintain “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”
The legal basis changed. The tariff environment, for now, largely didn’t.
Update — May 7, 2026: The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 in State of Oregon et al. v. United States that the Section 122 tariffs are unlawful. The court found the administration failed to demonstrate the “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” the statute requires. The ruling permanently enjoined the tariffs against the importer plaintiffs (Basic Fun!, Burlap & Barrel, and the State of Washington) and ordered refunds for what they had paid. For all other importers, the 10% surcharge remains in effect through its scheduled July 24 expiration. Other importers would need to file their own suits to benefit, and CBP has stated it will not process refunds until appeals conclude.
The administration is expected to appeal to the Federal Circuit. If the ruling holds, Section 122 closes as a tariff lever the way IEEPA did in February, leaving Section 301 and Section 232 as the remaining authorities. The category most exposed to this volatility remains consumer electronics and phones, where Section 301 duties have been the dominant pricing pressure since Trump’s first term and are unaffected by either ruling.
What Is a Tariff?
A tariff is a tax the US government charges on goods imported from other countries. The importer pays it — and in practice, that cost gets passed to the buyer. Tariffs have been used for over a century to protect domestic manufacturers, raise revenue, or apply pressure in trade negotiations.
For most of recent history, tariffs on Chinese goods existed but were low enough that cheap Chinese manufacturing still undercut American and European competitors easily. That started changing during Trump’s first term, with Section 301 tariffs on hundreds of product categories. His second term escalated things dramatically — and then the courts stepped in.
The De Minimis Loophole — And Why It Mattered
Before getting to the tariff drama, it helps to understand a rule most shoppers never knew existed.
A law called the de minimis exemption let any package worth $800 or less enter the US completely duty-free and without standard customs inspection. Congress raised the threshold to $800 in 2015. The intent was to reduce paperwork on small personal imports. What actually happened was very different.
Chinese e-commerce platforms — Temu, Shein, and Alibaba among them — built their entire US direct-to-consumer model around this exemption. They shipped individual packages under $800 directly to American buyers, avoiding all tariffs that would apply to commercial bulk shipments. By 2024, over 1.3 billion packages entered the US under de minimis in a single year. About 60% came from China.
American importers paying full duties were competing against Chinese platforms paying nothing. That was the loophole.
It is now closed — and the Supreme Court ruling does not reopen it. The termination of de minimis was carried out under separate executive authority and was explicitly preserved in the February 20 executive order that ended the IEEPA tariffs.
The 2025–2026 Timeline
The past year moved fast. Here’s what actually happened:
February 4, 2025: A 10% tariff took effect on all Chinese imports, layered on top of existing Section 301 tariffs from Trump’s first term.
April 2, 2025 (“Liberation Day”): Sweeping reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA announced targeting approximately 60 countries. China was hit hardest. Tariffs escalated through April, briefly reaching 145% on Chinese goods — a level that nearly halted Chinese imports and caused DHL to temporarily suspend some US-bound shipments.
May 2, 2025: De minimis ended for China and Hong Kong. Individual packages under $800 from Chinese sellers became subject to all applicable duties.
May 12, 2025: The US and China agreed to a 90-day tariff truce, reducing the IEEPA reciprocal tariff from 125% to 10%. The truce was extended through November 2026.
August 29, 2025: De minimis ended for all countries, not just China. All sub-$800 packages from anywhere now face duties and customs processing.
February 20, 2026: The Supreme Court ruled IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. They held that “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties” and that the power to impose tariffs is “very clearly a branch of the taxing power” reserved to Congress.
February 24, 2026: IEEPA tariffs stopped being collected. Trump’s Section 122 10% global surcharge took effect the same day.
March 4, 2026: The Court of International Trade ordered CBP to begin refunding IEEPA tariffs. CBP said it cannot immediately comply. The order was suspended on March 6 pending a new compliance plan.
March 11, 2026: USTR Greer announced new Section 301 investigations targeting 16 economies. See below.
April 20, 2026: CBP launched the CAPE portal — the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system — inside the ACE Secure Data Portal. Phase 1 covers unliquidated entries and entries liquidated within the past 80 days. As of April 14, 56,497 importers had completed electronic payment setup, representing approximately $127 billion of the $166 billion total. Refunds are expected within 60–90 days of approval. Small businesses face an urgent deadline: entries already past the 80-day liquidation window may require formal protest or litigation to recover.
May 7, 2026: The Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 in State of Oregon et al. v. United States that Section 122 tariffs are unlawful, but limited the relief to the named plaintiffs. Section 122 remains in effect for all other importers pending appeal.
NEW: The Section 301 Strategy — The Administration's Tariff Rebuild
On March 11, 2026, USTR Greer announced a new Section 301 investigation targeting 16 trading partners including China, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, and Mexico. The stated rationale is “structural excess capacity” — the claim that these countries are overproducing and dumping goods on US markets below cost.
Section 301 is the same authority used to impose tariffs on Chinese goods during Trump’s first term — tariffs the Supreme Court ruling did not touch. The administration is openly using this investigation to rebuild the tariff pressure it lost when IEEPA was struck down, on legally firmer ground.
Public comments are due April 15, 2026. Hearings begin May 5. New tariffs could follow by summer. A separate Section 301 probe into countries that fail to ban goods made with forced labor was also signaled.
NEW: Some US Allies Now Pay Higher Tariffs Than China
This is the counterintuitive result of replacing country-specific IEEPA rates with a flat Section 122 surcharge.
Countries that had negotiated trade deals with the US — the UK, EU, Japan, South Korea — were already at or near the 10% baseline under IEEPA. China was carrying that plus Section 301 duties of 7.5%–25%. The flat Section 122 surcharge compresses that spread.
According to Global Trade Alert, on a trade-weighted basis the UK’s effective tariff rate rose 2.1 points, the EU’s rose 0.8 points, and China’s dropped 7.1 points — because its high IEEPA reciprocal tariffs were replaced by the flat surcharge.
The gap has narrowed, not closed. Chinese goods still carry Section 301 duties on top of Section 122. European and Japanese goods remain meaningfully cheaper to import overall. But the math has shifted, and the status of product-specific exemptions negotiated under IEEPA deals — including the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal — is legally unresolved.
Where Things Stand Right Now
What This Means for Shoppers
The short-term effect is real but modest. The IEEPA tariffs on Chinese goods added costs that have partially eased, but Section 301 duties — which never went away — mean Chinese goods still face a significantly higher total tariff load than goods from most other countries.
De minimis is gone permanently. The Temu/Shein model of $8 delivered-to-your-door packages is not coming back.
On the $166 billion in refunds: don’t expect a check in the mail anytime soon. The refund process runs through importers, not consumers. Whether any savings flow back to shoppers depends on individual retailers — and for costs already passed on, most probably won’t be. Shout-out to UPS, FedEx, DHL and Costco for publicly expressing plans to return refunded tariffs to consumers.
The Section 301 investigations announced in March suggest the administration intends to rebuild comprehensive tariff coverage through legally durable authority. The direction of travel has not changed — the tools are just different.
This is still the best time to be asking where your products are made.
Not sure how to verify on your own? See our guide to finding country of origin at How to Tell Where It’s Made When You’re Shopping Online.
Still fully in effect:
- Section 301 tariffs — 7.5% to 25% on most Chinese goods, up to 50% on some categories. These were not touched by the IEEPA ruling and are not subject to the July 2026 expiration.
- Section 232 tariffs — 50% on steel and aluminum from most countries; 25% on automobiles and parts
- De minimis is closed — for all countries, all package sizes under $800
- Section 122 global surcharge — 10% on imports from all countries, effective February 24, 2026. Expires July 24, 2026 unless Congress extends it. Status update May 7, 2026: Struck down for named plaintiffs in State of Oregon v. United States; remains in effect for all other importers pending appeal.
No longer in effect:
- IEEPA-based reciprocal tariffs
- IEEPA-based fentanyl/trafficking tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico
Actively developing:
- New Section 301 investigations into 16 economies, announced March 11. Hearings begin May 5.
- IEEPA tariff refunds processing through the CAPE portal launched April 20. Approximately $127 billion of $166 billion claimed by importers as of mid-April; refunds expected within 60-90 days of approval.
- Status of bilateral trade deals negotiated under IEEPA authority — legally ambiguous.
- Federal Circuit appeal of the May 7 Section 122 ruling. If the appeals court affirms, Section 122 closes as a tariff lever the way IEEPA did in February.
Our Position
We don’t take a political side on trade policy. Tariffs are complicated — there are genuine arguments on multiple sides, and the economic effects fall unevenly, including on lower-income households who relied on cheap imports.
What we do care about is transparency in manufacturing. Regardless of what tariff rates apply at any given moment, the question of where a product is made — and under what conditions, by what standards — doesn’t change. The brands on this site are verified against manufacturer disclosures and country-of-origin documentation. When production moves, we update. If a brand shifts manufacturing to China, they come off the list.
Tariff rules change fast, as the past 12 months have made very clear. Manufacturing history is more stable than any executive order.
Sources: Supreme Court opinion, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (February 20, 2026); U.S. Court of International Trade, State of Oregon et al. v. United States (May 7, 2026); Holland & Knight LLP; Ropes & Gray LLP; WilmerHale; Troutman Pepper Locke; Brookings Institution; Reuters; CNN Business; US Customs and Border Protection CSMS #67834313; Congress.gov CRS Report R48549. This page is updated as policy changes. Last updated May 9, 2026.