Resources

On June 2, USTR opened a public comment process seeking input on the types of non-sensitive products that should be eligible for non-MFN tariff reductions by the U.S. and China, and considerations around the design of a new government-to-government mechanism—a U.S.-China Board of Trade—to manage bilateral trade optimization on an ongoing basis.

The announcement follows a Trump-Xi summit held on May 14–15 in Beijing, which led to a commitment by both countries to lower tariffs on certain unspecified products valued at $30 billion or more for each side.

USTR said that under this approach each side would identify non-sensitive products and come to agreement to modify certain non-MFN tariffs imposed by the other side. USTR envisions that additional tariffs imposed through certain U.S. legal authorities could be favorably modified as a result of the negotiations, provided that any modifications do not conflict with U.S. law or economic or national security interests and that any conditions related to tariff modifications are satisfied. Meanwhile, China would be expected to modify tariffs that it has imposed on the U.S.

Accordingly, USTR is requesting comments on such matters as the types of Chinese products that should be considered non-sensitive; the U.S. consumers, workers and producers that would benefit or would be harmed from any tariff modifications; U.S. products that exporters should be able to sell to the Chinese market at China’s MFN rates; and the frequency of meetings and general operation of the U.S.-China Board of Trade.

Virginia exporters and importers should strongly consider submitting comments to help position their products for potential tariff reductions and ensure their interests are reflected in evolving U.S.-China trade discussions.

Comments are due on July 10, 2026, and responses or rebuttals to written comments are due July 27, 2026.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has formally kicked off its second four-year review of the Section 301 tariffs that are currently in place on a broad range of products from China.

The first phase in this four-year review process involves a formal notification to representatives of domestic industries that benefit from the July 6, 2018 action (List 1) and the August 23, 2018 action (List 2), as modified by lists 3 and 4A, of the possible termination of the actions and of the opportunity for these representatives to request continuation of the actions.

Any representative of a domestic industry that benefits from the Section 301 action taken on July 6, 2018, as modified, may submit a request to continue such action between May 7 and July 5, while any representative of a domestic industry that benefits from the Section 301 action taken on August 23, 2018, as modified, may submit a request to continue such action between June 24 and August 22. USTR states that any such requests should identify the specific industry concerned and how the domestic industry benefits from the Section 301 action.

USTR will announce in subsequent notices whether it has received a request for continuation of the July 6, 2018, action and/or the August 23, 2018, action, as modified, from a domestic industry representative that benefits from the action.

If any such requests are received, USTR will then announce the continuation of the action and invite through a separate portal interested parties to comment on the effectiveness of the action in achieving the objectives of Section 301, other actions that could be taken, and the effects of such actions on the U.S. economy, including consumers.

Virginia companies should closely follow upcoming USTR notices, as they will outline opportunities to comment on potential tariff changes. In the previous four‑year review conducted under the Biden administration, USTR chose to maintain existing tariffs on Chinese goods and increased rates on products in key sectors, including clean technology, electric vehicles, personal protective equipment, semiconductors, and steel and aluminum.

The U.S. and Mexico recently concluded two formal rounds of negotiations ahead of a scheduled July 1 trilateral review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The U.S. and Canada have yet to schedule formal talks, though informal discussions are reportedly taking place.

In the first two rounds, U.S. and Mexican negotiators advanced discussions on economic security, trade in steel and aluminum, and rules of origin for certain industrial goods and automobiles. The two sides also began conceptual discussions on agriculture, labor, and environmental issues.

In addition, USTR said that both sides agreed to support the establishment of a committee to review the implementation of Chapter 12 (Sectoral Annexes) of the USMCA to enhance regulatory compatibility.

On June 18, Mexican Secretary of Economy Marcelo Ebrard said that the formal review of the agreement will begin on July 1 through a trilateral virtual meeting. Meanwhile, a third round of negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico is scheduled to take place next month, in Mexico City.

The talks come amid remarks by President Trump suggesting possible non-renewal of USMCA, which have introduced some uncertainty into the process. However, Virginia companies should recognize that such statements do not always constitute formal policy and may reflect broader negotiating dynamics. Importantly, the USMCA review process is distinct from withdrawal. While withdrawal requires six months’ written notice, the upcoming review may conclude either with an agreement to extend USMCA for another 16 years, potentially with updates, or a transition to annual joint reviews over the next ten years.

On April 2, President Trump issued a proclamation, effective April 6, revising Section 232 tariffs on imports of steel, aluminum, and copper, along with their derivative products. The changes significantly alter how tariffs are applied and the framework companies must use to determine their exposure.

Under the revised approach, products are now divided into annexes with different tariff rates depending on their HTSUS classification. Annex I-A products are subject to a 50 percent tariff, Annex I-B products to 25 percent, and Annex III products to 15 percent. At the same time, products listed under Annex II have been removed from the scope of the tariffs. 

Another major change is how tariffs are calculated. Rather than being assessed based on the metal content of an imported article, the tariff now applies to the full value of the product or derivative. The administration also eliminated the public process that previously allowed stakeholders to request the addition of new products to the tariff coverage.

The proclamation also outlines several exemptions and opportunities for reduced rates. Products that do not contain any steel, aluminum, or copper are excluded, as are products in which covered metals account for less than 15 percent of the article’s total weight. Certain motorcycle parts used in U.S. manufacturing also qualify for exemption. In addition, a reduced tariff rate of 10 percent is available for derivatives containing a high share of U.S. melt/pour or smelt/cast metals; this threshold was initially set at 95 percent but was lowered to 85 percent effective June 8. 

Additionally, qualifying UK-origin products made with at least 95% UK metal—including Tata Steel products where the steel is melted and poured in the Netherlands—are subject to reduced rates of 25 percent under Annex I-A and 15 percent under Annex I-B.

Further revisions effective on June 8 introduced additional flexibility and reclassification of certain products. Agricultural equipment and selected HVAC components were moved from Annex I-B (25 percent) to Annex III (15 percent). In addition, certain mobile industrial equipment was reassigned to a new Annex I-C category. This category starts at a 25 percent tariff but allows for reduced rates depending on the article’s sourcing and origin. For example, equipment sourced from certain partner countries may qualify for a 15 percent cap, while products incorporating sufficient U.S.-origin metal can see the rate reduced further to 10 percent. For qualifying Canadian and Mexican goods under the USMCA, U.S. content up to 40 percent of the value of the derivative is duty-free.

The June 8 revisions also introduced targeted relief for machinery. Certain products used exclusively in the manufacture of agricultural, fixed industrial, or mobile industrial equipment may now qualify for a 15 percent tariff cap.

Virginia companies engaged in these sectors should carefully review the proclamations and applicable annexes to determine the impact on their operations. Particular attention should be paid to HTSUS classifications, eligibility for exemptions, and opportunities to reduce tariff exposure.

For more information, see proclamation (effective April 6) and proclamation (effective June 8), and refer to Annex I-A, Annex I-B, Annex I-C, Annex II, and Annex III.

On April 2, President Trump has issued a proclamation imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of patented pharmaceuticals and their ingredients. The tariffs will go into effect on July 31, 2026, for companies listed in Annex III to the proclamation, and September 29, 2026, for other companies. The tariffs will apply as follows:

• A 100 percent tariff will be imposed on patented pharmaceuticals and associated pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) identified in Annex I.

• A 20 percent tariff will be imposed on patented pharmaceuticals and APIs produced by companies that have plans approved by the Department of Commerce to onshore production. This tariff rate will increase to 100 percent on April 2, 2030. The procedures to apply for these agreements can be found here.

• A 15 percent tariff will be applied to patented pharmaceuticals and APIs that are products of Japan, the European Union, South Korea, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein.

• A 10 percent tariff will be applied to patented pharmaceuticals and APIs that are products of the United Kingdom.

Exemptions are available for generic pharmaceuticals, patented drugs from companies on Annex II, certain U.S.-origin pharmaceutical products, and products listed in Annex IV to the proclamation. 

Virginia companies involved in the pharmaceutical supply chain should closely review the proclamation and annexes to determine whether their products are covered and take steps now to assess and manage potential tariff exposure.

For more information, click here.

On May 28, the Department of Commerce, the International Trade Administration (ITA), and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice implementing certain tariff-related elements of a Trade and Security Agreement Between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. 

The action implements the terms of the MOU that was signed on January 15, but it does not implement the terms of the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) that was signed on February 12, as that is not yet in effect. 

Effective on May 1, 2026, the following revised tariff rates will be capped for products of Taiwan:

• Section 232 automobile parts: The greater of 1) 15% inclusive of MFN, or 2) MFN.
• Section 232 wood products: 15% inclusive of MFN.
• Section 232 steel, aluminium, and copper tariffs: Exemption for civil aircraft components.

Virginia companies importing from Taiwan should review entries made on or after May 1, 2026, to determine whether they qualify for duty refunds under the revised tariff rates. CBP noted in a CSMS that importers may correct past entries to request refunds by filing a Post Summary Correction.

On March 31, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) submitted its 2026 National Trade Estimate (NTE) report to President Trump and Congress. The report is submitted annually and details foreign barriers for U.S. exports and foreign direct investment.

This year’s NTE emphasized that foreign trade barriers remain widespread, persistent, and increasingly structural, with many countries relying not only on tariffs but also on regulatory, industrial policy, and non-market practices that disadvantage U.S. workers and businesses. 

The report also incorporated commitments made under new “agreements on reciprocal trade” (ARTs) reached with multiple countries over the past year, while noting that these agreements still require domestic approval and are not fully implemented.

The second Trump Administration has increasingly used the NTE report to guide its trade negotiations, pressing partners to address specific barriers identified in prior reports and incorporating those commitments into new “agreements on reciprocal trade.”

To read the full 2026 NTE, click here.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has begun soliciting public comments to inform the development of trade policy recommendations on the modernization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), ahead of any Congressional consideration of the program’s reauthorization before it expires by end of year.

In its notice, USTR explained that it will submit recommendations to Congress on reforms and modernizations to AGOA to ensure the program meets the needs of American workers and businesses, advances U.S. national security and economic security goals, optimizes balanced bilateral trade flows with beneficiary countries, and provides a path for reciprocal trade agreements with the more advanced countries as they develop and graduate from the program.

USTR outlined several concerns with AGOA since its enactment, stating that the program’s overall impact on U.S.–Africa trade trends and economic relations “have been ineffective and uneven across countries, and raise serious questions about the impact of AGOA as a trade program.” USTR also raised broader strategic concerns, including the growing presence of strategic competitors in sub-Saharan Africa and the failure of the program to address emerging issues of national interest, specifically the role sub-Saharan African countries play in critical mineral supply chains.

Virginia companies imported approximately $89 million under AGOA in 2025. For more information, click here.

On April 26, USTR announced an agreement on a U.S.-EU Action Plan on critical minerals, aimed at laying the groundwork for a broader plurilateral trade initiative with like-minded partners to strengthen supply chain resilience.

Under the Action Plan, the U.S. and EU intend to discuss the feasibility and development of coordinated trade policies and mechanisms, including market and trade measures based on reference prices, such as border-adjusted price floors, standards-based markets, price gap subsidies, or offtake-agreements, focusing in the first instance on mutually agreed select critical minerals and associated supply chains.

This announcement builds on similar U.S. action plans established earlier this year with Mexico and Japan. In addition, USTR recently concluded a public comment process in March to help inform the design of a potential plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals.

Virginia companies engaged in critical minerals should view these developments within the context of broader U.S. efforts to reduce reliance on China for these minerals. On June 17, G7 leaders issued a declaration on critical minerals supply chains, setting an objective to significantly reduce dependence on any single supplier outside the G7. The declaration targets reducing reliance on such sources for rare earths and permanent magnets to below 60 percent by 2030, with an ambition to reach 50 percent as soon as feasible.

The U.S. is also reportedly preparing to propose binding bilateral agreements with the EU and Japan by the end of June to build on the current action plans, potentially covering key minerals such as heavy rare earths, antimony, graphite, and tungsten.

The European Parliament voted on June 16 to formally approve the two pieces of legislation implementing the EU tariff commitments of the EU-U.S. Joint Statement (the so-called Turnberry agreement) that was reached in August last year. The deal is now set to receive final approval by the Council of the EU on June 26.

The first (main) regulation eliminates remaining import duties on U.S. industrial goods and grants preferential market access, including via tariff-rate quotas and reduced tariffs, for certain U.S. seafood and non-sensitive agricultural products, while the second regulation focuses on extending the duty suspension for imports of lobster, including processed lobster.

The main regulation on industrial and agri-food imports will expire on December 31, 2029. By June 30, 2029, the European Commission will make a comprehensive assessment of its trade effects on EU industry, agriculture, and small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as of changes in trade patterns with third countries, accompanied by a legislative proposal to prolong the regulation’s duration, if appropriate.

Furthermore, the Commission will be able to suspend tariff preferences for U.S. steel and aluminum products if by December 31, 2026, the U.S. continues to apply a tariff rate higher than 15 percent on EU steel and aluminium derivatives. The Commission will also be able to suspend all tariff preferences if the U.S. fails to address the EU’s concerns regarding the tariff treatment of other EU exports which until February 24, 2026, benefitted from the 15% all-inclusive tariff ceiling.

The EU accounted for roughly 24% of Virginia’s total exports in 2025, valued at approximately $4.5 billion. Virginia exporters should anticipate increased market access for agricultural and industrial exports into the EU. At the same time, Virginia importers should monitor potential U.S. tariff actions affecting EU-origin products, including in sectors such as steel and aluminum.

On April 20, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of its process for refunding IEEPA tariffs, allowing importers or their brokers to begin submitting IEEPA duty refund claims electronically.

In Phase 1, CAPE will process most entries that are either unliquidated or up to 80 days past their liquidation date. Following CBP review, these entries will be liquidated or reliquidated and refunds will be issued. CAPE will also process entries with liquidation status of suspended, extended, or under review, as well as warehouse and warehouse withdrawal entries. These entries will maintain their liquidation status until resolved, and the refund, if validated, will be issued following liquidation.

CBP further expanded the scope of Phase 1 effective June 29, 2026, to include certain entries flagged for reconciliation. Specifically, entries of types 01, 02, and 06 may now be submitted through CAPE when a reconciliation entry (type 09) has not yet been filed.

The agency is still evaluating how to incorporate several categories of entries currently excluded from CAPE, including reconciliation summaries (entry type 09), entries tied to drawback claims, entries subject to open protests, entries not filed or lacking status in ACE, entries involving antidumping or countervailing duties with pending liquidation instructions, as well as entries that have already been finally liquidated.

CBP has said that CAPE Phase III, which could be ready as early as late July, will add functionality for additional categories of entries, including those filed by importers that have filed suit at the CIT for which reliquidation is needed.

Despite CBP’s preparations for CAPE Phase III, it remains unclear whether refunds will actually be available for entries to be covered by that phase because the Department of Justice continues to assert that once an entry is finally liquidated CBP has no authority to reliquidate or refund money without a valid, importer-specific court order. The DOJ is also contesting a universal injunction ordering refunds to be paid on all entries regardless of whether an importer has filed suit.

Given this position, it appears increasingly likely that CAPE Phase III will only be available to importers who file their own court cases seeking IEEPA tariff refunds. Further, ongoing litigation on related issues is unlikely to be completed prior to the expiration of the applicable two-year statute of limitations for filing suit. It is also unclear whether the DOJ and/or the courts will hold that protests of liquidations will be necessary and/or sufficient to secure refunds.

Accordingly, Virginia importers should strongly consider filing their own lawsuits before the Court of International Trade to preserve their rights to IEEPA tariff refunds should the CAPE and protest processes not provide all refunds timely. Court actions should especially be considered for importers with finally liquidated entries that are not eligible for both CAPE and protests.

For more information, see CBP’s IEEPA Refunds Webpage, which includes relevant resources and CSMS messages.

On May 7, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled against President Trump’s 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122. However, the tariffs will remain in effect for now after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted the federal government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

In its decision, the CIT found that the president did not identify a “balance-of-payments” deficit as required under Section 122 and ordered the government to stop applying Section 122 tariffs within five days and to refund any tariffs they paid, with interest. The CIT, however, limited its order only to the three named plaintiffs—Burlap and Barrel, Inc., Basic Fun, Inc., and the State of Washington in its capacity as an importer.

The government immediately appealed to the CAFC and asked both courts to pause the ruling while the case proceeds. On June 11, the CAFC granted the federal government’s request, meaning that the CIT ruling against the tariff will be paused while the appeal proceeds.

Notably, in issuing the stay, the CAFC signaled that the government is likely to prevail on appeal. The court stated that the Department of Justice had made “a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” indicating that the Section 122 tariff is more likely than not to be upheld.

While the CAFC similarly stayed a CIT ruling against President Trump’s 2025 IEEPA tariffs before ultimately striking those duties down, that earlier stay did not comment on the government’s likelihood of success. The court’s explicit assessment here is therefore notable.

Virginia companies should monitor this case to determine if they may be entitled to refunds sometime in the future.

For more information on the CIT and CAFC rulings, click here and here.

On June 3, President Trump issued an executive order that will impact all importers and entities connected to import transactions. The EO calls for a broad strengthening of U.S. customs enforcement, including:

• Directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to strengthen several requirements for importers of record (IORs). 
• Instructing DHS and CBP to establish various disclosure and certification requirements designed to combat duty evasion and noncompliance with supply chain rules.
• Expanding enforcement of existing customs laws, including by establishing a 50% minimum penalty floor limiting CBP’s discretion to reduce the assessed penalties on importers who violate our customs laws. 
• Enhancing DHS authority to seize and dispose of non-compliant imports by reducing regulatory barriers to voluntary abandonment and permitting third-party disposal.
• Increasing transparency through the publication of annual customs enforcement reports.
• Directing DHS to propose legislation to strengthen customs enforcement.

Virginia companies should note that these measures are not immediately effective. DHS and CBP are expected to engage with stakeholders to implement these actions through the standard rulemaking process. Accordingly, it is anticipated that CBP will issue Federal Register notices within the timelines specified in the EO seeking public comment, which may allow parties time to adjust operations as needed.

In the near term, however, importers—particularly foreign IORs—should anticipate an increase in enforcement, bonding, data submissions, and compliance requirements.

For more details on the executive order and its provisions, click here.

On June 15, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the first Trump administration’s expansion of the Section 301 tariffs on China from the original $50 billion (Lists 1 and 2) to approximately $370 billion under Lists 3 and 4A.

HMTX Industries, LLC v. United States was the lead case challenging the List 3 and 4 tariffs before both the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).  After both courts upheld the tariffs, HMTX petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the CAFC ruling means the Section 301 tariffs on List 3 and 4A goods from China will continue to be imposed and there will be no refunds of such tariffs levied in the past.

In the meantime, the second Trump administration has proposed new tariffs under other Section 301 actions and is conducting new investigations that could result in additional tariffs. The Supreme Court’s decision has no practical effect on those other 301 actions, but it could strengthen the administration’s conviction that it has authority to modify any tariffs that may be imposed in those proceedings whenever and however much it wants in pursuit of its stated objectives.

For more information, click here.

The International Trade Administration (ITA) announced in a Federal Register notice that it will revise user fees for its export and investment promotion services and events, effective July 22. The update includes eliminating previously available discounts for small and medium-sized enterprises.

According to the agency, the changes are intended to align with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, which directs federal agencies to fully recover the costs of providing services.

ITA will accept comments on the notice beginning June 22 and on a rolling basis thereafter. While the agency does not plan to respond to individual submissions, it stated that public input collected will be used to inform any future fee schedule revisions.

More information is available in the Federal Register Notice.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced that it is renewing its Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test, a National Customs Automation Program test concerning ACE export manifest capability. This voluntary pilot initially began on August 10, 2015, and was most recently extended on June 4, 2024.

The Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit export manifest data to CBP electronically at least four hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft in preparation for departure from the U.S.

For more information, click here.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a public notice on April 14 narrowing bans on new imports of drones and routers produced in foreign countries.

The FCC maintains a list of equipment and services that have been determined to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons (Covered List). In recent months the FCC has added to this list all uncrewed aircraft systems (drones) and UAS critical components, and all consumer-grade routers, produced in foreign countries. These actions effectively prohibit new such goods from being imported for use or sale in the U.S. but do not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing drone or router models previously authorized by the FCC.

In the notice, FCC announced that it has granted conditional approvals for one drone (through Dec. 31, 2026) and several routers, cable gateways, and cable modems (through Oct. 1, 2027), thus exempting them from the Covered List and the associated import restrictions. The FCC suggested that these devices have been found to not pose unacceptable risks to national security but provided no further explanation.

On June 12, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an updated operational guidance for importers regarding CBP’s enforcement of prohibitions on the importation of goods made with forced labor. 

This updated guidance expands upon CBP’s June 2022 guidance related to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and now encompasses all forced labor enforcement authorities, including 19 U.S.C. § 1307 (Withhold Release Orders and Findings) and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Key elements of the guidance include:

• Enforcement process maps covering UFLPA, CAATSA, Withhold Release Order (WRO) and Finding actions.
• Dedicated sections on the UFLPA, CAATSA, WRO and Finding enforcement processes providing step-by-step guidance on what importers can expect and how to respond to detentions or exclusions.
• Appendices outlining recommended supply chain documentation for UFLPA high-priority sectors, practical UFLPA due diligence examples, and sample detention and exclusion notices related to UFLPA, WRO, and CAATSA as well as Notices of Redelivery and Certificates of Origin.

While the guidance does not introduce significant new concepts, it provides greater clarity and reinforces CBP’s expectation that companies operationalize compliance measures.

Virginia companies are advised to build end-to-end supply chain visibility, map inputs beyond Tier 1 suppliers, stress-test supplier attestations, pre-position documentation capable of meeting a “clear and convincing” standard on short notice, and consider prior disclosures if potential issues are identified.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has recently intensified its enforcement of forced labor prohibitions by issuing new Withhold Release Orders (WROs) targeting imports in the copper and garment sectors.

Effective June 16, CBP announced a WRO requiring the detention at all U.S. ports of entry of copper and copper products manufactured in Serbia by Serbia Zijin Copper D.O.O. The agency determined that the order is supported by evidence indicating that workers at this company are subject to six International Labor Organization (ILO) indicators of forced labor.

In a separate action effective June 23, CBP issued two additional WROs against garment manufacturing facilities in Jordan operated by Needle Craft Ltd. and Casual Wear Apparel LLC, citing findings that workers in these factories are subject to seven ILO indicators of forced labor.

According to CBP, importers of detained shipments may seek to destroy or export those shipments or demonstrate that the goods were not produced with forced labor.

Virginia companies importing copper and copper products manufactured in Serbia or garments manufactured in Jordan need to review their supply chain to ensure they remain in compliance.