In February 2026, the United States introduced a series of significant and fast‑moving measures that alter the trade environment for all exporters shipping goods into the country. Unlike previous episodes of tariff escalation driven by political disputes or emergency powers, these changes combine a major Supreme Court ruling with a new, wide‑reaching import surcharge and the continuation of restrictions on low‑value shipments. The result is a more complex, costlier and less predictable market for European businesses.
The developments unfolded rapidly over a few days, beginning with the invalidation of a major legal tool for tariff actions and immediately followed by the introduction of a new statutory mechanism that applies across most of the tariff schedule. European exporters must now navigate a system where some historical risks have disappeared, but new ones have emerged with broad commercial and operational consequences.
Key Messages
- The Supreme Court has eliminated the legal basis for a range of emergency‑driven tariffs, but this has not reduced overall tariff exposure for most European exporters.
- A new 10 percent surcharge under Section 122 now applies to the majority of U.S. imports until July 2026, significantly affecting landed costs.
- The longstanding USD 800 de minimis threshold remains suspended, fundamentally altering the economics of low‑value and ecommerce shipments.
- Exemptions to the surcharge exist but require precise tariff classification and documentation, as they are narrowly defined.
- The combined measures require businesses to recalculate pricing, review supplier and customer contracts, and assess supply chain options.
The Supreme Court Decision and Its Immediate Effects
The sequence began on 20 February, when the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cannot be used to levy import duties. This decision ended a set of tariff actions that had accumulated over the previous years, including measures linked to border security, the synthetic opioid supply chain and several country‑specific actions involving Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, Cuba and Iran. With these programs no longer legally valid, the Administration directed agencies to stop collecting them.
The removal of these tariffs was politically and legally significant, but for most European businesses the practical commercial impact was modest. The emergency‑based duties applied to a limited set of goods, and the larger tariff architecture remained in place. Even so, the ruling narrowed the government’s ability to impose new import duties unilaterally and signalled a shift toward statutory instruments rather than emergency authorities.
The Section 122 Import Surcharge
Only hours after the Court’s decision, the U.S. administration announced a new temporary import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The measure introduced a 10 percent duty on nearly all imported goods entering the United States between 24 February and 24 July 2026.
The justification was economic rather than political: the government cited fundamental international payments problems and a deteriorating balance‑of‑payments position. Section 122 allows such a surcharge for a limited period without requiring congressional approval, and it applies broadly unless specific exclusions are made.
Those exclusions appeared in detailed annexes listing narrowly defined HTSUS codes, covering items such as civil aircraft and related components, certain agricultural goods, selected minerals and metals and a range of chemicals and intermediates. Goods qualifying under USMCA or DR‑CAFTA also fall outside the scope. Shipments genuinely in transit before 24 February received short‑term relief.
For importers and exporters, the surcharge created immediate pressure on cost structures. It applies on top of existing duties such as MFN rates, Section 301 measures on China and antidumping or countervailing duties. The only notable interaction is with Section 232, where the surcharge applies only to the portion of a product not already covered by those duties. Customs also introduced administrative changes: specific sequencing rules for tariff code reporting, stricter requirements for Foreign Trade Zones and heightened documentary expectations.
Taken together, these provisions significantly increase landed costs and compliance complexity for European exporters.
The Continued Suspension of De Minimis Treatment
Alongside the Court’s ruling and the Section 122 action, the United States confirmed that the USD 800 de minimis threshold remains suspended. As a result, low‑value shipments can no longer rely on simplified, duty‑free entry. Non‑postal shipments now require formal customs declarations, and postal items will transition to a revised system but remain subject to duties in the interim.
For European ecommerce sellers and companies using parcel networks, this development is particularly consequential. Models built on high‑volume, low‑value shipments now face duty liability, additional paperwork and increased friction at the border. In many cases the economics of small‑basket transactions will need to be reassessed.
What These Changes Mean for European Exporters
The combined effect of the Supreme Court ruling, the Section 122 surcharge and the de minimis suspension is a more costly and administratively demanding environment. Some categories of emergency‑based tariffs have disappeared, but the new surcharge reaches far more broadly across the tariff schedule. At the same time, ecommerce channels have lost their principal duty‑relief mechanism, and the compliance requirements associated with exemptions are more stringent.
Taken together, these measures will require businesses to reevaluate pricing, supply chains, contractual arrangements and internal compliance processes. Companies that act early will be better positioned to manage risk and maintain competitiveness.
Recommended Actions
- Review all HS classifications against the Section 122 annexes to identify any possible exemptions and ensure technical accuracy.
- Rebuild landed‑cost models, incorporating the surcharge and the end of de minimis relief into pricing, customer quotations and financial planning.
- Examine commercial contracts, including INCOTERMS, tariff‑sharing provisions and change‑in‑law clauses, to determine who bears the cost of the surcharge.
- Strengthen documentation, particularly where exemptions apply, such as in‑transit claims, aircraft parts or specialised product categories.
- Assess origin strategies, exploring whether production steps or component sourcing could bring goods under USMCA or DR‑CAFTA preferences.
- Evaluate supply chain adjustments, including U.S. or near‑shore finishing, FTZ strategies or alternative logistics models to mitigate cost and disruption.
- Monitor policy developments, as the Section 122 surcharge could be amended, extended or replaced before July 2026.
