What IEEPA Tariffs Are and How They Affect US Imports

Understanding the IEEPA: Legal Authority Behind the Tariffs

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act wasn’t originally intended to shape trade strategy. But today, IEEPA tariffs operate as a central legal mechanism driving major import restrictions. Enacted in 1977, the Act was designed to equip the executive branch with powers to address national emergencies involving external threats like terrorism and cyberattacks. Over time, however, it’s been adapted for broader use, including the imposition of trade controls. In fact, since 1977 presidents have invoked IEEPA in dozens of emergencies: 69 declarations with 39 still ongoing, as of early 2024. 

IEEPA permits the president to block or regulate commercial activity with foreign entities once a national emergency is declared. Unlike traditional trade authorities that require congressional participation or procedural checks, IEEPA offers a faster route. In doing so, it can sidestep longstanding norms around how import measures are typically evaluated and imposed. This flexibility has led to frequent use, though it raises concerns about oversight.

Historical Use of IEEPA in Trade and National Security

Historically, IEEPA supported economic sanctions, particularly those targeting countries like Iran or North Korea. But its application widened significantly during the late 2010s and 2020s, especially as the US redefined national security to include technological dependence and supply chain exposure.

In 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13873, citing IEEPA authority, which restricted the import of communications infrastructure deemed vulnerable to foreign exploitation. This marked a turning point. Rather than simply freezing assets or banning exports, IEEPA was now a platform for reshaping inbound trade flows tied to sensitive technologies. Earlier this year, Trump invoked the IEEPA again to justify his announced “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs. Critics argue that this shift represents a mission creep, transforming a sanctions-focused tool into more of a stealth tariff framework. 

What the 2026 Supreme Court Ruling Actually Held

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not give the President the power to impose tariffs. The Court held that tariff authority belongs to Congress under Article I of the Constitution and that IEEPA’s emergency powers do not include the power to tax imports.

The ruling covered two IEEPA tariff programs:

• The reciprocal tariffs, which applied to many US trading partners.

• The trafficking tariffs, imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico in response to illicit opioid trafficking.

Both programs were ruled invalid, meaning the duties collected under them lacked legal authority. The decision did not affect tariffs imposed under other laws, so Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs remained in place.

For importers, the ruling has two key effects. It prevents new IEEPA tariffs from being imposed and creates an opportunity to seek refunds of IEEPA duties already paid. It also suggests that future tariff actions will likely rely on authorities with clearer legal support, such as Section 122, Section 232, or Section 301.

How IEEPA Tariffs Differ from Traditional Trade Measures

IEEPA tariffs diverge sharply from trade statutes like Section 301 or 232. Those authorities are grounded in trade law, often following structured investigations, hearings, and stakeholder feedback. IEEPA, by contrast, activates rapidly after a presidential declaration. There’s no requirement for evidentiary thresholds or economic harm analyses. 

For importers, this creates ambiguity. Is a shipment prohibited because of its origin? Its components? The ultimate parent of the supplier? In many cases, the answer’s unclear. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) maintains restricted lists, but interpretation can vary and enforcement can be inconsistent. Some IEEPA-based actions may not even appear in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. That complicates duty assessments, classification, and eligibility for drawback.

Key Industries and Products Affected by IEEPA Tariffs

IEEPA-derived restrictions tend to concentrate on sectors perceived as strategically vital: semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, critical minerals, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and dual-use components. These measures are often justified under broad definitions of national security, though the exact criteria can remain undisclosed.

For example, in 2022 and 2023, the US under the Biden administration restricted imports of advanced telecommunications equipment from Chinese firms such as Huawei and ZTE, citing IEEPA authority. Those restrictions extended beyond finished devices to include network components and software deemed to pose cybersecurity risks. The impact rippled across telecom carriers and electronics manufacturers that had relied on Chinese-origin hardware, forcing them to find alternative suppliers at higher cost. Similar IEEPA-based actions have also targeted drone technology, surveillance systems, and certain pharmaceutical precursors tied to foreign adversaries.

Economic and Geopolitical Impacts of IEEPA on US Imports

Emergency trade controls invariably create spillover effects. While intended to safeguard national interests, IEEPA tariffs can disrupt multi-tiered supply chains and introduce long-term cost pressures. But there are also diplomatic consequences. In multiple instances, countries targeted with IEEPA declarations have retaliated with export controls of their own, especially on minerals or components where they dominate global supply. For multinational firms operating in both jurisdictions, this creates a compliance puzzle with no easy resolution.

From a macroeconomic perspective, analysts warn that such actions can dilute the credibility of US trade commitments. International partners may “lose faith in the credibility of US commitments” and become more reluctant to negotiate. Others suggest that some flexibility is necessary in a volatile security environment. Regardless of viewpoint, the uncertainty introduced by IEEPA-related measures has become a persistent factor in strategic sourcing and risk forecasting.

Legal Challenges and Controversies Around IEEPA Tariffs

Several lawsuits have argued that recent IEEPA declarations, particularly those involving common industrial inputs, do not meet the statute’s requirement of an “unusual and extraordinary” threat to national security. 

One high-profile challenge came in 2025, when a coalition of importers and states sued over the Trump administration’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the president failed to establish a genuine emergency and was usurping Congress’s tariff powers. Federal courts ultimately agreed. In a 7-4 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the broad IEEPA tariffs, finding that the Act does not authorize the president to impose sweeping duties on nearly all imports. 

Trade compliance professionals must proceed with caution. Unlike standard customs duties, which offer structured appeal processes and tariff-engineering options, IEEPA actions are often enforced through immediate measures like border seizures, denied entry, or even secondary sanctions. Firms operating in sensitive sectors may require proactive screening protocols and legal review of upstream supply chains to avoid unwitting violations.

How Importers Recover IEEPA Duties Through the CAPE Process

Following the Court's ruling against the IEEPA tariffs, importers seeking refunds must now use CBP's CAPE process within ACE to identify eligible entries, submit declarations, and obtain reliquidation and reimbursement of duties already paid. Since eligibility requirements, documentation, and entry validation can significantly affect the outcome, importers often review historical filings carefully before submitting claims. Understanding how tariff refunds work can help importers prepare stronger claims and avoid common filing errors.

Conclusion

IEEPA tariffs occupy a legally distinct and disruptive space in the current trade environment. Though not labeled as traditional duties, their impact on US imports is both measurable and growing. The Act’s national security framing allows for swift executive action, but it also introduces ambiguity and raises questions around oversight, economic coherence, and long-term supply chain planning.

In this context, adaptability is key. Tools like Gaia Dynamics support importers by using AI to track regulatory developments, flag entity-based restrictions, and anticipate classification risks, especially in fast-moving sectors.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are IEEPA tariffs still in effect in 2026?

No, on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not give the President the authority to impose tariffs. As a result, both the reciprocal tariffs and the trafficking tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico were struck down and no longer apply to new imports.

Can I get a refund on IEEPA tariffs I already paid?

Yes, CBP processes these refunds through the CAPE module in ACE, where Phase 1 covers unliquidated entries and entries liquidated within 80 days of the submission date. Refunds are not automatic, so the importer of record, or a broker, has to file a CAPE Declaration to claim them.

What is the CAPE process and who can use it?

CAPE is the ACE module CBP launched on April 20, 2026 to handle IEEPA refunds. The importer of record, or a designated customs broker, files a CSV declaration listing eligible entries. ACE then validates them, removes the IEEPA codes, and CBP issues the refund.

Did the Supreme Court ruling affect Section 232 or Section 301 tariffs?

No, the ruling only affected tariffs imposed under IEEPA. Tariffs under Section 301 and Section 232 are based on different laws and remain in effect. Section 301 duties on Chinese goods and Section 232 duties on steel, aluminum, and other products continue to apply.

What tariff authorities can the President use now that IEEPA has been struck down?

Several options remain available, including Section 122, Section 232, and Section 301. Each has its own rules and limitations.  After the ruling, the administration used Section 122 to impose a temporary 10% import surcharge.