US IEEPA Tariff Changes – February 2026

There has been a wave of commentary around the recent US tariff developments. Some of it has been genuinely useful. A fair amount has been dramatic. When headlines start hinting at sweeping reversals or instant windfalls, it is usually the right moment to take a breath, step back, and focus on what has actually changed.

The good news is that this is not chaos. It is a shift in how tariffs are being applied and clarification on how they can be legally applied. If you approach it calmly and methodically, it is very manageable.

What did the Supreme Court actually decide

On 20 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, commonly referred to as IEEPA, does not give the President the authority to impose tariffs.

In practical terms, tariffs that were imposed using IEEPA emergency declarations no longer have a valid statutory foundation. That is the key point, and it is also the limit of the change.

This decision does not remove all US tariffs. It does not dismantle the wider trade enforcement framework. It addresses one legal route and the tariff measures that relied on it.

For logistics providers and customs teams, the sensible interpretation is simple. The IEEPA layer falls away. Every HS code still needs to be checked for other active duty layers that remain in place.

Section 122

On the same day as the decision, the Administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and introduced a temporary global import surcharge.

Here is what matters operationally:

A 10 per cent ad valorem surcharge, subject to Annex-based exclusions, effective from 12.01 am Eastern Time on 24 February 2026. It applies to goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from bonded warehouse for consumption. It is scheduled to run until 24 July 2026 unless ended earlier or extended with Congressional involvement.

It is also important to understand how this interacts with Section 232. The surcharge is not stacked on top of Section 232 tariffs. Where Section 232 already applies, the Section 122 surcharge applies only to the portion not covered by 232.

There has been public discussion of a potential increase to 15 per cent. Until something is formally published and implemented through the proper channels, treat that as discussion rather than policy. It is better for everyone if decisions are made on confirmed measures only.

If you operate Foreign Trade Zone flows, there is also a practical point to take seriously. Goods admitted to an FTZ on or after the effective date will generally require privileged foreign status, which can affect the duty outcome when the goods are later entered.

What Has Not Changed

This is not a broad tariff rollback, and it is worth saying that plainly.

Tariffs imposed under other authorities remain in force, including Section 232 under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 under the Trade Act of 1974, as well as other trade remedies and enforcement tools.

So your landed cost may still include multiple layers, depending on the product and origin. The only piece that drops out is the IEEPA based tariff where it had been charged.

The Refund Question

Naturally, the next question is whether previously collected IEEPA duties will be refunded. At present, there is no established mechanism, no published process and no confirmed timetable for reclaim.

The Supreme Court decision does not automatically trigger repayments. Any potential recovery will depend on agency implementation and may be influenced by follow-on litigation.

The most helpful and accurate message to customers right now is steady and clear. The authority for IEEPA-based tariffs has been struck down, but there is currently no formal reclaim mechanism in place.

From an operational perspective, it is sensible to get your entry data organised and accessible. Preparation is a positive step. Assumptions are not.

A Time for Reason, and a Bit of Perspective

There is always a temptation in trade to swing between complacency and alarm. Neither is needed here.

This is not a collapse of US tariff policy. It is not an immediate refund event. It is a legal correction, followed by a temporary statutory adjustment, with some clear operational implications.

If anything, this is a reminder that the fundamentals still win. Good classification, clean data and clear landed cost logic.