U.S. trade policy contradiction
- Washington is simultaneously unwinding old tariff burdens while threatening new tariffs, creating a policy contradiction. - From January 14 the U.S. imposed a 25% tariff in a new round and is investigating tariffs on pharmaceuticals, while political rhetoric has floated 100% duties. - That dual approach—refunds now, possible escalations later—is raising uncertainty for businesses and investors about trade rules (commonslibrary.parliament.uk).
Washington is canceling some tariff collections even as it layers on new ones, leaving U.S. import policy moving in two directions at once. (federalregister.gov) On February 20, 2026, President Donald Trump ordered an end to additional ad valorem duties imposed under a series of 2025 and early 2026 emergency orders, including the April 2, 2025 reciprocal tariff order. The order said those duties “shall no longer be in effect” and “shall no longer be collected” as soon as practicable. (federalregister.gov) That rollback came after court fights over tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. A Congressional Research Service report said importers had paid about $129 billion in estimated duty deposits on covered entries as of December 10, 2025, and about 19.2 million of roughly 34 million entries still had not been liquidated, leaving room for refunds on unliquidated goods. (congress.gov) At the same time, the administration has opened fresh tariff fronts under different legal authority. A proclamation dated January 14, 2026 and published January 20 imposed Section 232 tariffs on semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and derivative products after Commerce found import levels threatened national security. (federalregister.gov) The White House then moved on pharmaceuticals. A Section 232 investigation into imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients began on April 1, 2025, and on April 2, 2026 Trump imposed a 100% tariff on patented pharmaceutical products and ingredients, with implementation delayed 120 days for certain large companies and 180 days for smaller companies. (federalregister.gov) (whitehouse.gov) The legal distinction is part of the story. The duties being unwound were tied to emergency powers under IEEPA, while the newer semiconductor and pharmaceutical measures rely on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which lets presidents restrict imports after a national security investigation. (congress.gov) (federalregister.gov 1) (federalregister.gov 2) The administration has also replaced part of the old emergency-tariff architecture with a new broad surcharge. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on February 20 that the administration would “immediately impose a temporary 10 percent surcharge” on imported articles under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. (ustr.gov) For importers, that means old duty liabilities may shrink while new ones arrive under other statutes, product by product. Customs and Border Protection says importers remain responsible for calculating tariffs under executive orders, proclamations, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and Federal Register notices. (cbp.gov) The result is a trade rulebook that keeps changing by date, product, and legal authority. Companies waiting on refunds from 2025 entries now also have to price in semiconductor tariffs from January and pharmaceutical tariffs announced in April. (congress.gov) (federalregister.gov) (whitehouse.gov)
