Trade Act of 1974

President Trump announced new tariffs effective July 24, 2026, on 60 trading partners including Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union, with rates ranging from 10% to 12.5% under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Additional 50% tariffs on Canadian goods are planned for August 19, 2026, under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, amid tensions over the USMCA agreement. Businesses are urged to diversify supply chains and prepare contingency plans.

Small businesses have filed two lawsuits challenging Trump's new tariffs, which impose double-digit levies on 60 trading partners under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The lawsuits argue the government failed to adequately justify the tariffs' legal basis, with critics suggesting the tariffs aim to replace previously struck-down global tariffs. Companies like Learning Resources, Burlap and Barrel, and Collective Horology are represented by the Liberty Justice Center in the legal challenges.

A new lawsuit challenges the Trump administration's recent tariffs, alleging they exceed legal authority. The Liberty Justice Center, which previously opposed earlier tariffs, argues the administration replaced an expired global tariff with another under a different statute without proper justification.

President Donald Trump announced a U.S. trade investigation into the European Union's practices, accusing it of unfairly fining U.S. tech companies like Google and Apple. Trump threatened retaliatory tariffs and claimed the EU's actions harm American taxpayers and businesses.

President Donald Trump announced a U.S. trade investigation into the European Union's practices, accusing the bloc of unfairly fining American tech companies like Google, Apple, and Meta. Trump threatened retaliatory tariffs and claimed the penalties against these companies would be reversed, following an 890 million euro fine imposed on Google by the EU for antitrust violations.

President Donald Trump imposed new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, replacing earlier tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. Experts warn this could establish a precedent for future presidents to impose tariffs broadly for any reason, bypassing legal challenges.

President Donald Trump imposed new import tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on products from nearly 60 countries, including Canada, the European Union, and Japan, citing forced labor conditions. These tariffs replace a previous global tariff and could affect 99.4% of imports, following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated earlier duties under the IEEPA.

President Donald Trump imposed new import taxes on products from dozens of top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom, citing alleged forced labor conditions. The tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, replace previous global tariffs after a Supreme Court ruling and could affect 99.4% of imports. The Office of the United States Trade Representative found forced labor in these economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

President Donald Trump imposed new import tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on products from nearly 60 countries, including Canada, the EU, and Japan, citing forced labor conditions. These tariffs replace previous global tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court and could affect 99.4% of imports.

Donald Trump has imposed new tariffs on over 80 countries, replacing a 10% global duty deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court. The tariffs, justified under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as targeting 'forced labor,' have drawn criticism and confusion from affected nations, including the UK and EU, which argue their labor laws are stronger than those in the US.

Donald Trump has imposed new tariffs on over 80 countries, replacing a 10% global duty declared illegal by the Supreme Court. The tariffs, justified under the Trade Act of 1974's Section 301 targeting forced labor, have drawn criticism from US allies and trading partners, who argue their labor laws exceed US standards.

President Trump has imposed tariffs through three methods under legal authorities including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trade Act of 1974, but these measures face invalidation or expiration. The article attributes these actions to a pattern of diversionary tactics amid a series of public and political setbacks, including criticism at the World Cup, unpopularity linked to high prices, and conflicts in the Middle East.

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll shows 46% of Americans believe the Supreme Court rules on Trump administration policies based on political views rather than law, with 55% disapproving of the court's performance. The Trump administration seeks Supreme Court intervention to uphold its ban on transgender troops and rebuild tariffs previously struck down by the court.

The Trump administration is working to replace lost tariff revenue after the Supreme Court invalidated key tariffs. The Treasury faces expiring Section 122 tariffs by July 24, with plans to use Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose new tariffs on countries like Brazil. Revenue from tariffs dropped sharply after the court ruling, leading to a $25.6 billion Treasury loss in June.

The United States will impose 25 percent tariffs on some Brazilian goods starting July 22 after a Trade Act of 1974 investigation found Brazil engaged in unfair trade practices. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticized the move as politically motivated to favor his rival, Flavio Bolsonaro.

President Donald Trump threatened a 100% tariff on imports from any country imposing taxes on digital services from U.S. companies, targeting European nations. The threat follows a U.S.-EU trade deal capping tariffs but excluding digital tax provisions, which remain a dispute point. The UK has already implemented a 2% digital services tax on major tech firms.

The Trump administration is proposing tariffs of 10% or more on products from major trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, the UK, and others, following an investigation into forced labor practices. China, Japan, India, and other countries would face 12.5% tariffs, with the U.S. Trade Representative citing failures to enforce forced labor import bans. The Chinese government denied the allegations, calling for dialogue to resolve economic issues.

The Court of International Trade expressed skepticism toward President Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify global tariffs, questioning whether trade deficits qualify as 'balance of payments deficits' under the law. Legal challenges persist as the administration faces potential blockage of its tariff policies, with courts and attorneys general debating the scope of presidential emergency powers.

The Court of International Trade showed skepticism toward Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify 10% global tariffs, questioning whether long-term trade deficits qualify as the 'large and serious' balance-of-payments crises Congress intended. Legal challenges persist as the court debates the scope of presidential authority under the statute, with implications for Trump's broader trade policies.