President Donald Trump is preparing to replace expiring temporary import duties with more durable trade barriers as a 10 per cent global tariff expires on July 24, 2026. The administration plans to utilize Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain its tariff wall following a series of major legal setbacks.
The Trump administration is racing against a hard statutory deadline. At 12:01 am Eastern Time on July 24, the temporary 10 per cent global tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 officially end. Because the president cannot unilaterally extend these measures past the 150-day window, any renewal would require an Act of Congress—an unlikely prospect according to reporting from Anadolu Agency.
The Section 301 Pivot and Brazil Tariffs
To avoid a gap in its protectionist strategy, the administration is pivoting to Section 301 of the 1974 Act. According to Bloomberg, these replacement duties will be based on accusations concerning forced labor, making them more durable than the temporary Section 122 surcharges.
Brazil has already been singled out for these Section 301 tariffs, which amount to 25 per cent, though certain consumer goods like beef and coffee remain exempt. Beyond Brazil, the administration is investigating 16 major trading partners over concerns regarding excess manufacturing capacity to lay the groundwork for further levies.
This shift is the latest in a series of tactical maneuvers. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer signaled to CNBC that replacement duties are highly likely
and that the public should expect to see some action soon
, as reported by aa.com.tr.
Supreme Court Ruling and the IEEPA Conflict
The current reliance on the Trade Act of 1974 stems from a massive legal defeat in early 2026. On Feb. 20, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
This ruling killed off the reciprocal tariffs introduced in April 2025, which had targeted more than 180 countries with rates ranging from a 10 per cent baseline up to 49 per cent for Cambodia and 48 per cent for Laos. ABC News reports that Donald Trump responded by calling the justices fools and lapdogs
and claiming they were swayed by foreign interests
.
The financial fallout from this ruling is substantial. The US may be required to refund billions to importers. In Australia, consulting firm EY Australia found that local businesses could be owed more than $1.4 billion in refunds. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who disagreed with the majority, noted that the actual refund process is likely to be a mess
.
China’s “Anti-Decoupling” Strategy
While the US struggles with the legalities of its tariff wall, Beijing is using the resulting uncertainty to insulate its $19 trillion economy. A Reuters examination of policy papers from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and Peking University reveals a systematic effort to neutralize Washington’s containment strategy.
China’s current blueprint focuses on anti-decoupling
by embedding itself into the world’s largest economic blocs. This involves fast-tracking roughly 20 trade deals and pursuing agreements with the European Union, Gulf States, and various trans-Pacific partners.
- Canada: A January deal to slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.
- Africa: Implementing zero tariffs on imports from 53 African countries.
- Europe: Foreign Minister Wang Yi raising the prospect of a free-trade agreement with Brussels.
- United Kingdom: A feasibility study into a trade-in-services agreement with Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
This approach is a calculated shift. While Beijing previously used martial propaganda, it now urges partners to defend multilateralism. One Chinese official described the strategy as: Don’t interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake
.
Statutory Limits and Economic Exemptions
The Section 122 tariffs that expire this week were never intended as permanent protectionist tools. Designed in 1974 to address macroeconomic crises like balance-of-payments deficits, the law contains a strict 15 per cent cap on tariff rates and a 150-day expiration clock.
| Exempt Category | Reasoning/Agreement |
|---|---|
| Canada & Mexico | USMCA compliance |
| Central American Nations | CAFTA-DR agreement |
| Critical Minerals & Pharma | US economic needs |
| Passenger Vehicles/Buses | Sector-specific exclusion |
By shifting from the temporary Section 122 emergency surcharge to the more durable Section 301 forced labor duties, the administration is attempting to bypass the judicial roadblocks that stripped its power to use the IEEPA. The result is a trade policy that is no longer a single wall, but a series of targeted, legally distinct barriers designed to survive the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
Related reading
