The U.S. Supreme Court’s tariff ruling on February 20, 2026, did not end President Donald Trump’s trade agenda; it changed the legal route. In a 6-3 decision, the Court said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, did not authorize the president to impose the sweeping tariffs he had announced in 2025. The White House then issued an order ending those IEEPA-based tariff actions. (apnews.com)

But the administration moved almost immediately to a new instrument. On the same day, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and imposed a 10 percent surcharge on most imports. According to the White House proclamation, that temporary duty took effect at 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24, 2026, and is scheduled to last until July 24, 2026, unless Congress extends it. Section 122 permits a temporary surcharge of up to 15 percent for no more than 150 days, which means the administration still has a powerful short-term tariff tool even after losing its broad emergency authority. (whitehouse.gov)

The larger shift is now toward narrower but more legally durable trade actions. On March 11, 2026, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative opened Section 301 investigations into “structural excess capacity” in manufacturing across 16 economies, including China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and India; public hearings are set to begin on May 5. Meanwhile, Congress’s research service notes that Section 232 tariffs and investigations remain active or available in sectors such as steel, aluminum, automobiles, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and critical minerals. (ustr.gov)

The financial consequences are enormous. On March 6, Customs and Border Protection told the Court of International Trade that more than 330,000 importers had made over 53 million entries and paid about $166 billion in IEEPA duties that now must be refunded, and that the agency would need roughly 45 days to build a practical refund system. So, as of March 18, 2026, U.S. trade policy seems headed not toward free trade, but toward a more methodical form of protectionism: fewer dramatic emergency decrees, yet more sector-by-sector probes, more legal battles, and just as much uncertainty for global business. (apnews.com)