A tariff that touched nearly every imported product sold in the United States quietly expired this summer, and it did not go away so much as get replaced by something more targeted. The change matters for anyone assuming the extra 10 percent tacked onto import costs since February is still showing up in store prices today, because as a blanket surcharge, it is not.
How the 10 percent surcharge came to be
The surcharge traces back to a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a broader set of tariffs the administration had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In response, the administration turned to a different legal tool: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent to address a balance-of-payments problem. A 10 percent surcharge under that authority began February 24, 2026, and applied broadly to imports regardless of country of origin, according to an accounting-firm analysis that has tracked the litigation closely.
The legal footing was shaky from the start. A U.S. Court of International Trade decision on May 7, 2026 held that the 10 percent global tariffs were unlawful because the administration’s use of Section 122 relied on an overly broad reading of “balance of payments.” The court found that ordinary trade or current-account deficits could not substitute for the narrower statutory concept Congress had in mind, and it issued an injunction covering two importers and the state of Washington rather than a nationwide block. An appeals court granted the government a stay days later, which let collection continue nationwide while the case worked through the courts, but the surcharge’s statutory clock was also running out on its own regardless of how the litigation resolved.
Free retirement updates: One number can cost or save hundreds a month in retirement. The free Retirement Shield newsletter surfaces the ones worth knowing. Sign up free.
Section 122 has a built-in 150-day expiration
Section 122 surcharges are not permanent by design; the BDO IEEPA tariff FAQ notes the law caps them at 150 days unless Congress steps in to extend the authority. That clock ran out on July 24, 2026, and Congress did not extend it, so the 10 percent global surcharge expired on its own that day. Anyone still budgeting for a flat 10 percent import tax on everyday goods is working from an outdated assumption.
What replaced it: a targeted enforcement tariff on 60 economies
The surcharge’s expiration did not leave a tariff-free gap. On the same day, July 24, 2026, a separate and unrelated Section 301 action took effect, imposing new duties tied to a completely different issue: whether trading partners are enforcing bans on goods made with forced labor. That action began with a June 2, 2026 finding from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which determined that 60 economies, including major trading partners such as China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, had failed to impose or effectively enforce a prohibition on importing forced-labor goods. USTR proposed a two-tier response: a 10 percent additional duty for economies with at least a partial forced-labor import ban already in place, and 12.5 percent for the rest.
That proposal became final on July 24, 2026, the same day Section 122 expired, according to the BDO analysis of the finalized action, which frames it directly: the new tariffs “replace the temporary Section 122 tariffs that expired on the same date.” The USTR notice also builds in a short grace period: goods already loaded onto a vessel and in transit before July 24 avoid the new duty as long as they are entered by July 28. Unlike the old surcharge, this one is not a flat, across-the-board tax; it is calibrated by country based on each economy’s forced-labor enforcement record, with some product-specific exemptions carved out in the accompanying annexes.
USTR’s own list of the 60 economies is broad enough to cover most of the countries an American household’s imported goods are likely to come from, including China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, and Mexico. USTR determined that 54 of those economies have failed to impose a forced-labor import prohibition at all, while six others, including Canada and Mexico, have a prohibition on the books but have failed to enforce it effectively.
Why the swap matters for a household budget
For a shopper trying to figure out whether an item got more expensive because of tariffs, the practical answer changed on July 24. A general 10 percent haircut on nearly all imports gave way to a narrower system where the added cost depends on where a product’s country of origin lands on USTR’s forced-labor enforcement list. Goods from the 60 named economies can still carry an extra 10 or 12.5 percent, so the tariff pressure on imported goods has not disappeared, but it is no longer the same universal surcharge that applied to virtually everything crossing the border earlier this year.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor. Figures are linked to their primary sources; where a claim could not be verified from the public record, we say so.
More Financial Reading
