Recent decisions regarding US trade policy have generated a structural change in the use of tariffs as a tool for economic negotiations.

The U.S. Supreme Court's February 20, 2026, ruling determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, as this power is constitutionally reserved for Congress. This interpretation invalidated the "Reciprocal Tariffs" and other measures adopted in 2025 under the IEEPA.

In immediate response, President Donald Trump's administration adopted a temporary 10% tariff on imports, this time based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision empowers the US president to impose tariff surcharges for a maximum period of one year.50 days, in order to address balance of payments problems, prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar and contribute to the correction of imbalances in the international balance of payments.

Extending this measure beyond that deadline requires congressional approval. Additionally, The government decided to exclude certain strategic goods, including energy products, pharmaceuticals, some agricultural goods, and those that are not produced domestically in the US..

However, the impact of the ruling is not limited to redefining the legal basis of the applicable tariffs, as it opens a new challenge for Customs and Border Protection (CBP): the reimbursement of revenue collected under the IEEPA tariffs.

According to a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), CBP has developed the electronic system “Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries” (CAPE), designed to manage IEEPA duty refund requests. According to information submitted to the CIT on March 30, 2026, the first phase of the system will process approximately 63% of affected transactions, primarily those not yet settled or within the voluntary reassessment period. However, the model adopted by CBP has generated controversy, as it establishes a system in which importers must actively request refunds.

In parallel, the Trump administration has intensified the use of other trade policy instruments, particularly Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows for adjusting import levels for national security reasons, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the authority to take action against trade practices considered unfair or discriminatory by other countries.

On April 2, 2026, the White House issued a proclamation adjusting Section 232 tariffs applicable to steel, aluminum, and copper products. A key element of this measure is the structuring of the tariff regime into four schedules (IA, IB, II, and III), which classify different products and establish the applicable tariff levels under various conditions. Generally speaking, the tariffs range from 15% to 1%. 50 %, also incorporating a mitigation mechanism that allows the tariff to be reduced to 10% when the derivative products are made with steel, aluminum or copper that has been melted and molded in US territory.

Furthermore, in March 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated investigations against approximately 60 countries, including Colombia, related to the lack of effective measures against forced labor. An investigation into structural excess capacity in manufacturing sectors was also launched in 16 economies, including China, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union, among others. These investigations could lead to the imposition of new tariffs or other restrictive measures, solidifying Section 301 as one of the primary tools following the limitations of the International Economically Protected Areas (IEEPA).

Taken together, these developments reflect a transition toward a more structured tariff policy framework. While the Supreme Court ruling limits the use of certain instruments such as the IEPPA Act, it does not reduce the United States' ability to impose trade measures, but rather redirects their application toward mechanisms with stronger legal and procedural foundations, such as Section 232 and Section 301.

For international trade actors, this new scenario involves three main challenges: managing refunds in an operational environment still under development, adapting to new trade investigations with potential tariff impacts, and the need to continuously monitor the evolution of the US regulatory framework.

Article by Olga Lucía Salamanca, Vice President Partner of Trade Policy and Defense For the Legal Field: https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/comercial/nuevo-escenario-comercial-en-ee-uu-aranceles-reembolsos-y-nuevas-medidas