Trade policy activism accelerates compliance challenges for importers in 2026

Heightened enforcement, expanded labour restrictions, and evolving tariffs are transforming cross-border commerce, urging businesses to adopt strategic compliance measures amid a shifting geopolitical landscape.

The past year has reshaped how businesses approach cross‑border commerce, erecting new legal and operational hazards for importers. According to the analysis by JD Supra, an activist trade policy pursued through expansive tariff authority, broader Section 232 ...

probes and stepped‑up enforcement have collectively altered the playing field, turning customs compliance into a board‑level concern rather than an administrative afterthought.

A more coercive tariff toolkit and fractured multilateralism

Tariffs are increasingly wielded as bargaining leverage rather than as a narrowly targeted remedy. The administration’s resort to the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to deploy economy‑wide duties, paired with a network of bilateral frameworks, has produced a hybrid regime in which reciprocal levies, country‑specific carve‑outs and short, high‑pressure negotiating windows are now routine. JD Supra’s briefing notes that this approach has already created permanent, structural uncertainty for supply chains and duty planning.

1. Enforcement intensified and technologised

Enforcement activity has broadened in both scope and technique. Federal agencies are combining civil penalty schemes, False Claims Act litigation, and criminal prosecutions with sophisticated data tools to detect alleged evasion. In mid‑2025 a cross‑agency Trade Task Force was stood up; by the end of the year it had secured multi‑million‑dollar settlements for alleged misclassification and transshipment and pursued individual corporate officers criminally. JD Supra reports that US Customs and Border Protection has contracted AI‑driven supply‑chain mapping technology to improve targeting, a development likely to increase the frequency and precision of inquiries, audits and CF‑28/CF‑29 requests.

Implication for business: companies should complete forensic country‑of‑origin reviews, validate declared values for tariff calculations and document compliance programmes and training. The risk horizon extends backwards; enforcement claims may reach transactions many years old.

2. Forced labour enforcement expands beyond existing boundaries

The forced labour agenda has broadened both in the types of goods targeted and in the instruments used. JD Supra highlights rising numbers of detentions under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act even as overall detained values fell, reflecting more granular targeting of lower‑value shipments such as electronics. Withhold‑release orders and a Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force now cover an expanded list of priority sectors including chemicals, metals and agricultural products. Forced‑labour provisions are beginning to appear in bilateral frameworks and will likely be a persistent feature of future deals.

Implication for business: enhanced due diligence, traceability and contractual protections will be necessary to avoid detention and exclusion risks; expect greater scrutiny of transshipment hubs and intermediary suppliers.

3. Section 232: diffusion into new industries and derivative products

Section 232 inquiries have multiplied and the administration has signalled readiness to extend national‑security based tariffs to a wider array of inputs and finished goods. JD Supra documents investigations opened into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and processed critical minerals during 2025, noting that a January 14, 2026, proclamation imposed a 25% duty on certain advanced computing chips while exempting categories framed as supportive of domestic capacity and critical public uses. The Commerce Department’s report on processed critical minerals has prompted negotiations on price‑floor mechanisms as an alternative to immediate duties, though a 180‑day window leaves tariffs on the table if talks stall.

The use of Section 232 carve‑outs within bilateral deals has already begun, and tariff‑rate quota arrangements, such as those applied to the UK for steel and aluminium, may become templates for further country‑specific arrangements. JD Supra emphasises the added complexity for derivative goods and the continuing ambiguity over how to value metal content for dutiable calculations, where informal CBP guidance appears more conservative than published FAQs.

Implication for business: exporters and importers should model exposure across value chains, retain proof of metal‑content pricing decisions, and monitor bilateral implementing guidance rather than relying on joint statements alone.

4. North American architecture and a patchwork of framework agreements

The six‑year review of the United States‑Mexico‑Canada Agreement (USMCA), due formally to begin on 1 July 2026, is already shaping policy proposals. JD Supra reports that Washington has signalled a willingness to pursue bilateral or parallel arrangements to secure stricter rules of origin, tougher investment screening and heightened forced‑labour commitments rather than rely exclusively on trilateral reauthorisation. Mexico has moved pre‑emptively on tariff adjustments and investment restrictions, aligning with US priorities on reshoring and limiting Chinese transshipment.

Beyond North America, the administration issued multiple framework statements with partners during 2025 that generally set ceilings and principles rather than final tariff rules. JD Supra warns that such frameworks can change materially when translated into implementing proclamations and Federal Register notices; importers must therefore track formal CBP guidance to determine actual duty treatment.

Implication for business: anticipate tighter regional content tests, new critical‑minerals initiatives and an evolving patchwork of bilateral understandings that may alter sourcing decisions.

5. A pivotal Supreme Court decision and the prospect of mass refunds

A Supreme Court ruling on the scope of IEEPA authority, expected in early 2026, could be decisive for the legality of economy‑wide tariff actions instituted under that statute. JD Supra outlines that lower courts have questioned whether IEEPA authorises tariffs; if the Court finds the statute unsuitable for broad duty proclamations, the result could trigger significant refund claims. The briefing draws parallels to the post‑Shoe litigation process, in which the Court of International Trade administered a claims resolution mechanism to return funds after an adverse Supreme Court decision.

Practical considerations include preservation of refund rights: entries liquidate on a statutory cadence and importers may need to file protests or litigation to protect potential claims. JD Supra also notes that even if IEEPA tariffs are invalidated, other statutory avenues remain available to an administration seeking to impose duties, including Section 232, Section 301, and less‑used authorities such as Sections 122 and 338, which carry different substantive limits and procedural dynamics.

Implication for business: preserve transactional records, watch liquidation and protest deadlines and consult customs counsel about litigation strategies to protect refund claims.

A new baseline for compliance and resilience

Taken together, these trends signify a sustained era of trade policy activism and enforcement intensity. JD Supra’s assessment is that tariffs and trade rules are now instruments of industrial and geopolitical strategy, not merely trade remedy tools. For importers this means embedding customs, labour‑supply verification and trade legal risk into core commercial decision‑making: invest in enhanced supply‑chain mapping and audit trails, test alternative sourcing, stress‑test pricing models for tariff shocks and document compliance efforts. The certainty of the old rules‑based order has eroded; the companies best prepared will be those that treat compliance as a strategic pillar rather than a compliance checkbox.

Source: Noah Wire Services