Project 2025 Tracker / What’s done, what’s next

26. Trade · Major · Contested — excluded from counts

Expand tariffs to all Chinese products and raise rates to block imports

Reversed

789 26. Trade · from “The Case for Fair Trade”

“Strategically expand tariffs to all Chinese products and increase tariff rates to levels that will block out “Made in China” products, and execute this strategy in a manner and at a pace that will not expose the U.S. to lack of access to essential products like key pharmaceuticals.”

What has happened

  1. Reversed

    The Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The same day, Executive Order 14389 ended the IEEPA duties in EO 14195, EO 14257 and seven other orders — "shall no longer be in effect and, as soon as practicable, shall no longer be collected." The tariff covering all Chinese products was gone. Section 301 duties on China (the 2018 lists, plus the 2025-12-29 action on China's semiconductor industry) and Section 232 sectoral duties survive, and Proclamation 11012 imposed a temporary 10 percent Section 122 surcharge on most imports from every country for 150 days from 2026-02-24, which lapsed unextended; none of these is an across-the-board tariff on Chinese products at blocking rates.

  2. Partially done

    Under the Economic and Trade Arrangement with China, Executive Order 14357 cut the duty under EO 14195 from 20 percent to 10 percent (effective 2025-11-10) and Executive Order 14358 held the reciprocal suspension in place. The across-the-board rate on Chinese goods was now 20 percent, down from about 145 percent in April.

  3. Partially done

    Executive Order 14298 removed the 125 percent rate and suspended 24 of the 34 percentage points of the reciprocal duty on China for 90 days, leaving 10 percent reciprocal plus the 20 percent duty under EO 14195 (effective 2025-05-14). Coverage of all Chinese products remained; the blocking rates did not.

  4. Done

    Executive Order 14266 raised the "reciprocal" duty on articles the product of China, Hong Kong and Macau from 84 to 125 percent (HTSUS heading 9903.01.63), effective 2025-04-10, on top of the 20 percent duty under EO 14195 as amended and the pre-existing Section 301 rates. For a month, tariffs covered every Chinese product at rates high enough to block them out — the state the Quote describes. The reciprocal tariff itself came from EO 14257 (2025-04-02), which imposed duties on imports from all trading partners.

  5. Partially done

    Executive Order 14228 raised the across-the-board duty on Chinese products from 10 percent to 20 percent (effective 2025-03-04).

  6. Partially done

    Executive Order 14195, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, put an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty on "[a]ll articles that are products of the PRC" (effective 2025-02-04). The coverage the Quote asks for — every Chinese product — was reached at once; the rate was nowhere near a level that would block imports.

Research log

What was searched, and what didn’t count as evidence

Research notes

  • This is a Contested Recommendation from the Mandate’s “The Case for Fair Trade” essay. #2109 and #2110, from the opposing “Case for Free Trade” essay, ask for the repeal of the Section 232/201/301 tariffs; they are researched separately and against their own Quotes. The same Federal Register record can be evidence for one and against the other.
  • The Supreme Court opinion was read as the PDF at supremecourt.gov (the download_url on the CourtListener record opinion:10796821). The CourtListener opinion page, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10796821/learning-resources-inc-v-trump/, answers a bot challenge to automated fetches and is recorded as a lead. The litigation trail before it — V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, CIT 1:25-cv-00066 (filed 2025-04-14); V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Fed. Cir. 25-1812 (en banc, decided 2025-08-29, 149 F. 4th 1312); Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, D.D.C. 1:25-cv-01248 (filed 2025-04-22) — is in the Corpus as dockets, which are leads.
  • What the Quote’s second half asked for (“execute this strategy … at a pace that will not expose the U.S. to lack of access to essential products like key pharmaceuticals”) was never tested: the escalation to 125 percent lasted from 2025-04-10 to 2025-05-14. Pharmaceuticals were later given their own Section 232 tariff regime (Proclamation of 2026-04-02), which is not China-specific.
  • Refund litigation after the Supreme Court ruling — e.g. Learning Resources, Inc. v. The United States of America, CIT 1:26-cv-01374 (filed 2026-03-03) and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Fed. Cir. 26-1895 (filed 2026-06-03) — is in the bulk docket Corpus and is a lead; it concerns money already collected, not new tariffs.
Action
expand
Object
Tariffs on Chinese products
ID
2075