New “Global Tariff” and Even More Tariffs Loom with IEEPA Tariff Refund Answers Lacking
By John H. Kester
On Friday, following the Supreme Court’s (“SCOTUS”) ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) did not authorize the President to impose tariffs, President Trump at a press conference announced a new 10 percent “global tariff,” ostensibly based in a different statute: the Trade Act of 1974 (the “Act”). On Saturday, President Trump announced via Truth Social that that tariff would be 15 percent, not 10 percent. In an interview Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent characterized the new tariff as a temporary measure likely to be followed by new, even higher tariffs, rooted in other statutes.
In an announcement referencing the 10 percent figure, the White House stated the “temporary import duty” will last for 150 days and will take effect Tuesday, February 24, at 12:01AM EST. It said some goods, including certain critical minerals, certain electronics, and certain agricultural products, among others, will not be subject to the new tariff.
In contrast to “national emergenc[ies]” that the Administration claimed as justification for the IEEPA tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico, and tens of countries around the world, the new global tariff’s professed root is purely economic; it purports to respond to “certain fundamental international payment problems,” the White House said.
That language as well as the 15-percent figure and 150-day timeline mirror the boundaries of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the President to impose “a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem, in the form of duties” in certain circumstances where “fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports.” Echoing language in Section 122, the White House stated the new duty will allow the U.S. to “stem the outflow of its dollars to foreign producers” and “correct its balance-of-payments deficit.”
Unlike IEEPA, which the Supreme Court ruled did not give the President authority to tariff merely because it afforded him authority to “regulate…importation,” Section 122 explicitly provides that the President may impose a “temporary import surcharge” under certain circumstances.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated in a CNN interview on Sunday that he viewed the Section 122 action as “more of a bridge than a permanent [measure],” and that it is likely to lead to the imposition of higher tariffs the Administration will root in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
“The 122 is likely a five-month bridge during which studies on Section 232 tariffs and Section 301s are done, and… the 122s could disappear after five months,” he said. Importers hopeful that the era of high tariffs is over should note that, according to Sec. Bessent, “[i]t is very likely that those studies will result in higher 232s, higher 301s, and it will get us back to the same tariff level” (emphasis added). Sec. Bessent stated also that the projections are unchanged for “[t] he revenue for the U.S. Treasury, for 2026.”
IEEPA Tariff Refunds:
Importers hopeful for an easy refund process also should note Sec. Bessent’s statements in that regard. Asked whether the Administration would provide refunds, he replied, “[i]t is not up to the Administration; it is up to the lower court.”
Confronted with a prior filing with the Federal Circuit in which the government stated that “[i]f tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs,” Bessent replied, “I’m not going to get out ahead of the court. We will follow the court’s direction but as I said that could be weeks or months away. That decision was not rendered on Friday.”
Sec. Bessent additionally appeared to suggest that importers may not be entitled to refund if, for example, they received discounted rates from their overseas suppliers.
Referring to the SCOTUS ruling and refunds, President Trump on Friday asked, “Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying… ‘keep the money’ or ‘don’t keep the money,’ right?” He stated litigation over refunds will take years.
Next Steps for Importers:
The Supreme Court did not order refunds and the Administration has not expressed eagerness to provide them, nor has it detailed any mechanism for doing so.
With that in mind, GKG Law reiterates its December 2025 analysis that importers seeking the most conservative approach and greatest insurance of obtaining IEEPA tariff refunds would be prudent to file a claim for refund with the Court of International Trade before their entries’ liquidation, Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP’s”) final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption, which typically occurs at or around 314 days after entry.
GKG Law’s IEEPA tariff litigation team, which includes me, Brendan Collins, and Oliver M. Krischik, has already filed numerous such complaints prior to the SCOTUS ruling, and is prepared to continue to do so swiftly in the days ahead.
Please contact us if you have any questions or are interested in filing such a Complaint.
John H. Kester is a Customs attorney with GKG Law. He additionally passed Customs and Border Protection’s rigorous Customs Broker License Exam and his application for a Customs Broker License is pending. He is reachable at jkester@gkglaw.com.
Brendan Collins and Oliver M. Krischik, Principals with GKG Law, additionally participated in the firm’s numerous filings in opposition to the Section 301 tariffs implemented by President Trump’s first administration. They are reachable at bcollins@gkglaw.com and okrischik@gkglaw.com respectively.
