Highlights

• Following a 6–3 Supreme Court ruling that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs, Trump imposed a temporary 10% global import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective February 24–July 24, 2026, citing fundamental balance-of-payments problems including a $1.2 trillion trade deficit.
• The surcharge applies broadly but exempts critical minerals, energy, pharmaceuticals, USMCA goods, and items under existing Section 232 tariffs—creating a three-layer trade architecture (Sections 232, 301, and 122) that protects rare earth inputs while raising broader industrial costs.
• Section 122's economic efficacy remains unproven: tariffs may compress imports but can also strengthen the dollar, increase input costs, and widen deficits—with nearly a year of prior tariff measures showing no material improvement in structural trade metrics.

---

In a rapid statutory pivot following the 6–3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize presidential tariffs, President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Proclamation imposing a temporary 10% global import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2132). Titled “Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems (opens in a new tab),” the measure takes effect 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24, 2026, and runs 150 days, through 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, 2026, unless extended by Congress. This is a statutory reset — not a retreat.

The Legal Reset: From IEEPA to Section 122

The Court did not invalidate tariffs broadly. It held that IEEPA does not grant tariff authority. Congress, however, has delegated tariff tools under specific statutes — including Sections 232, 301, and 122.

Section 122 permits the President to impose up to 15% ad valorem surcharges for up to 150 days when the U.S. faces “fundamental international payments problems.”

The proclamation argues such conditions exist, citing:

• ~$1.2 trillion annual goods tradedeficit
• ~4.0% current account deficit (largest since 2008)
• Net international investment position ≈ –90% of GDP
• Primary income balance turning negative for the first time in decades

The administration’s case is macroeconomic: balance-of-payments stabilization and protection of national economic security.

Scope: Broad Coverage, Strategic Carve-Outs

The surcharge applies to all articles imported into the United States, subject to Annex-based exclusions.

Key structural features:

• Applies in addition to existing duties
• Does not stack on Section 232 tariffs
• Applies only to the non-232 portion where relevant
• Treated as a regular customs duty under HTSUS modification authority

Major Exemptions Include:

• Certain critical minerals
• Energy and energy products
• Pharmaceuticals and APIs
• Passenger vehicles and select auto parts
• Certain electronics
• Aerospace products
• USMCA-compliant Canada and Mexico goods
• Goods already under Section 232

For rare earth markets, the exemption for “certain critical minerals” is pivotal. Final scope will depend on Annex classification and Federal Register implementation.

Rare Earth Implications: Shielded Inputs, Exposed Ecosystem

For miners, separators, and magnet producers:

• Raw critical mineral inputs appear insulated.
• Downstream manufactured goods incorporating rare earth components may still face exposure depending on tariff classification.
• Defense and EV supply chains avoid immediate raw-material cost shock.

However, capital equipment, processing chemicals, specialized machinery, and non-exempt intermediate goods may rise 10%, indirectly increasing buildout costs for U.S. separation and metallization facilities.

This is a buffer — not a cost-free environment.

Stress-Test: Does Section 122 Solve a Balance-of-Payments Problem?

Section 122 is explicitly tied to balance-of-payments stabilization. The key question: Does a global import surcharge mechanically improve external balances?

Mechanism 1: Import Compression

A surcharge can reduce import volume by raising effective prices.

Limitation: If demand is inelastic (energy, strategic inputs), import value may not fall proportionally.

Mechanism 2: Dollar Adjustment

Reduced imports could narrow the trade deficit, potentially easing pressure on the dollar.

Counterpoint: Tariffs can strengthen the dollar in the short term by reducing capital outflows and increasing domestic interest rate expectations, which can widen the trade deficit through currency appreciation.

Mechanism 3: Domestic Substitution

Higher import costs may incentivize reshoring.

Constraint: Industrial substitution requires multi-year capital cycles. A 150-day window is too short to materially alter supply chains. It’s a blip in time.

Net Assessment

Section 122 is designed as a temporary shock stabilizer, not a structural industrial policy instrument. Its economic logic holds only if:

• Import demand is price-sensitive
• Currency effects do not offset trade compression
• Trading partners do not retaliate
• Markets view the measure as credible and temporary

In structural terms, trade deficits reflect savings-investment imbalances. Tariffs alter trade flows; they do not directly alter national savings behavior. Section 122 may compress imports. It does not automatically repair macro fundamentals.

A Sharper Macro Question: Are Tariffs Helping — Or Hurting?

Nearly a year after broad tariff measures were introduced under the “Liberation Day” framework, structural metrics have not materially improved. Some indicators — including current account and net international investment position — have deteriorated.

Two serious possibilities must be considered:

Case A: Tariffs Take Time

Industrial realignment requires capital redeployment, permitting, labor training, and new infrastructure. These cycles run years, not quarters. Early data may simply reflect lag effects.

Case B: Tariffs as Input Taxes

Tariffs function as embedded cost increases for domestic producers reliant on imported components and capital goods. Higher input costs can:

• Compress margins
• Dampen investment
• Raiseconsumer prices
• Strengthen the dollar via tighter monetary conditions

If the dollar appreciates, exports weaken, and deficits widen — undermining tariff objectives.

The macro outcome depends less on tariff rates than on capital flows, savings behavior, and currency response. For sectors such as critical minerals and rare earth elements, a far more comprehensive industrial policy will be necessary if the U.S. seeks to truly accelerate ex-China supply chains by 2030.

The honest conclusion: the economic verdict is not yet in — but the data do not yet confirm improvement.

The Three-Layer Trade Architecture

The United States now operates within a layered statutory framework:

• Section 232 — National security metals and inputs
• Section 301 — China-targeted trade enforcement
• Section 122 — Temporary global balance-of-payments surcharge

This is statutory stacking within delegated authority — a calibrated reconfiguration rather than emergency improvisation.

What Happens Next

• The surcharge expires July 24, 2026 absent congressional action.
• The U.S. Trade Representative will monitor external balance conditions.
• Refund litigation from invalidated IEEPA tariffs remains unresolved.
• Trading partners will assess retaliation options.
• Markets will price the probability of extension.

Bottom Line for Rare Earth and Critical Mineral Markets

Certain critical minerals appear strategically protected.

The broader global cost baseline rises 10%.

Industrial buildout costs may rise indirectly.

The macro efficacy of Section 122 remains unproven.

The Supreme Court ruling did not collapse the trade regime.

It forced it onto firmer statutory ground.

And now the real economic testbegins.