The landscape of US international trade has become increasingly volatile in recent weeks as a flurry of executive orders, investigations, court rulings, and retaliatory threats reshape global supply chains. At the center of the turmoil are the controversial “fentanyl” and reciprocal tariffs introduced by President Trump, which now face significant legal challenges and mounting international backlash.

**Legal Pushback and a Temporary Reprieve**
On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) delivered a seismic decision by declaring the executive orders implementing the tariffs, issued under the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) targeting imports from Canada, China, and Mexico, invalid and contrary to law. The court issued a permanent injunction halting enforcement of these tariffs.

However, that victory for plaintiffs was short-lived. Just a day later, on May 29, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay, keeping the tariffs in place while it reviews the government’s appeal. Plaintiffs have until June 5 to respond to the government’s motion, with a reply due by June 9. Until a final decision is made, these tariffs remain enforceable.

This legal back-and-forth adds to an already complex and uncertain trade regime, frustrating businesses caught in the middle and prompting global partners to consider retaliatory measures.

**A Wave of Executive Orders and Investigations**
Since March 2025, the Trump administration has taken an aggressive stance on trade. Key actions include:
* Tariff stacking prevention (April 29): A new executive order prevents overlapping tariffs on the same goods; an attempt to soften the economic blow of multiple duties.
* Massive hikes to de minimis duties (April–May): Tariffs on Chinese-origin goods sent via postal channels have skyrocketed—reaching as high as 120% or $200 per item by June 1, though more recent orders rolled these back to 54% or $100, effective May 14.
* HTSUS modifications and refund procedures: U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been scrambling to keep pace, issuing regular guidance to implement tariff changes and manage retroactive refunds, most notably under Executive Order 14289.
* A flurry of Section 232 investigations: Since April, the Commerce Department has launched new national security investigations covering semiconductors and semiconductor derivative products, pharmaceuticals, aircraft, trucks, minerals, and lumber, which would see an imposition of 25% tariff on these products. Public comments are due throughout June.

These moves reflect Trump’s continued reliance on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose trade restrictions for national security reasons. Critics argue that this rationale is being stretched beyond its original intent, particularly when used to target close allies.

Trump’s current sector-specific tariffs including the 25% duty on imported steel and aluminum, as well as the 25% tariff on imported automobiles and numerous auto parts remain unchanged by this week’s court rulings, since they were implemented under a separate provision tied to national security: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. On May 30, Trump announced that the tariffs under this section imposed on steel and aluminum would increase to 50% from 25% and will go into effect on Wednesday, June 4.

**Outlook and Implications**
The current tariff landscape remains highly fluid, creating significant uncertainty for businesses. It is difficult to predict with confidence how tariff policies will evolve in the near term. This lack of clarity poses challenges for companies that rely on stable trade conditions to make long-term strategic decisions, such as investment planning, supply chain management, and pricing strategies. Uncertainty in trade policy can stall decision-making and dampen business confidence, especially for firms that are heavily exposed to international markets.

While the U.S. Court of Appeals has issued a stay on tariffs imposed by former President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), other major tariffs remain firmly in place most notably those enacted under Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices, primarily targeting China). In fact, Trump announced on Friday that tariffs on steel and aluminum will rise further starting Wednesday. Although he has reversed tariff decisions in the past, those reversals were often in response to targeted retaliation from specific countries. In this case, the likelihood of reversal appears lower, until Trump administration is able to achieve what it wants.

This time, the tariffs seem strategically aimed at Canada and Mexico, two of the United States’ closest trade partners and major suppliers of steel and aluminum. Mexico and Canada, jointly accounted for 40% of US steel imports, while 70% of aluminum imports come from Canada. The underlying message may be one of political leverage: the Trump administration may be using the tariff hike as a tactic to pressure these countries into tightening controls against transshipment specifically, to prevent Chinese products from being rerouted through their borders to circumvent US tariffs.

Although there is a possibility of the new tariff increase to be withdrawn given the recent history, the broader implication may be that administration is laying the groundwork to renegotiate elements of the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) earlier than mid-2026, something Trump has previously signaled interest in. The current pressure campaign could therefore be part of a broader strategy to reopen trade talks and extract additional concessions. An earlier renegotiation of the USMCA with Canada and Mexico taking significant steps to ensure reduction in transshipment from their lands may mean that the Section 232 tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum imports may come back down and settle between 15% and 25%, as the US requires its strategic trade partners to build a localized supply chain that is completely independent of Southeast Asian countries.

In summary, while headline changes to tariffs may seem reactive, they could reflect a deeper effort to reshape North American trade relations. For businesses, however, the immediate impact is one of heightened uncertainties, with potentially significant consequences for planning and profitability.