Last week, SGB Executive looked at the initial steps companies and consumers were taking in response to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling that certain Trump Tariffs were illegal if imposed on countries under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The discussion last Friday, March 13, centered around the refunds for the increased tariffs paid and the rocky road ahead for importers that seek to recover that tax, and the long line of people, customers and consumers waiting in line behind them if they do indeed receive some relief. (See SGB Executive’s article on this at the bottom of this post).

As the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wrote immediately following the SCOTUS ruling, the IEEPA tariffs are only one of several statutes under which President Trump has imposed tariffs.

“Going forward, the administration has several other authorities it can use to try to replace the IEEPA tariffs, but they are more constrained,” CFR noted on February 22. “They either require greater process, such as investigations, or they are time limited.”

As an example, under Section 122, a U.S. sitting president can impose up to 15 percent tariffs for 150 days by citing a balance of payments crisis and using that time to launch and complete processes under other authorities, such as Sections 201, 232, 301, or 338. However, while many IEEPA-based tariffs were invalidated, other country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs aimed at correcting trade deficits, negotiated in 2025, were modified and remain in place to target specific goods. To most, this was the core of President Trump’s initial argument and was part of the higher tariff calculations, which considered the trade deficit between the U.S. and a particular trading partner.

As most know, President Trump first ordered a 10 percent tariff under Section 122 to be imposed on all trading partners not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or a reciprocal trading agreement, before raising those tariffs to the maximum 15 percent. Why leave anything on the table, eh?

President Trump needs to find a longer-term solution to recoup the planned $1.4 trillion-plus in tariffs as part of his budget, since the Section 122 tariffs are only valid for five months. By fall, anything entering the U.S. under that 15 percent tariff will go to zero, unless something else takes its place.

Some expect the market will have another 2025 on its hands as importers and manufacturers play the calendar-waiting game, leaving shipments of goods destined for retailers in limbo for the all-important holiday shopping season at the end of the year. Container ships may be lined up like runners in their starting blocks, waiting for the gun to fire on the 151st day. Those plans and contingencies are clearly in the works all over the U.S. retail landscape now.

So what is the next step for the Trump Administration? What are its options? How likely is it that the market will see a final resolution?

A look at the options:

Section 232 tariffs are U.S. import restrictions imposed under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, authorizing the President to restrict imports deemed a threat to national security. Primarily used by the Trump Administration on steel (25 percent to 50 percent) and aluminum (25 percent), these tariffs have expanded to include copper, semiconductors and other goods. This tariff class is most likely to affect the active lifestyle market by increasing the cost of sporting goods containing these materials.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is a dormant, Great Depression-era statute that authorizes the U.S. President to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on goods from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. According to the CFR, it is considered a potential “maximum aggression” trade tool because it requires no formal investigation or Congressional consultation, allowing for rapid implementation.

Section 301(b) tariffs are additional duties, often up to 25 percent or more, imposed on Chinese goods to combat “unfair” trade practices related to technology and intellectual property. Authorized by the Trade Act of 1974, these tariffs allow the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to address foreign acts that restrict or burden U.S. commerce. These tariffs remain in effect, with recent increases targeting sectors such as EVs (100 percent), solar cells, and critical minerals. As of March 2026, new investigations are targeting 60 countries, primarily focused on forced labor and industrial capacity, potentially expanding the scope of trade restrictions.

This last tariff section will have active-lifestyle market company CFOs sitting on the edge, worrying about the next potential salvo, as it is not an easy measure to overcome, and the investigations required reportedly take a long time and require a large number of investigators.

Trump has focused on two avenues for these tariffs to be imposed as early as July 2026, with investigations ordered for:

  1. Structural Excess Capacity and Production in Manufacturing Sectors
  2. Failures to Take Action on Forced Labor

Under Section 301, President Trump must prove that the targeted countries have engaged in one of the following two scenarios. It’s more work, but they don’t have an expiration date, and it is expected he will use them to leverage more concessions from some of the largest U.S. trading partners. The Trump Administration has initially focused on as many as 60 countries for its investigations. Not because of the presence of such violations, but as an effort to find them.

Structural Excess Capacity and Production in Manufacturing Sectors
On March 11, 2026. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced the initiation of investigations under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 into the acts, policies, and practices of various economies relating to structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors.

The USTR said the investigations will determine whether those acts, policies and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. The 16 countries subject to these investigations are China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.

After considering the advice of the inter-agency Section 301 Committee and consulting with appropriate advisory committees, the USTR has initiated these investigations.

“The United States will no longer sacrifice its industrial base to other countries that may be exporting their problems with excess capacity and production to us. Today’s investigations underscore President Trump’s commitment to reshore critical supply chains and create good-paying jobs for American workers across our manufacturing sectors,” said Ambassador Greer. “The Trump Administration’s reindustrialization efforts continue to face significant challenges due to foreign economies’ structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors. Across numerous sectors, many U.S. trading partners are producing more goods than they can consume domestically. This overproduction displaces existing U.S. domestic production or prevents investment and expansion in U.S. manufacturing production that otherwise would have been brought online. In many sectors, the United States has lost substantial domestic production capacity or has fallen worryingly behind foreign competitors.”

Upon initiation of an investigation, the USTR must seek consultations with the economies whose acts, policies, or practices are under investigation.

USTR has requested consultations with the governments of the named economies.

A docket for comments regarding the investigations will open on March 17, 2026. To be assured of consideration, interested persons should submit written comments, requests to appear at the hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by April 15, 2026. The USTR will hold a hearing in connection with these investigations starting on May 5, 2026.

Failure to Act on Forced Labor
On March 12, the USTR initiated investigations of 60 economies under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigations are expected to determine whether acts, policies and practices of each of these economies related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on the importation of goods produced with forced labor are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

Under Section 302(b) of the Trade Act, the United States Trade Representative may self-initiate an investigation under Section 301.

After considering the advice of the inter-agency Section 301 Committee and consulting with appropriate advisory committees, the United States Trade Representative has initiated investigations into the economies to the right.

“Despite the international consensus against forced labor, governments have failed to impose and effectively enforce measures banning goods produced with forced labor from entering their markets. For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor,” said Ambassador Greer. “These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts U.S. workers and businesses.”

Upon initiation of an investigation, the United States Trade Representative must seek consultations with the economies whose acts, policies or practices are under investigation. USTR has requested consultations with the governments of these economies regarding these investigations.

The USTR will hold hearings in connection with these investigations on April 28, 2026. To be assured of consideration, interested persons should submit written comments, requests to appear at the hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by April 15, 2026.

The Blow-Back
These investigations are already having a negative impact on reciprocal trade deals with countries that were signed prior to the SCOTUS ruling or the notice of the impending investigations. As one example, the much-heralded deal signed in February with Indonesia, an important trading partner for the active lifestyle industry, has been put on hold.

Ambassador Greer appeared to be giddy with excitement as he announced on February 19 that, “President Trump is unlocking Indonesia’s market of over 280 million people to create commercially meaningful opportunities for American farmers and manufacturers. This landmark Agreement breaks down trade barriers while advancing the economic and national security interests of the American people.”

Fast forward to March 18, and Edi Prio Pambudi, Deputy for Coordination of International Economic Cooperation at the Indonesian Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, said that Jakarta is prioritizing its response to the investigations before considering any next steps on the Reciprocal Trade Agreement (ART).

In the signed Agreement, Indonesia and the U.S. intended to lower U.S. tariffs on Indonesian goods to 19 percent, down from a proposed 32 percent, and reduce barriers for over 99 percent of U.S. products entering Indonesia. The USTR is now saying that Indonesia’s ratification of that agreement is “suspended while Indonesia prioritizes its response to new U.S. trade investigations.” However, the deal also reportedly faced scrutiny about whether its terms “violate the Indonesian constitution, specifically regarding natural resource contracts.”

Reports out of Southeast Asia indicate that the Section 301 move has weakened the legal basis of the ART and indicate that Indonesia is setting up a special task force to prepare data and legal arguments to challenge the U.S. “allegations.”

Several trade associations serving the U.S. active lifestyle industry are planning engagement strategies within these prescribed comment periods.

Editor: Good job at cutting off your nose to spite your face, Don. And don’t even get me started with what the farmers, dairy producers, meat producers, and others who would have benefited from the deal now think. And they vote.

Image courtesy GDLSK

***

See below for additional coverage of the tariff argument in the U.S. active lifestyle market.

EXEC: The Trump Tariff Refund Process Just Got a Lot More Complex