One Trump tariff is expiring this week, but another just took its place — and this one has no expiration date.
The 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is set to expire at 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, the maximum 150 days allowed under the law without an act of Congress. The tariff took effect Feb. 24 and has generated $31.06 billion in revenue since then, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.
That’s a fraction of the roughly $166 billion the government is separately refunding after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a related tariff program in February.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 on May 7 that President Trump exceeded his authority under Section 122. The court found that the administration’s stated justification — a “large and serious balance-of-payments deficit” — did not meet the legal definition Congress intended when it passed the law in 1974.
“President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis. The Trump administration is reviewing legal options and maintains confidence in ultimately prevailing.”
White House spokesman Kush Desai told The Center Square in May the administration is confident in the legal basis. A federal appeals court reinstated the tariff on June 11, granting the Trump administration’s request for a stay pending appeal.
The stay leaves the Section 122 tariff in effect through its scheduled expiration. Even if the case is ultimately decided against the administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is not expected to rule on the merits before the tariff lapses Thursday.
Trump has already moved to the next legal authority.
On July 15, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office imposed a 25% tariff on nearly all imports from Brazil under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a different statute with no built-in expiration date. That tariff followed a yearlong investigation into Brazilian trade practices including digital payment regulations, intellectual property enforcement, and deforestation.
Section 301 carries its own legal risk, but analysts say it will likely hold up better in court than the authorities struck down under IEEPA and Section 122 — mostly because those earlier legal grounds were especially weak, not because Section 301 is bulletproof.
Caleb Petitt, a research associate at the Independent Institute, said the administration is racing to find new legal justifications for tariffs faster than courts can strike them down.
“The persistent search for new tariff justifications is a reasonable strategy if the Trump administration is hoping to create hype and draw media attention, but will not be effective at raising revenue, prompting trade deals, or restoring domestic manufacturing,” Petitt told The Center Square.
Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, a trade-policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said in May that Section 122 was “always meant to be a bridge” to a more durable tariff authority.
Unlike Section 122, Section 301 has no expiration date — giving it more staying power regardless of how the legal arguments shake out.
USTR’s separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies — including Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union — over failures to adequately block imports made with forced labor concluded in June, according to the Congressional Research Service. USTR has proposed tariffs of 10% for countries that lack a ban on forced-labor imports and 12.5% for those that have one but do not enforce it, and is now seeking public comment.
The nonpartisan research service noted USTR “might aim to finalize those tariff actions by late July 2026” — just as Section 122 expires.
CBP has processed more than 24.4 million entries through its refund system since the program began April 20. The agency has collected about $166 billion under the IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. As of July 10, CBP had accepted about $121.75 billion of that in refunds — both already certified and still pending review — for processing, according to a CBP spokesperson.
Petitt cautioned that any unfunded refunds ultimately add to the national debt, regardless of their size relative to total federal spending. He added that foreign governments and domestic manufacturers have little reason to expect the tariffs to last unless they survive legal challenges.
Federal outlays totaled $5.52 trillion through the first nine months of the fiscal year, with a $1.37 trillion deficit, according to the Treasury Department. Based on those figures, roughly 24.8% of federal spending this fiscal year has been financed by borrowing.
Section 122 expires July 24. The Section 301 tariffs on Brazil take effect July 22. The forced-labor tariffs on 60 economies could be finalized around the same time.
