U.S. customs and trade enforcement is entering 2026 at full throttle, and importers that treat compliance as a back-office task are assuming significant legal and financial risk. Reciprocal tariffs, expanded Section 232 investigations (based on shifting interpretations of the required value to declare for Section 232 purposes), aggressive use of the False Claims Act, and a looming Supreme Court decision on IEEPA tariffs are reshaping how companies should manage their global supply chains.
1. Customs Enforcement 2026: FCA, Criminal Risk, and AI Targeting
In 2025, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice launched a cross‑agency Trade Task Force to crack down on customs fraud, and that initiative will continue to drive enforcement in 2026. The Task Force has already secured multimillion‑dollar False Claims Act settlements involving misclassification, failure to mark country of origin, and concealed transshipment, with conduct stretching back a decade.
Outside of the False Claims Act context, CBP shifted its focus in 2025 from trade facilitation to trade enforcement, and we expect that trend to continue and accelerate in 2026, driven and supported by CBP’s multimillion dollar investment in and reliance upon AI capabilities.
Key enforcement trends for importers:
- Increased False Claims Act qui tam complaints focused on duty evasion, giving whistleblowers a direct financial stake in (and incentive to bring) customs law-focused cases.
- Parallel civil penalty actions and, in some cases, criminal charges against companies and individual executives for evasion of antidumping, countervailing, and special tariffs.
- Expanded use of AI‑powered supply‑chain mapping by CBP to identify transshipment, undervaluation, and other anomalies, resulting in more CF‑28s, CF‑29s, audits, focused assessments, and civil penalties.
Practical steps for 2026:
- Conduct targeted internal reviews of classification, valuation, and country of origin for high‑risk SKUs.
- Document “reasonable care” through written procedures, internal controls, and training.
- Establish a cross‑functional response plan for CBP inquiries, subpoenas, and whistleblower allegations.
2. Forced Labor and UFLPA: A Core Customs Compliance Risk
After a relative lull in 2025, CBP’s forced labor enforcement is returning to pre-2025 levels and is expanding beyond Xinjiang‑specific concerns into a broader, sector‑driven regime. In 2025, the total value of goods detained under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act declined, but the number of detentions rose, especially for lower‑value electronics and industrial inputs.
Notable developments:
- More withhold WROs and additions to the UFLPA Entity List, with new UFLPA high‑priority sectors such as caustic soda, copper, lithium, steel, and agricultural products.
- Forced labor provisions embedded in bilateral trade arrangements with partners like Malaysia and Cambodia, and likely to feature prominently in the USMCA six‑year review.
- Use of tariffs, including Section 301 duties targeting forced labor and labor rights issues in certain countries, as part of the enforcement toolbox.
Action items for importers:
- Map supply chains beyond tier‑1 suppliers, focusing on high‑risk regions and sectors.
- Build a defensible due‑diligence record with contracts, supplier questionnaires, audits, and remediation steps.
- Integrate forced labor compliance with ESG and human‑rights reporting to ensure consistent positions across regimes.
3. Section 232 Tariffs in 2026: Semiconductors, Critical Minerals, and Metals
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act has become a flexible national security and industrial policy tool, and 2026 will see continued expansion and refinement of these tariffs. In 2025, the Administration imposed additional tariffs under Sectio 232 on autos, trucks, steel, aluminum, copper, timber, and lumber, and their derivative products, and opened new investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, robotics, and critical minerals.
Key Section 232 developments:
- A 25% tariff on certain advanced computing chips and covered derivative products, with exemptions for chips that support U.S. technology supply chains, such as those used in data centers, repairs, R&D, startups, and public‑sector applications.
- Negotiated price‑floor talks on processed critical minerals and derivatives, with a 180‑day window before potential additional Section 232 action.
- Country‑specific carve‑outs and tariff‑rate quotas for autos, steel, and aluminum under bilateral frameworks with Japan, South Korea, the EU, and the UK, often with complex conditions and ceilings.
A persistent pain point remains how to value the metal content in derivative products:
- Current guidance refers to general customs valuation principles, but informal CBP views suggest a more conservative “fully loaded” approach that includes fabrication and labor costs.
- Where metal content cannot be reliably broken out, CBP may apply Section 232 duties to the full entered value.
What importers should do:
- Monitor Federal Register notices and CBP guidance for changes to Section 232 coverage, carve‑outs, and quota rules.
- Revisit valuation methodologies and obtain robust cost breakdowns from suppliers.
- Consider filing protests of Section 232 duties deposited or assessed on steel or aluminum content under more conservative valuation approach.
- Model the impact of potential semiconductor, pharmaceutical, and industrial Section 232 actions on sourcing strategies.
4. USMCA Review and Bilateral Trade Agreements
The USMCA six‑year joint review formally begins July 1, 2026, and the outcome will shape North American trade for years. While the Administration has sent mixed political signals about USMCA’s future, officials have acknowledged strong stakeholder support for renewal, likely paired with tighter rules of origin, stronger forced labor provisions, and greater cooperation on export controls and investment screening.
At the same time, the United States has announced multiple framework understandings with key partners such as the EU, Japan, South Korea, and the UK that set tariff ceilings and principles but often lack granular implementing rules. The legality of some recent tariff measures, particularly those tied to IEEPA, remains under challenge, adding another layer of uncertainty.
For importers and their counsel:
- Do not rely solely on press releases or joint statements; verify duty rates, product coverage, and origin rules in the binding legal instruments and CBP guidance.
- Anticipate stricter automotive rules of origin, heightened scrutiny of Chinese transshipment through Mexico and Canada, and possible “critical minerals marketplace” structures within or alongside USMCA.
- Stress‑test North American supply chains against multiple scenarios, including tighter origin rules and shifting preference thresholds.
5. IEEPA Tariffs, Supreme Court Review, and Refund Opportunities
A major inflection point for 2026 is the Supreme Court’s pending decision on whether the IEEPA authorizes the President to impose broad tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit have already held that IEEPA does not support such duties, and several justices expressed skepticism during oral argument.
What is at stake:
- IEEPA is the statutory basis for the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed in 2025 on most trading partners and “fentanyl” tariffs imposed in 2025 targeting China, Canada, and Mexico, generating more than 200 billion dollars in revenue.
- If the Supreme Court invalidates these tariffs, importers may be eligible for substantial refunds, but procedures are likely to be complex and shaped by the Court of International Trade, similar to the post‑U.S. Shoe harbor maintenance fee refunds.
- The CIT has stayed IEEPA refund cases pending the decision but has signaled that liquidation will not bar relief for properly filed actions.
Additionally, IEEPA measures have suspended de minimis duty‑free treatment for shipments valued at 800 dollars or less, replacing it with ad valorem duties or flat fees and requiring formal entry for low‑value e‑commerce shipments. If IEEPA tariffs are struck down, the legal barrier to restored de minimis treatment would likely fall, subject to other statutes such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which independently suspends de minimis beginning in July 2027.
Strategic considerations for 2026:
- Monitor liquidation dates, file protests for entries nearing the 180‑day deadline, and evaluate whether to pursue protective litigation based on exposure and risk appetite.
- Maintain detailed records of entries, duty payments, and low‑value shipments to support potential refund claims.
- If the tariffs have been passed through by agreement with subsequent purchasers, consider negotiated agreement now as to ultimate right to refunds.
- Prepare for a shift from IEEPA‑based tariffs to alternative authorities such as Section 232, Section 301, Section 122, and Section 338, which could keep tariffs central to U.S. trade policy despite the Court’s ruling.
6. 2026 Compliance Roadmap for Importers
For customs and trade attorneys, 2026 is the year to help clients move from ad hoc problem‑solving to structured customs risk management. A practical roadmap includes:
- Elevate customs and trade risk to senior management and the board, with regular reporting on enforcement trends and tariff developments.
- Conduct focused risk assessments on transshipment, forced labor, valuation, and exposure to Section 232 and IEEPA‑related tariffs.
- Update policies, training, and internal controls to reflect the current enforcement landscape, including whistleblower risks and AI‑driven targeting.
- Implement monitoring processes for new Federal Register notices, USMCA review milestones, Section 232 investigations, key court decisions, and CBP CSMS messages.
Companies that invest now in robust, well‑documented customs and trade compliance programs will be better positioned to mitigate enforcement risk, capture duty‑savings opportunities, and navigate a volatile tariff landscape.
