Navigate
HomeStart here
MusingsResearch & long-form
BuildingProjects & learnings
WorkProfessional practice
RunningTraining & races
AboutValues & identity
Life & PlacesCulture, food, travel, cities
Notes & ArchiveJournals, essays, portfolio
Policy analysisPower, Identity, ResistanceUpdated March 2026Tariff evidence synthesis + implications
Musings

Research · February 2026

The US Tariff Landscape, Post-SCOTUS

Economic analysis of US tariffs and Trump administration trade policy. Data from Penn Wharton, Yale Budget Lab, Tax Foundation, and PIIE.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down all IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (6-3).[1]Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs — that power belongs to Congress under Article I. Within hours, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a replacement.[2] Here is where things stand.

9.1%
Current ETR
Post-SCOTUS
2.3%
Pre-Trump Baseline
Jan 2025
27%
Peak ETR
Apr 2025
$264B
CY 2025 Revenue
+234% from 2024

The effective tariff rate sits at ~9.1% — down from the April 2025 peak of ~27% (highest since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley era), but still the highest since 1946.[3] The pre-Trump baseline was 2.3%. That 6.7 percentage point increase above baseline translates to $189.4 billion in new tariff revenue, offset by $45.7 billion in forgone revenue as importers changed behavior.[4]

What Was Struck Down vs. What Survived

Struck Down (IEEPA)

  • • Reciprocal tariffs (10%-125%, country-specific)
  • • Fentanyl surcharges (25% CA/MX, 20% China)
  • • ~$175B in potential refund liability
  • • $133.5B collected through Dec 14, 2025

Still Active

  • • Section 232: Steel/aluminum/copper at 50%
  • • Section 232: Autos at 25%, auto parts 25%
  • • Section 232: Semiconductors at 25%
  • • Section 301: China goods at 7.5%-25% (semis 50%)
  • • Section 122: 10% global surcharge (expires Jul 24)

Effective Tariff Rates by Country

December 2025

China33.4%
Vietnam12.9%
Switzerland7.6%
Mexico4.5%
Canada3.3%
Ireland2.3%

Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model (Feb 23, 2026). USMCA compliance insulates CA/MX — 88.2% of imports claiming exemption.

The SCOTUS ruling cut China's effective rate by almost two-thirds while reducing Canada and Mexico rates much less — because ~88% of their goods already qualified for USMCA exemption.[3] USMCA compliance surged from ~50% pre-tariff to 88.2% by December 2025 as importers aggressively re-classified and documented compliance.[5]

Sector Exposure

Effective Tariff Rate by Product

Copper50%
Steel & Aluminum39.6%
Semiconductors (China)50%+
Automobiles14.5%
Auto Parts5.7%
Pharmaceuticals1.3%

Most exposed sectors: agriculture (targeted by retaliatory tariffs), mining (export-dependent), durable goods manufacturing (biggest employment drops), automotive (25% on vehicles/parts, complex cross-border supply chains), and metals (50% across the board). The US-EU deal at 15% applies broadly but steel, aluminum, and copper remain at 50%.

Revenue & Household Impact

$264B
CY 2025 Revenue
Up from $79B in 2024
$175B
IEEPA Refund Liability
Post-SCOTUS
-$45.7B
Behavioral Offset
Importers shifted sourcing
$800
Avg Household Cost
If Sec 122 temporary
$1,300
Avg Household Cost
If Sec 122 permanent
3x
Regressivity
Bottom vs top decile burden

Tariffs are regressive. The burden as a share of post-tax income on the bottom decile is about 3x that of the top (1.1% vs 0.4%).[6]GDP growth is reduced by -0.23 pp (2025) and -0.62 pp (2026). Long-run GDP is permanently smaller by ~0.1% (~$30B/yr).[3]Unemployment increases by +0.3 pp by end of 2026. The Tax Foundation estimates a $1,500 average tax increase per household.[7]

Timeline

2025

Feb 1

Fentanyl emergency tariffs: Canada 25%, Mexico 25%, China +20%

Feb 10

Steel & aluminum tariffs restored at 25% (later raised to 50%)

Mar 26

Auto tariffs: 25% on vehicles

Apr 2

Reciprocal tariffs: country-specific rates 10%-125%

May 12

US-China 90-day reduction: both sides back to 10%

Jun 4

Steel/aluminum/copper doubled to 50%

Jul 27

US-EU framework deal: 15% ceiling

Nov 10

US-China reduction extended 1 year

2026

Jan 14

Section 232 tariff on semiconductors: 25%

Feb 20

SCOTUS strikes down all IEEPA tariffs (6-3)

Feb 20

Section 122 proclamation: 10% global surcharge

Feb 24

Section 122 takes effect. Expires July 24, 2026.

Retaliation

China targeted US agriculture — ~80% of retaliatory tariffs hit soybeans, grains, and cotton.[8]Escalation reached 125% bilateral before the May 2025 de-escalation. Extended for a year through November 2026.

Canada hit back immediately with 25% surtax on $20B of US goods, plus $86B more within 21 days. Partially rolled back in September — retained 25% on US steel, aluminum, and autos.

Mexico prepared 5-20% retaliatory tariffs on US pork, cheese, produce, steel. Then pivoted — proposed tariffs on non-FTA partners (especially China) across ~1,463 product categories, effectively aligning with the US on China containment.

EU published a list of $84B in retaliatory targets before the framework deal. In February 2026, froze ratification after Trump's 15% global tariff threat exceeded the agreed ceiling on ~EUR 4.2B of exports.

Sources

[1]Supreme Court of the United States. “Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.” No. 25-370, Feb 20, 2026.The 6-3 ruling that struck down all IEEPA tariffs. Roberts held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; that power belongs to Congress under Article I.
[2]Congressional Research Service. “Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.” Report R48549, 2026.Explains the legal basis for the Section 122 replacement tariff, including the 150-day sunset provision and 15% rate ceiling.
[3]Penn Wharton Budget Model. “Tariff Tracker: Effective Tariff Rates and Revenue.” Feb 23, 2026.Primary data source for effective tariff rates by country and product, revenue estimates, GDP impact projections, and the Smoot-Hawley historical comparison.
[4]Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Tariff Revenue in Fiscal Year 2025.” 2026.Breakdown of $264B revenue, $189.4B in new tariff revenue above baseline, and $45.7B in forgone revenue from behavioral shifts by importers.
[5]Yale Budget Lab. “The State of US Tariffs.” SCOTUS Ruling Update, 2026.Documents the surge in USMCA compliance from ~50% to 88.2% and analyzes the post-SCOTUS tariff landscape including Section 122 implications.
[6]Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE). “US Tariffs Are a Regressive Tax.” 2025.Shows the 3x burden disparity between bottom and top income deciles (1.1% vs 0.4% of post-tax income), establishing tariffs as among the most regressive federal levies.
[7]Tax Foundation. “Trump Tariffs: Trade War Tracker.” Updated 2026.Estimates a $1,500 average tax increase per household and provides sector-by-sector tariff rate analysis with employment impact projections.
[8]Bown, Chad. “Trump Trade War Timeline.” Peterson Institute, Updated 2026.Comprehensive timeline of retaliatory measures. Documents China targeting ~80% of tariffs at US agriculture, Canada’s $106B surtax program, and EU’s $84B target list.

Related Reading

Field Note

Two Truckloads of Rare Earth Per Year

China processes 70% of the world's rare earths. The US strategic stockpile (Project Vault) and 'minerals club' proposals are decades behind. You can't tariff your way out of a processing monopoly — you need refineries, and those take 7–10 years to build.

Field Note

PE Is Coming for Your Nail Salon

Private equity is rolling up fragmented service industries — nail salons, car washes, veterinary clinics — using the same playbook: acquire, consolidate, extract margin through scale. The result is higher prices, lower service quality, and workers who used to be owners becoming employees.

Musing

Iran’s Financial Collapse: From Sanctions to Street Protests

How maximum pressure sanctions, a proxy war, and a Ponzi-banking system converged into the worst financial crisis in Iran’s modern history. The rial fell 84%, Ayandeh Bank collapsed, and the regime killed 2,600+ protesters.

Read →
Musing

Housing Development, Aesthetic Uniformity, and the Political Economy of Race and Capital

Why all new buildings look the same — and what it reveals about financialized capital, regulatory conformity, racialized reinvestment, and the erasure of place. Design homogeneity is not a taste failure. It’s a market equilibrium.

Read →
Jenn Musings · jennumanzor.com