Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the tariff investigations will wrap up just in time for the 150 day deadline in the current tariff regime, which could also be ruled illegal (though that would be retroactive).

Normally, this kind of investigation takes 12-18 months but despite a much larger scope of countries, this version will be done just in time to replace the July tariffs.

This all shift after the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidential tariffs. That 6–3 decision invalidated the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl-related duties that had been applied across dozens of trading partners.

Within hours of the ruling, President Trump imposed a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a temporary measure capped at 15% that expires around July 24 without congressional extension. Treasury Secretary Bessent has signaled the rate may be raised to 15% imminently and has predicted tariff rates will return to pre-ruling levels by August.

To build a potentially-durable legal foundation, USTR launched two sweeping Section 301 investigations. The first, announced March 11, targets structural excess manufacturing capacity across 16 economies including China, the EU, Mexico, Japan, India, South Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan. The second, announced March 12, examines forced labor import enforcement failures across roughly 60 economies, including Canada.

Public comments for both investigations are due April 15, with hearings running through early May. The compressed timeline is deliberate — the administration aims to conclude findings before the Section 122 tariff expires in late July, enabling a seamless transition to longer-term 301 duties. The effective tariff rate currently sits between 16.9% and 17.5%, the highest since 1932, with associated GDP drag estimated at roughly 0.4 percentage points for 2026.

The rushed nature of the hearings and the high likelihood that they will be used to whitewash tariffs leaves them further vulnerable to court challenges.