Loading
ReadUpdated Jul 4, 2026
Analysis
Source-backed trade-policy analysis for import-scope decisions. Start from a product line, origin, supplier, or case, then move from public record to operating posture.
Published pieces71 in the archive
Current leadOrigin decision support
Evidence standardCitable public records
Primary useImport-team framing
Browse
Topics
Origin review11 piecesUSMCA reviewAuto rules of origin+1Entry posture review18 piecesRefund postureCAPE processing+3Trade policy4 piecesPolicy monitoringMetals scope review3 piecesSection 232 metalsSection 232 copper+1Trade remedies3 piecesAD/CVD ordersPhosphate CVD ordersExport controls5 piecesLicensing regimeFDPR enforcement+1Tariff authority20 piecesSection 301 trackSection 122 surcharge+2Customs enforcement3 piecesUFLPA enforcementDe minimis administrationTrade governance3 piecesAdvisory committeeEXIM reauthorization+1
Filtered
Entry posture review stream
The Real IEEPA Refund Fight Is Over Finally Liquidated Entries
The Supreme Court invalidated the administration's claimed IEEPA tariff authority in February, but it did not decide how refunds must be paid. The June 10 Wyden and Markey letter adds political pressure, yet the binding fight is judicial, over whether CBP must refund finally-liquidated entries held by importers who never brought suit.
The Tariffs Came Back, the IEEPA Refund Logic Did Not
The IEEPA tariffs fell in February, and the administration rebuilt the wall with Section 122, Section 232, and a proposed Section 301 forced-labor duty on sixty economies, holding the trade-weighted average near 11 percent. The IEEPA refund logic is the lesson not to carry forward, because the new authorities are far harder to topple, which means the duty belongs in a cost model as a durable input rather than a refund waiting to happen. And the steady average hides a wider spread, so the number that matters is not the headline but the rate on a specific origin and tariff line once the stack is assembled.
