To impose tariffs on imported goods, the United States relies on a range of legal instruments with distinct purposes and mechanisms, including IEEPA (imminent threat), Section 122 (macroeconomic imbalances), Section 232 (national security), and Section 301.
It is on this basis that two new investigations were launched on 12 March, targeting 60 countries, including 16 key trading partners, most notably the European Union.
Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 allows the US Trade Representative to take action against foreign trade practices deemed unfair or discriminatory.
In this instance, the justification is twofold: the alleged encouragement of industrial overcapacity and the failure of the countries concerned to effectively prohibit imports of goods produced through forced labour.
The Trump administration’s ultimate objective appears straightforward, if not simplistic: to impose new tariffs and “recover with one hand what was lost with the other.”
This initiative follows the US Supreme Court’s decision of 20 February invalidating tariffs adopted under IEEPA, and the subsequent announcement by President Trump of provisional 10% tariffs (for a period of 150 days) under Section 122.
These duties, which entered into force on 24 February, are cumulative with standard MFN tariffs, as well as with any additional duties that may result from the two new investigations. Exemptions are provided under both Section 122 and IEEPA tariff regimes.
While the risk is therefore very real, it is more structured than under the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs. Section 301 investigations are subject to more stringent procedural requirements, and Section 122 measures must be approved by Congress within 150 days.
In the short term, companies seeking to maintain access to the US market should carefully assess their eligibility for exemptions listed in Annexes 1 and 2 of Section 122. They are also encouraged to secure the support of their national authorities, which may relay concerns to the European Commission.
At the same time, close attention should be paid to the decision expected from the European Parliament, meeting in plenary session on 25-26 March, regarding the EU-US trade agreement, which would cap tariffs on EU exports at 15%.
In this context, the vote held on 19 March 2026 in the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade marks a significant shift. Members of the European Parliament endorsed the implementation of the EU-US agreement, while introducing substantial safeguards to frame European concessions.
Beyond the planned elimination of EU tariffs on most US industrial goods, the text introduces mechanisms of conditionality and reversibility, including a “sunset clause” allowing for the reintroduction of tariffs after 18 months in the absence of renewal, as well as provisions making tariff concessions contingent upon US compliance with its commitments.
Safeguard measures are also provided for in the event of a significant increase in imports.
The plenary vote scheduled for 25-26 March is expected, barring any political reversal, to confirm this balanced approach, reflecting the Parliament’s intention to reconcile trade openness with the protection of European economic interests.
In the short term, this development enhances the predictability of the tariff framework for exporters, while maintaining a degree of legal uncertainty due to the conditional and potentially reversible nature of the commitments.