Search the archive.

Following a Section 301 investigation into China's technology transfer and intellectual property practices, the White House on March 22, 2018, directed multiple agencies to take action. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will impose an additional 25% ad valorem tariff on a list of Chinese products, set to include aerospace, information and communication technology, and machinery. The USTR will also pursue a case against China's licensing practices at the World Trade Organization. This development is critical for counsel advising clients with Chinese supply chains, as the tariffs will significantly raise import costs. Furthermore, the memorandum directs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to address Chinese investment aimed at acquiring sensitive U.S. technologies, signaling a more challenging environment for inbound M&A. Affected importers should monitor the Federal Register for the finalized product list and prepare to substantiate country-of-origin claims for goods with multinational production histories.

France has broadened the scope of its foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regime by extending a key rule to French companies listed on foreign stock exchanges. A governmental decree now applies the lowered 10% voting-rights acquisition threshold to trigger a mandatory FDI review for non-EU and non-EEA investments in these companies. This measure, initially introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and repeatedly extended, was previously focused on companies listed within Europe.

…

On August 6, 2026, the U.S. government issued a proclamation imposing Section 232 national security tariffs and minimum import prices (MIPs) on imported polysilicon, a core input for solar panels and semiconductor chips. The policy is intended to boost domestic polysilicon production but will raise input costs for downstream buyers that rely on imported supply. Affected in-house counsel should first review existing supply contracts for price adjustment or force majeure clauses, assess eligibility for tariff exclusion requests, and evaluate alternative domestic or third-country polysilicon sourcing options to reduce cost and supply disruption risks.

On July 28, 2026, the FCC expanded its Covered List on a categorical basis, adding power inverters and 'advanced robotic devices' produced in foreign countries to the list of equipment deemed an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. The action followed a White House-convened interagency determination and means that new models meeting the FCC's 'foreign-produced' definition will not be eligible for equipment authorization, effectively barring their importation or marketing in the United States. Sophisticated counsel and clients should care because the categorical scope reaches two strategically important supply chains: grid-scale and distributed-energy power inverters (touches utilities, renewables developers, and inverter OEMs) and advanced robotics (touches manufacturers, system integrators, and warehouse/automation buyers). The move is part of a broader pattern of using the FCC's Covered List as a tool of supply-chain and technology protectionism. Concrete next steps to watch include FCC equipment-authorization guidance defining 'foreign-produced' and 'advanced robotic devic

…

The U.S. Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, a decision that invalidates all such duties enacted since February 2025. The ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump affects a wide range of tariffs, including those levied against China, Mexico, and Canada. While this creates a significant opportunity for importers to seek refunds on past duties, the decision did not specify a refund mechanism, leaving the issue to be litigated at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Sophisticated counsel and their clients care because the financial stakes are high, but the landscape remains unsettled. Within hours of the ruling, the administration signaled it would use other statutes, namely Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to maintain its tariff policies. This rapid pivot means importers must now prepare for a new legal basis for tariffs while simultaneously pursuing refunds under the old regime. The immediate action is a two-track strategy: compiling records to file refund cl

…

In July 2026, DOJ and DHS released a joint Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement via their new Trade Fraud Task Force, which has already secured over $1 billion in civil and criminal recoveries since its 2025 launch. The guide explicitly frames customs misstatements, tariff evasion, misclassification, and false origin claims as potential False Claims Act (FCA) violations, which carry treble damages, statutory penalties, and qui tam whistleblower risk in addition to traditional customs penalties. It also extends enforcement liability across the supply chain to brokers, distributors, and retailers that benefit from improperly imported goods. Importers should test existing diligence and documentation practices against the FCA’s broad 'knowing' standard, retain all import-related records for the required 5-year period, and treat customs filings as evidentiary records rather than administrative formalities.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's new Forced Labor Enforcement Operational Guidance for Importers formalizes how the agency will apply the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, withhold release orders, and CAATSA to inbound shipments. Importers must now demonstrate granular traceability—mapping each material, supplier, and shipment node—particularly for goods appearing on the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. The guidance signals broader use of entity-based and commodity-based enforcement, not just port-level detention. In-house counsel at retailers and consumer brands should audit supplier disclosures, refresh due-diligence questionnaires, and prepare rebuttal packages before shipments are detained. Proactive mapping of high-risk inputs (cotton, polysilicon, tomatoes, seafood) is now a baseline compliance expectation rather than a best practice.