Trump Tariff Tracker: Latest Rates on Countries and Products

In place of the expansive tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court, Mr. Trump took two important steps.

First, he quickly imposed a new, across-the-board 10 percent tax on many imports The president did so using a provision of law known as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which no president before him had ever invoked. Announced in February, those tariffs may be in place for 150 days, unless Congress agrees to extend them. His use of the law has sparked a set of legal challenges.

Second, the Trump administration opened a series of investigations into other countries’ trade practices, using another provision of the same 1974 law, known as Section 301. Once complete, those inquiries are expected to result in tariffs that are as high, or close to, the emergency duties that the Supreme Court recently invalidated.

For Mr. Trump, the Supreme Court ruling marked an end to the tariffs he announced last spring on what he called “Liberation Day.” These duties were among his most punishing, with some countries seeing taxes on their exports ranging as high as 50 percent.

To implement the tariffs, a power generally reserved for Congress, Mr. Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1970s law that does not explicitly mention the word tariff. No president before him had ever interpreted the statute in this way, but Mr. Trump tried to wield the law in order to raise or lower rates unilaterally, a defining element of his trade strategy.

Under the law, known as IEEPA, Mr. Trump imposed a baseline,10 percent tariff around the world, then calibrated rates on some countries based on a loose and evolving rubric. Even when the president struck deals with other countries, he kept in place tariffs set using IEEPA, skirting the need to obtain congressional approval.

But the scope of his actions triggered lawsuits by state officials and small businesses, which prevailed repeatedly as the matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices similarly took fault with the president’s trade strategy. They found that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

Using steep tariffs, or sometimes simply the threat of them, Mr. Trump struck a series of agreements with key U.S. trading partners, including those in the European Union. Those deals remain in limbo as a result of the Supreme Court decision, because many were premised on tariff rates under the IEEPA law.

Each of those deals had set those countries’ tariffs at 15 percent or higher, lowering what would have been steeper duties in exchange for favorable trade concessions and new promises to invest in the United States. The administration has struck agreements with countries including Japan, Switzerland and South Korea, the details of which vary.

The president’s tariffs have generally fallen into two categories: taxes imposed on imports arriving from certain countries; and duties that apply to specific products, often without regard to their origin. The latter category was not affected by the Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. Trump has subjected a widening roster of goods to these duties, which are invoked using a provision of federal law — Section 232 — meant to address trade issues that present national security threats.

By April 2026, the president had announced duties on imported steel; aluminum; cars; car parts; heavy-duty trucks; and lumber and wood products, including bathroom and kitchen cabinets and upholstered furniture. (He later suspended some of the planned increases on those lumber products.) Most recently, he announced tariffs on certain patented drugs.

The president has signaled on numerous occasions that he is pursuing additional industry-specific tariffs. Mr. Trump can issue these tariffs after the government conducts a national security investigation, which it has initiated for wind turbines, another industry that the president has sought to tax.

In some cases, these industry-specific tariffs do not pile on top of the duties that Mr. Trump has imposed on specific countries. For others, like the European Union, agreements brokered with the United States would override the sector-specific duties.

There is perhaps no country that Mr. Trump has targeted more than China. At various moments over the last year, the two sides engaged in an escalating tit-for-tat trade battle using tariffs, including ones that were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

The two sides eventually reached a truce that brought down many of their punishing duties, at least while the countries could continue to negotiate new trade terms. Mr. Trump is set to meet with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, in May.

In an earlier conflict over export restrictions, trade between the United States and China essentially came to a halt, rattling financial markets and raising fears of price increases for U.S. consumers.

China has long been in Mr. Trump’s crosshairs, dating back to his first term. Upon returning to office, he initially sought to penalize Beijing for failing to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States. But he has since wielded tariffs to address a broad range of grievances.

Mr. Trump first took aim at Canada and Mexico in February 2025, announcing a 25 percent import tax on all arriving goods, which the president justified by saying the two nations had not sufficiently helped to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Facing blowback domestically and abroad, he later paused and modified that arrangement to reflect the U.S.M.C.A. while talks continued. The North American trade agreement is set to be reviewed later this year.

Even as Mr. Trump imposed his most unforgiving tariffs, his administration largely left in place a policy that allowed Americans to import goods up to $800 without facing duties. The policy, known as the de minimis exemption, officially ended in late August, meaning that these goods will face tariffs based on their country of origin.

The president previously eliminated this exemption on goods arriving from China, in a move that threatened to deliver a blow to e-commerce, since 60 percent of de minimis shipments to the United States came from that country and Hong Kong.