Section 301 Tariffs 2026: Investigation and China Review Tracker

Informational only — not legal advice.

Why these are the 2026 Section 301 tariff investigations to watch

People searching for "Section 301 tariffs 2026" are usually looking for one of four things:

1. whether USTR has already assigned new HTS codes,
2. which countries are named in the March 2026 investigations, or
3. whether the existing China lists are being extended or changed, or
4. whether these actions replace the invalidated IEEPA tariffs or the May 7 Section 122 ruling.

The short answer: the March items are active investigations, not final tariff lists. The May 6 China notice is a statutory four-year review step, not a new tariff list. USTR has not yet published final product lists, duty rates, or new Chapter 99 code families for the March investigations, and the May 6 notice does not itself change the existing China Chapter 99 codes.

Why USTR opened these investigations

The Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs on imports. CBP stopped collecting IEEPA duties effective February 24, 2026. The administration responded with a two-phase strategy:

• Bridge (Section 122): a temporary 10% import surcharge that took effect February 24, 2026. On May 7, 2026, the Court of International Trade declared the Section 122 proclamation invalid and permanently enjoined it for the importer plaintiffs in Oregon v. United States. That ruling disrupted the bridge strategy but did not itself create a universal CAPE-style refund path for every importer.
• Permanent replacement (Section 301): the March 2026 investigation packages. Section 301 carries no statutory rate cap, imposes no 150-day expiration, and has survived thousands of legal challenges since the China tariff lists were first imposed under the first Trump administration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said publicly on March 4, 2026 that "the tariff rates will be back to their old rate within five months, and those are very fulsome authorities" — pointing to Section 301 as one such authority. (CNBC, Mar. 4, 2026) The May 7 Section 122 ruling makes the timing risk sharper: USTR can still proceed under Section 301, but the Section 122 bridge is now in a post-ruling litigation posture.

Track 1: Structural excess capacity (16 economies)

Initiated: March 11, 2026
Legal authority: Section 301(b), Trade Act of 1974, self-initiated under Section 302(b)
Federal Register: 91 Fed. Reg. 51, p. 12886, Doc. No. 2026-05214 (published March 17, 2026)
Comments docket: USTR-2026-0067
Hearing requests docket: USTR-2026-0068

What is being investigated

USTR is examining whether each of the 16 targeted economies uses "acts, policies, or practices" that sustain structural excess manufacturing capacity through governmental interventions — including production subsidies, non-market lending, wage suppression, state-owned enterprise activity maintaining unprofitable firms, currency manipulation, and market access barriers. Global manufacturing capacity utilization stood at approximately 75–76% at the time of initiation, below the roughly 80% threshold associated with healthy market dynamics.

The 16 targeted economies

Canada and South Africa, both of which appeared on the prior IEEPA reciprocal tariff list, are not on the excess-capacity list. USTR did not publish a rationale for the omission in the reviewed source set.

21 targeted industry sectors

Aluminum, automobiles (including EVs), batteries, cement, chemicals, electronics, energy goods, glass, machine tools, machinery, non-ferrous metals, paper, plastics, processed food and beverages, robotics, satellites, semiconductors, ships, solar modules, steel, and transportation equipment.

Key dates — Track 1

Track 2: Forced labor enforcement failures (60 economies)

Initiated: March 12, 2026
Legal authority: Section 301(b), Trade Act of 1974
Federal Register: Doc. No. 2026-05151 (published March 17, 2026)
Comments docket: USTR-2026-0133
Hearing requests docket: USTR-2026-0134

What is being investigated

This is the first use of Section 301 to target foreign governments' regulatory inaction on forced labor as an "unreasonable or discriminatory" trade practice. The investigation examines whether each economy has "failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor." USTR references the Department of Labor's 2024 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, covering 134 goods and 34 downstream products.

Prior forced labor tools (UFLPA rebuttable presumption for Xinjiang, Section 307 Withhold Release Orders) targeted specific goods or specific regions. Section 301 enables country-level tariff responses based on government policy failures.

The 60 targeted economies

Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, European Union, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam.

These 60 economies collectively represent over 99% of U.S. imports in 2024.

Note on EU, Mexico, Canada: USTR's notice specifically alleges that all three "adopted prohibitions [on forced labor imports] but failed to enforce them."

High-risk sectors for forced labor track

• Textiles, apparel, and footwear
• Agricultural products and seafood
• Electronics and solar products
• Batteries and critical mineral inputs
• Auto parts

Key dates — Track 2

Track 3: China technology-transfer actions second four-year review

• Published: May 6, 2026
• Legal authority: Section 307(c), Trade Act of 1974
• Federal Register: 91 Fed. Reg. 24636, Doc. No. 2026-08806
• Portal: comments.ustr.gov/s/

What is being reviewed

USTR is beginning the second statutory four-year review of the two China Section 301 actions tied to China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. Those actions originally took effect on:

• July 6, 2018 (List 1 action), and
• August 23, 2018 (List 2 action).

The actions have since been modified through supplemental lists, exclusions, and the first four-year review. The May 6 notice does not announce new tariffs by itself. It starts the first phase of the continuation-review process.

Continuation-request windows

Only representatives of domestic industries that benefit from the actions submit the first-phase continuation requests. Importers and other interested parties get a broader comment opportunity only if USTR receives a continuation request and proceeds to the second phase.

In the second phase, USTR says it intends to invite interested persons to submit comments on the effectiveness of the action, other possible actions, and effects on the U.S. economy, including consumers.

How these relate to existing Section 301 tariffs

The existing China Section 301 tariff lists — the 9903.88.*, 9903.91.*, and 9903.92.* Chapter 99 families — remain in effect. The May 6 four-year review concerns those existing China actions. The March excess-capacity and forced-labor investigations are separate tracks that could create new tariff actions later. The Nicaragua line (9903.89.01) and the legacy large civil aircraft family (9903.89.05–.63) also remain unaffected.

What changes with a successful new Section 301 action is that new Chapter 99 code families would be added to the HTS for the new country/sector combinations. In the first Trump administration's China lists, each "tranche" generated a distinct code family (e.g., List 1 → 9903.88.01–.03, List 2 → 9903.88.04–.06, etc.). A similar approach is likely here, but no code families have been assigned yet.

Importers with existing China Section 301 exposure should not assume the March investigations or the May 6 review notice automatically change current duty liability. The operative question is which Chapter 99 lines appear on each entry, and that answer requires checking the entry documents.

Have new HTS codes been assigned yet?

No. As of May 8, 2026, the reviewed USTR and Federal Register materials do not assign product-specific HTS codes or Chapter 99 classifications for either March investigation track. Product lists and Chapter 99 code assignments are published in the Federal Register only after USTR makes a final affirmative determination - which follows the hearing record, post-hearing rebuttals, and a recommendation period.

The May 6 China second four-year review notice also does not assign new codes. It concerns continuation and review of existing China Section 301 actions, not the creation of a new product list.

What importers should do now

1. Know which investigations affect your supply chain

Map your sourcing by country and sector against the two investigation lists. If you import from any of the 16 economies in the excess capacity track — or from any of the 60 economies in the forced labor track — you have exposure worth tracking. The fact that rates are not yet set does not mean the risk is speculative.

2. Review the comment and hearing record

The April 15 comment deadline has passed. The comment and hearing record is still the primary evidence base that will shape:

• Which specific products end up on any tariff list
• Whether your sector receives exclusions or phase-outs
• The factual record that will be relied upon in any future legal challenge

Companies that missed the opening comment deadline should still monitor USTR for post-hearing submissions, proposed action notices, product-list notices, and any later exclusion process.

Dockets:

• Excess capacity comments: USTR-2026-0067
• Forced labor comments: USTR-2026-0133

3. Monitor the hearing record

Forced-labor hearings were held April 28-29. USTR scheduled structural-excess-capacity hearings for May 5-8 at the USITC in Washington, D.C. USTR said the hearings are on the record and that transcripts will be posted on ustr.gov after the hearings.

4. Track the China review windows separately

For existing China Section 301 exposure, track the second four-year review as a separate calendar:

• July 6, 2018 action: continuation requests due by July 5, 2026.
• August 23, 2018 action: continuation requests due by August 22, 2026.
• If USTR receives continuation requests, watch for the second-phase notice that opens broader comments on effectiveness, alternative actions, and economic effects.

That second-phase notice is likely the more relevant participation point for importers that are not domestic-industry beneficiaries.

5. Assess supply chain exposure now, not after rates are published

Section 301 products lists, once published, can become effective quickly — the China lists had relatively short effective date windows. Importers who have not mapped HTS codes, valued exposure, or identified alternative sourcing options will have less time to respond when (and if) remedy determinations are issued.

6. Track the Section 122 litigation posture

The Section 122 10% surcharge was designed as a temporary bridge. On May 7, 2026, the Court of International Trade declared Proclamation No. 11012 invalid and permanently enjoined it with respect to the importer plaintiffs. Importers should track any government stay motion, appeal, CBP implementation guidance, and entry-specific preservation deadlines while USTR's Section 301 investigations continue.

What to watch

• Preliminary determinations from USTR after hearings close (~late May 2026)
• Federal Register notices proposing specific product lists and Chapter 99 code assignments
• Comment period for proposed product lists (a separate notice-and-comment phase typically follows the preliminary determination)
• China review continuation deadlines on July 5 and August 22, 2026
• China review second-phase notice if USTR receives one or more continuation requests
• Section 122 post-judgment activity at the CIT and any appeal/stay request
• Whether IEEPA rates are used as the benchmark for new Section 301 rates (Treasury Secretary Bessent's "revert to previous levels" statement suggests this is the intent)
• Exclusion process design — whether USTR builds an exclusion process similar to the China lists' multi-round exclusion rounds