WASHINGTON – The Trump administration launched a new trade investigation Wednesday into manufacturing practices in a range of foreign countries, a move coming just weeks after the Supreme Court invalidated President Trump’s previous use of tariffs based on a declared national economic emergency.
The administration intends to replace the revenue stream generated by the tariffs struck down by the court, and is initiating investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, potentially leading to new import taxes. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, speaking to reporters, cautioned against anticipating the outcome of the process.
“The policy remains the same — the tools may change depending on, you know, the vagaries of courts and other things,” Greer said, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to protecting American jobs.
The move to fully replace the previously authorized tariffs could reintroduce volatility to the global economy, mirroring the disruptions experienced last year. The initial tariffs prompted new trade frameworks with several U.S. Partners, and the impact of new import taxes on those agreements remains uncertain. Greer asserted that the existing trade frameworks are independent of the new investigation.
The investigation will focus on what the administration views as unfair trade practices, including excess industrial capacity and government subsidies that could provide foreign companies with an advantage over their U.S. Counterparts. The countries subject to the investigation include China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan and India.
The administration is seeking evidence of persistent trade surpluses with the U.S., as well as policies such as wage suppression and subsidies. A separate Section 301 investigation is also underway to address the import of goods produced with forced labor.
Greer indicated that further Section 301 investigations could be initiated to address issues such as digital service taxes, pharmaceutical drug pricing, and ocean pollution. The Commerce Department is also conducting trade investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.
The administration faces a timeline constraint, as temporary 10% tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act are set to expire on July 24. President Trump had considered raising those tariffs to 15%, but has not yet taken action. Greer stated that the new investigation is being expedited to provide Trump with “potential options” before the July deadline.
Greer also suggested that the existing trade frameworks, which established baseline tariff rates of 15% for goods from the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, among others, could factor into the Section 301 process. He expressed optimism about continued engagement with these countries, stating, “My sense is that these countries continue to want to deal, and President Trump continues to want the deal,” adding that commitments made under the frameworks would be considered as they “bump” against the demands of the Section 301 process.
The Supreme Court’s February ruling struck down key elements of Trump’s tariff policy, prompting the administration to seek alternative legal avenues to achieve its trade objectives, as noted by the New York Times in its coverage of the decision. The ruling was a significant setback for the President’s economic agenda, but the administration has signaled its determination to maintain a protectionist stance, according to reporting from PBS NewsHour.
Despite the court’s decision, Ambassador Greer, in a statement released February 20, 2026, affirmed the administration’s commitment to its trade policy, emphasizing that the challenges addressed by the tariffs – including the fentanyl crisis, immigration concerns, and the trade deficit – remain pressing issues. The statement, as reported by USTR, highlighted the administration’s success in curbing fentanyl imports and improving border security through the use of IEEPA prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
