EO-14388
Continuing the Suspension of Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries
- Signed
- Feb 20, 2026
- Published
- Feb 25, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-03829
Source: Federal Register.
Ends duty-free treatment for all low-value international shipments
Impact9/10
What it does
This order permanently continues the suspension of the "de minimis" exemption — a longstanding rule that allowed imported packages valued under $800 to enter the U.S. duty-free without formal customs processing. It directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect duties on all such shipments from every country, regardless of value, and sets specific duty rates for packages arriving through the international postal network. The order takes effect February 24, 2026, and ties postal shipment duty rates to a separate February 20, 2026 proclamation imposing a temporary import surcharge.
Who benefits
U.S. domestic retailers and manufacturers who compete with low-cost foreign goods sold directly to consumers online. Brick-and-mortar stores that already collect sales tax and pay import duties on their inventory. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which gains expanded authority and resources to process previously exempt shipments. The federal Treasury, which would collect new duty revenue. Workers in domestic manufacturing and retail sectors. Law enforcement agencies that argue the de minimis loophole has been used to smuggle illicit goods, including fentanyl precursors.
Who is affected
U.S. consumers who regularly purchase low-cost goods directly from foreign online marketplaces, who would face higher prices or new fees. Small U.S. businesses that import components or finished goods in small quantities from abroad. Foreign e-commerce platforms and sellers, particularly those based in China, that rely heavily on the de minimis exemption. International postal carriers and logistics companies that must now collect and remit duties. Lower-income consumers who disproportionately use low-cost direct-from-overseas shopping platforms. Independent resellers who source inventory internationally in small batches.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the de minimis exemption created a significant competitive disadvantage for American businesses, which must pay duties and comply with customs requirements that foreign direct-to-consumer shippers could bypass entirely. They contend the exemption was exploited at massive scale — with over one billion packages per year entering under it — undermining trade enforcement, enabling the entry of counterfeit goods and illicit substances, and costing the Treasury substantial revenue. They further argue that IEEPA grants the president broad authority to restrict international transactions during a declared national emergency, and that the drug trafficking and trade-imbalance emergencies declared in prior orders provide a sufficient legal basis for this action.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating the de minimis exemption functions as a broad consumption tax increase on American shoppers, falling hardest on lower-income households that rely on affordable imported goods. They contend that IEEPA was designed for targeted foreign-policy emergencies, not as a general mechanism to restructure longstanding trade policy, and that the major-questions doctrine under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) may require explicit congressional authorization for a change of this economic magnitude. They also argue the customs processing infrastructure may not be ready to handle the surge in formal entries, potentially causing significant shipping delays and compliance burdens for small importers and postal carriers.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order invokes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §1701 et seq., and the National Emergencies Act (NEA), 50 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., as the primary statutory delegations of authority, supplemented by Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2483) and the president's general executive authority under 3 U.S.C. §301. These statutes delegate to the president broad authority to regulate international economic transactions when a national emergency has been declared. The order's reliance on IEEPA for broad trade restructuring is an active area of constitutional debate, particularly under the major-questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the end of Chevron deference under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).