EO-14389
Ending Certain Tariff Actions
- Signed
- Feb 20, 2026
- Published
- Feb 25, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-03832
Source: Federal Register.
Ends IEEPA-Based Tariffs Imposed on Multiple Countries
Impact8/10
What it does
This order terminates the additional import taxes (tariffs) that were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through nine prior executive orders targeting Canada, Mexico, China, Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and countries with large trade surpluses with the U.S. It directs all federal agencies to stop collecting those tariffs as soon as practicable and authorizes updates to the official tariff schedule. The underlying national emergencies and all other non-tariff actions from those prior orders remain in effect.
Who benefits
U.S. importers and businesses that relied on goods from the affected countries, who would see lower input costs. Retailers and consumers who may see reduced prices on imported goods. Foreign exporters from Canada, Mexico, China, Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, Cuba, and Iran who regain access to the U.S. market at lower duty rates. U.S. industries that depend on imported components or raw materials (e.g., electronics, automotive, agriculture). Customs brokers and trade compliance professionals whose clients face reduced regulatory burden.
Who is affected
U.S. domestic manufacturers who had been shielded from foreign competition by the tariffs and may now face increased import competition. Workers in industries that benefited from tariff protections, such as steel, aluminum, textiles, and certain agricultural sectors. The federal Treasury, which would lose tariff revenue that had been collected under the prior orders. Domestic producers who had invested in capacity expansion in anticipation of continued tariff protection. Policy advocates who supported the tariffs as leverage in ongoing diplomatic or trade negotiations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that removing these tariffs reduces costs for American businesses and consumers who bore the burden of higher prices on imported goods, and that the president's broad authority under IEEPA — the same statute used to impose the tariffs — equally empowers him to rescind them when circumstances change. They contend that ending the tariffs reflects a diplomatic achievement or changed conditions that make the emergency measures no longer necessary, and that preserving the underlying national emergencies maintains leverage for future negotiations without imposing ongoing economic costs on American importers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that terminating the tariffs removes meaningful economic pressure on trading partners and foreign governments before durable, verifiable concessions have been secured, potentially undermining the stated goals of the original emergency declarations. They contend that abruptly ending tariff protections harms domestic industries and workers who restructured their operations in reliance on those measures, and that retaining the national emergency declarations while removing their primary enforcement tool creates an inconsistent legal posture that may invite future challenges to the scope of IEEPA authority.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
Authority is claimed under 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 statutory delegations of the president's Article II foreign affairs and commerce powers. Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2483) and the general delegation statute at 3 U.S.C. §301 are also cited to authorize agency implementation and Harmonized Tariff Schedule modifications. Because this order revokes tariff actions taken under IEEPA, it rests on the same statutory authority used to impose them — a future president could reimpose or further modify these tariffs by executive order alone.