Read more

Read more

The decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump significantly narrows the scope of emergency economic powers and reaffirms that Congress — not the president — controls tariff policy under the Constitution.

The ruling reduces the likelihood that companies will face sudden tariff shocks triggered by emergency declarations.

What Companies Should Do

1. Monitor other executive trade tools. The ruling does not limit other executive trade authorities, including:

• Section 232 tariffs

• Section 301 trade actions

• Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act

• Export controls

• Economic sanctions

2. Reassess tariff risk models. Companies should revisit supply-chain risk scenarios that assumed emergency tariff authority.

3. Strengthen policy monitoring. Trade policy risk is shifting toward legislative negotiations and formal trade investigations, which require earlier engagement from companies.

Impact on Trade Policy

1. Trade policy becomes more predictable

Emergency tariffs — potentially imposed overnight — now face legal limits. Companies can expect tariff changes to occur through established legal channels rather than through emergency declarations.

2. Congress becomes more important

The decision pushes tariff policy back toward:

• Congressional legislation

• Formal trade investigations

• Statutory trade authorities

Examples of statutory trade authorities include:

• Section 232 national security tariffs

• Section 301 trade enforcement actions

• Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act for balance-of-payments issues.

These processes typically involve investigations and notice periods.

Background: Trump Tariff Policy

In 2025, the Trump administration imposed broad tariffs after declaring national emergencies tied to drug trafficking and persistent U.S. trade deficits. Authority for the tariffs relied on IEEPA, a 1977 statute historically used for sanctions and financial restrictions.

The tariffs included:

• 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico

• 10%–20% tariffs on Chinese imports

• 10% baseline tariff on imports from most countries

Several small businesses challenged the tariffs, arguing that IEEPA authorizes regulation of economic transactions during emergencies but does not authorize taxes such as tariffs. Lower courts agreed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that interpretation.

The Court’s key finding:

Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution assigns taxing power to Congress under Article I. The president cannot impose tariffs unless Congress clearly grants that authority.

The Court’s Reasoning

1. Tariffs are taxes: The Constitution gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Court held that tariffs fall squarely within that authority.

2. IEEPA does not mention tariffs: IEEPA allows presidents to block or regulate financial transactions during national emergencies but does not refer to tariffs or duties.

3. Major questions doctrine: The Court also applied the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions with major economic consequences. Allowing a president to impose unlimited tariffs under emergency powers would represent a major expansion of executive authority.

Macro Impact

1. Reinforces separation of powers. The ruling strengthens congressional authority over trade and limits executive economic powers.

2. Reshapes U.S. trade strategy. Future administrations may rely more heavily on sanctions, export controls, investment restrictions, and trade investigations rather than emergency tariffs.

3. Signals stability to trading partners. Foreign governments may view U.S. tariff policy as more predictable because it now depends more on legislation and formal trade processes.

Subscribe now

The Framework Agreement is intended as a first step in a process that could expand to cover additional areas and “continue to improve market access and increase their trade and investment relationship.”

The United States and the EU reached the agreement in July 2025, avoiding President Donald Trump’s threatened 30% tariffs. The agreement raised concerns in Europe about economic damage, political fallout, and the durability of the deal. (see U.S. and EU Reach Trade Agreement)

Key Details

• Tariff Reductions:

  • The EU “intends” to eliminate tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods and expand preferential access for US agriculture and seafood.

  • The U.S. will commit to limit tariffs on EU industrial goods at 15%, with MFN-only tariffs applied to key sectors such as aircraft, pharmaceuticals, and natural resources.

  • The U.S. commits to conditional reduction of Section 232 tariffs on EU automobiles and parts upon EU legislative implementation.

• Energy & Technology:

  • The EU commits to purchase $750 billion of U.S. liquified natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy products by 2028.

  • The EU “intends” to purchase $40 billion in U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) chips for computing infrastructure.

• Investment:

  • EU firms are expected to invest $600 billion in strategic U.S. sectors through 2028.

• Defense:

  • The EU plans to substantially increase procurement of U.S. defense equipment, reinforcing NATO interoperability.

• Regulatory Cooperation:

  • The is mutual recognition of automotive standards and expanded conformity assessments across sectors.

  • The EU notes U.S. concerns related to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

  • The EU will ease compliance burdens for U.S. exporters, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.

• Digital Trade:

  • The EU confirms it will not impose network usage fees.

  • Both sides reaffirm the WTO moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions.

Subscribe now

New tariffs rates

Some countries negotiated tariff rates that are lower rates than initially threatened:

• The EU (15%), Japan (15%), South Korea (20%), Vietnam (20%), and the U.K. (10%).

Countries that have not negotiated a deal with the United States were hit with higher rates:

• Brazil (50%), Canada (35%), Switzerland (39%), Laos (40%) and Algeria (30%) saw increases.

• India and several others remain outside deals and face high default tariffs.

· The countries and rates are listed in the annex to the executive order.

Economic impact

• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the tariffs could raise $50 billion a month in revenue.

• Economists warned of the risk of rising inflation on U.S. consumers.

Geoeconomic impact

• Trump’s tariffs are reshaping global trade and using them as leverage on issues beyond trade, particularly against Brazil, which Trump has criticized for its prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Legal challenges remain

• The tariffs are under legal challenges for exceeding executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. A New York trade court sided against Trump, but allowed tariffs to stay in place pending appeal.

Subscribe now

Key Terms

• Tariffs:

  • 15% tariff on ~70% of EU exports — covering €780 billion in trade.

  • Includes pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and cars (down from 27.5%).

  • U.S. imports into the EU will not face new tariffs.

• Steel & aluminum: U.S. keeps 50% tariff; Europe gets a quota deal tied to past import levels.

• Zero-tariff sectors: €70B in trade spared — aircraft, some chemicals, generics, agricultural products, critical raw materials.

• Energy & weapons: EU pledges $750 billion in U.S. energy purchases and $600 billion in U.S. investments, plus undefined defense buys.

Geoeconomic impact

• Tariff leverage: Trump’s tariff threat forced the EU to make sweeping concessions.

• U.S. “win”: White House officials hailed the deal as the “biggest ever,” citing benefits for U.S. industry and security.

• A one-sided deal: The EU gains little beyond avoiding 30% tariffs.

• Not legally binding: EU officials stressed that investment and energy pledges are political commitments, not enforceable law.

• Security link: Analysts say EU leaders feared that rejecting Trump’s terms risked U.S. disengagement from NATO and Ukraine.

• WTO clash: Experts warn zero-tariff carveouts may violate global trade rules.

European Reactions

• Europe’s dilemma: Leaders say they avoided worse damage, but critics call the agreement “capitulation.”

• Germany: Economy minister Katharina Reiche admitted it was “challenging” but highlighted car and pharma relief. Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned the pact could cause “considerable damage.”

• France: PM François Bayrou called it a “dark day,” blasting agricultural concessions. Far-right leader Marine Le Pen dubbed it a “political, economic and moral fiasco.”

• Ireland: PM Micheál Martin said it brings “predictability,” but at a cost.

• Italy: Called the 15% tariff “sustainable,” emphasizing stability over conflict.

• Netherlands: “No tariffs would have been better,” said PM Dick Schoof, but he praised the Commission for damage control.

Legal challenges remain

• Legal test: U.S. courts are reviewing whether Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 IEEPA law. A ruling against him could upend the tariff regime.

Longer Reads

• Donald Trump’s tariff blitz brings US levies to highest levels since 1930s, Financial Times, July 28, 2025

• What opponents of the EU-US trade deal get wrong, The Economist, July 30, 2025

• The trade deal with America shows the limits of the EU’s power, The Economist, July 31, 2025

• Donald Trump’s EU oil and gas deal is ‘pie in the sky’, energy experts warn, Financial Times, July 28, 2025

• Josh Lipsky, How Donald Trump remade global trade, The New Atlanticist, August 1, 2025

• Tariff roulette: inside Trump’s chaotic trade negotiations, Financial Times, August 1, 2025

• Lessons from the 1920s and 30s on tariffs and markets, Financial Times, August 3, 2025

• Trump’s tariffs leave us in the second worst of all worlds, Financial Times, August 4, 2025

Subscribe now

Key Facts

• Tariffs: U.S. auto tariffs lowered from 25% to 15% (still well above the original 2.5% rate). Steel and aluminum tariffs remain at 50%.

• Investment: Japan committed up to $550 billion in investment in the United States, including U.S. manufacturing, infrastructure, and supply chain projects.

• Purchases: Japan agreed to buy ~$8 billion in U.S. agricultural products, expand LNG offtake, and procure additional Boeing aircraft.

• Legal status: The deal is an executive agreement rather than a free trade agreement. Timelines for implementation are unclear.

• Trade balance: In 2024, Japan had a $70 billion surplus in trade with the United States.

Geoeconomic Impact

• The agreement demonstrates U.S. transactional trade diplomacy under which tariff relief is tied to pledges for investment and purchase.

• Japanese government officials framed the deal as avoiding harsher tariffs.

• Critics noted the lack of clarity on U.S. commitments and the lack of enforceability.

Subscribe now

Trump stated that China will supply upfront “full magnets, and any necessary rare earths,” Trump said. The United States will, in turn, allow Chinese students to attend U.S. colleges and universities. U.S. tariffs on imports of Chinese goods will be set at 55% and Chinese tariffs on imports of U.S. goods will be set at 10%.

Tariff rates

• U.S. 55% tariffs: The U.S. tariff of 55% is composed of the 20% fentanyl tariffs, the 10% IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, and the 25% Section 301 tariffs from Trump’s first term.

• Chinese 10% tariffs: The 10% tariffs restores the tariff rate that China agreed to in May.

Rare earth minerals and magnets

While Trump did not mention export controls on microchips in his announcement, U.S. officials stated that the administration may ease restrictions on the export of certain microchips if China complies with the agreement on critical minerals licenses for U.S. companies. The administration, however, would continue to restrict “very, very high-end Nvidia” chips used for AI. If China does not comply, the United States could impose additional controls that target critical industries or companies. An easing of microchip restrictions on China would reverse the Biden administration’s policy to prevent China’s access to U.S. technology that could have military application.

China restricted exports of rare earth minerals and magnets to the United States in April. After accusing China of violating the May agreement, U.S. official began to impose export restrictions on semiconductor design software, jet engine parts, chemicals, nuclear materials; they also began revoking visas for Chinese students.

Finalization

There are likely some disagreements still to be resolved, as the leaders of both sides must still sign off on the agreement. Given this uncertainty, there is still the risk that the tentative truce does not result in an official agreement.

Subscribe now

Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum in March, relying on his previously invoked national security authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

Tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the UK will remain at 25%. The Trump administration noted that changes were possible starting July 9, 2025, depending on the status of the U.S.-UK Trade Deal.

Trump stated that he increased the tariffs to protect U.S. industries and to “end unfair trade practices and the global dumping of steel and aluminum.”

Update: On June 16, 2025, the Commerce Department announced that the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum products would cover home appliances including refrigerators, dishwashers, and washing machines.

U.S. Tariff Reductions

The United States agreed to reduce reciprocal and punitive tariffs on China:

• Reciprocal tariffs: The United States will reduce the 34% reciprocal tariff rate imposed on April 2 to 10%;

• Additional duties: The United States will remove the 125% additional duties imposed on April 8, 2025 and on April 9, 2025, when Trump increased tariffs on China and paused reciprocal tariffs for 90 days for all other countries.

Retained Tariffs

The United States retains all tariffs imposed on China prior to April 2, 2025. This includes:

• Section 301 tariffs previously imposed during the Biden administration;

• Section 232 tariffs;

• Additional 20% tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in response to the fentanyl national emergency. (Trump ordered 10% additional tariffs on Chinese imports on February 1, 2025 and increased the rate to 20% on March 3, 2025.);

• 10% baseline reciprocal tariffs; and

• Tariffs on de minimis packages (less than $800).

This leaves the effective U.S. tariff rate on most imports from China at 40%.

Chinese Tariff Reductions

China agreed to reduce the retaliatory tariffs it announced since April 4, 2025 and will suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025. This effectively reduces the tariff rate from 125% to 10%. This includes:

• Retaliatory tariffs: China agreed to reduce its 34% retaliatory tariff rate on U.S. goods announced on April 4, 2025 to 10%;

• Additional duties: China will remove additional duties imposed on U.S. goods after April 2, 2025. This includes tariffs of 84% and 125% on U.S. imports as countermeasures against the U.S. “reciprocal tariffs.”

• Nontariff measures: China also agreed to suspend or remove nontariff countermeasures taken against the U.S. since after April 2, 2025. This includes, most notably, restrictions on the export of critical minerals and restrictions on U.S. companies designated as “unreliable entities.”

Ongoing Negotiations

The United States and China will establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said “neither side wants a decoupling” and said the recent tariffs had reached the “equivalent of an embargo.” Despite this sentiment, there is no guarantee that the 90-day pause will produce a trade war settlement, and there is uncertainty as to what a deal might include.

Trump has stated that he would raise tariffs if the parties do not reach a deal. Notably, current tariff levels correspond to Trump’s campaign proposal for a 10% to 20% tariffs on all countries and a 60% “surcharge” on imports from China.

The agreement and planned discussions solidify the view that the global trading system has moved away from multilateralism based on the World Trade Organization to a bilateral system based on negotiations between individual countries.

Most significantly, the tariff reductions indicate that the Trump administration’s trade policy toward China is focused on reducing the trade deficit with China and addressing nontariff barriers rather than on “decoupling” economies.

Geopolitically, the United States is currently negotiating trade agreements with 16 other countries. These countries increasingly must choose between aligning with either the United States or China. This indicates that these negotiations will ultimately restructure the global economy and global balance of power along geoeconomic lines.

Subscribe now

Tariffs

• UK tariffs: The UK will reduce its tariffs on U.S. goods from 5.1% to 1.8%.

• Autos: The United States will agree to an alternative arrangement for the Section 232 tariffs on UK autos. Under the deal, the first 100,000 vehicles that UK manufacturers import into the United States each year are subject to the reciprocal rate of 10%, down from 25%, and any additional vehicles each year are subject to 25% rates.

• Steel: The United States also recognizes the UK’s economic security measures to combat global steel excess capacity and will remove the 25% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and negotiate an alternative arrangement.

• Reciprocal tariff: The 10% reciprocal tariff the United States imposed on the UK on April 2, 2025 remains in effect.

Additional Measures

Trump stated that the deal will increase access for U.S. beef, ethanol, and agricultural products. Trump also announced that the UK “will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products. As part of the agreement, the UK will purchase $10 billion in Boeing airplane parts.

According to a White House fact sheet, the trade deal:

• Includes access for more than $700 million in ethanol exports and $250 million in other agricultural products, like beef;

• Commits the countries to work together to enhance industrial and agricultural market access;

• Closes loopholes and increases U.S. firms’ competitiveness in the UK’s procurement market;

• Ensures streamlined customs procedures for U.S. exports;

• Establishes high standard commitments in the areas of intellectual property, labor, and environment;

• Maximizes the competitiveness and secures the supply chain of U.S. aerospace manufacturers through preferential access to high-quality UK aerospace components;

• Creates a secure supply chain for pharmaceutical products.

Subscribe now

1. Reindustrialize U.S and Revive Manufacturing: Trump views high tariffs as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign manufacturing and to encourage domestic production. Trump believes that free trade agreements and global supply chains have hollowed out U.S. industry and shifted manufacturing jobs overseas. Trade and manufacturing advisor Peter Navarro and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick view tariffs as a long-term tool to rebuild U.S. industry. Trump’s broader strategy involves using tariffs to compel foreign central banks to lower their interest rates. This would devalue their currencies against the dollar, effectively making their exports cheaper and offsetting the price hikes from U.S. tariffs. In Trump's view, this tactic would let U.S. consumers avoid paying more, while shifting the burden to foreign governments.

2. Generate Revenue to Offset Tax Cuts: Trump’s second major stated reason for imposing tariffs is to generate federal revenue. He has often discussed tariff revenue as a way to offset the impact of broad tax cuts on the national debt. Peter Navarro has estimated that universal tariffs could generate up to $600 billion in revenue annually. Many economists, however, argue that tariffs are an unreliable revenue stream. Higher tariffs often lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers and businesses, reducing any economic gain from the tariffs.

3. Use as Leverage in Trade and Foreign Policy Negotiations: Trump also views tariffs as a powerful tool in international diplomacy. While traditional U.S. trade policy has reserved the use of tariffs primarily for trade-related disputes, Trump has used them to address broader foreign policy issues, including immigration, drug trafficking, and currency manipulation. Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seemingly view tariffs more as bargaining tools. Trump’s views on using tariffs as negotiable leverage contradict using tariffs to increase revenue, as the revenue impact of tariffs would be temporary if the tariffs are used as leverage in negotiations.

Risks in Trump’s Strategy

Trump’s trade strategy risks triggering a global trade war. High U.S. tariffs could lead trade partners to impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States. They could also lead to geo-economic shifts in which former trading partners align with U.S. geopolitical rivals.

Trump’s trade strategy also risks damaging the U.S. economy. Tariffs risk consumer price inflation and long-term harm to global supply chains. The Tax Foundation projects that Trump's tariff proposals could shrink U.S. GDP by 0.4% and raise taxes by $1.2 trillion between 2025 and 2034.

Changing the Global Trade System

Overall, Trump’s use of tariffs reflects his desire to remake the post-World War II global economic order of free trade, globalization, and multinational cooperation. In his view, this system has allowed countries like China to exploit global trade rules while the U.S. shoulders the burden. By using tariffs aggressively and unilaterally, Trump aims to upend this system and force a new, more favorable arrangement.

Subscribe now

Trump also announced on Truth Social that he is raising tariffs on China to 125%, effective immediately. “Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” Trump wrote. “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”

Trump granted the pause for reciprocal tariffs “based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States…to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States…”

The 10% baseline global tariff, which became effective April 5, 2025, remains in effect. The reciprocal tariffs are now scheduled to take effect July 8, 2025.

For background, see Trump Imposes Global Tariffs with “Reciprocal” Tariffs for 57 Countries.

Read more

Read more

Read more

• Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, effective March 12, 2025. Trump used national security authority to impose the tariffs and said the U.S. steel and aluminum industries have been harmed by “unfair trade practices and global excess capacity.”

• The tariffs show Trump continued reliance on executive actions to remake the U…

Read more

Key points

• Trump imposed blanket tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting that country to retaliate with tariffs on certain U.S. goods as well as restrictions on the export of critical minerals.

• The tariffs on China signal three critical developments for U.S. policy: (1) Trump will use tariffs as a geoeconomic tool to address national security issues; (2) th…

Read more

Key points

• Trump threatened tariffs on products from Mexico and Canada, prompting those countries to take actions to reduce illegal migration and the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

• Trump previewed this action in an announcement shortly after the election and in his trade policy memorandum issued on his first day in office.

• The tariffs episode ind…

Read more

Subscribe now

The memorandum directs various government agencies to investigate and review U.S. trade policy and propose recommendations to address certain trade issues. These investigations and reviews are due April 1, 2025 and will provide the basis for further changes in U.S. trade policy. Notably, the memorandum does not impose any tariffs.

The memorandum is organized in three sections:

1. Addressing Unfair and Unbalanced Trade

2. Economic and Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China; and

3. Additional Economic Security Matters

Addressing Unfair and Unbalanced Trade

The President directs the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Secretary of Homeland Security to work in consultation with each other to:

• Investigation “the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods, as well as the economic and national security implications and risks resulting from such deficits, and recommend appropriate measures, such as a global supplemental tariff or other policies, to remedy such deficits.”

• Consider the creation of an External Revenue Service (ERS) to collect tariffs and duties.

• Review any unfair foreign trade practices by other countries and recommend appropriate actions to remedy such practices under applicable authorities

• Begin the public consultation process for the July 2026 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and study the impact of the agreement on U.S. workers and businesses.

• Review and assess potential currency manipulation by U.S. trading partners; assess whether this provides an unfair competitive advantage and identify countries that should be designated as currency manipulators.

• Review existing U.S. trade agreements and sectoral trade arrangements and recommend any potential revisions.

• Identify countries with which the United States could negotiate future trade agreements on a bilaterial or sector-specific basis.

• Review U.S. policies and regulations for antidumping and countervailing duties and assess the potential for improving compliance by foreign companies and governments.

• Assess the loss of tariff revenues and the risks from importing counterfeit products and contraband drugs from the current de minimis exemption of $800.

• Investigate whether U.S. citizens or companies are subject to any discriminatory or extraterritorial foreign taxes.

• Review the impact of all trade agreements, including the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, on the volume of Federal procurement covered by Executive Order 13788 (Buy American and Hire American), and make recommendations to ensure that such agreements are being implemented in a manner that favors U.S. workers and manufacturers.

Economic and Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China; and

The President directs the USTR to:

• Review the U.S.-China Economic and Trade Agreement to determine whether the PRC is acting in accordance with this agreement; recommend actions based on the findings of this review, up to and including the imposition of tariffs or other trade measures.

• Review the Biden administration report entitled “Four-Year Review of Actions Taken in the Section 301 Investigation: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation” and consider whether additional tariffs are needed, particularly with respect to industrial supply chains and circumvention through third countries.

• Investigate other acts, policies, and practices by the PRC that may be unreasonable or discriminatory and that may burden or restrict U.S. commerce; make recommendations regarding appropriate responsive actions.

• Assess legislative proposals regarding Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the PRC and make recommendations regarding any proposed changes to such legislative proposals.

• The Secretary of Commerce must assess the status of U.S. intellectual property rights such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks conferred upon PRC persons, and shall make recommendations to ensure reciprocal and balanced treatment of intellectual property rights with the PRC.

Additional Economic Security Matters

The President directs different government agencies and departs to:

• Conduct a full economic and security review of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base to assess whether it is necessary to initiate investigations to adjust imports that threaten U.S. national security.

• Review and assess the effectiveness of the exclusions, exemptions, and other import adjustment measures on steel and aluminum in responding to threats to U.S. national security; make recommendations based on the findings of this review.

• Review the existing U.S. export control system and advise on modifications; make recommendations regarding how to maintain, obtain, and enhance the U.S. technological edge and how to identify and eliminate loopholes in existing export controls -– especially those that enable the transfer of strategic goods; assess and make recommendations regarding export control enforcement policies and practices, and enforcement mechanisms to incentivize compliance.

• Review and recommend appropriate action with respect to the rulemaking by the Office of Information and Communication Technology and Services (ICTS) on connected vehicles, and shall consider whether controls on ICTS transactions should be expanded to account for additional connected products.

• Review whether Executive Order 14105 of August 9, 2023 (Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern) should be modified or rescinded and replaced, and assess whether the final rule entitled “Provisions Pertaining to U.S. Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern,”, which implements Executive Order 14105, includes sufficient controls to address national security threats. The Secretary of the Treasury must make recommendations based upon the findings of this review.

• Assess any distorting impact of foreign government financial contributions or subsidies on United States Federal procurement programs and propose guidance, regulations, or legislation to combat such distortion.

• Assess the unlawful migration and fentanyl flows from Canada, Mexico, the PRC, and any other relevant jurisdictions and recommend appropriate trade and national security measures to resolve that emergency.