February 16-20, 2026 —
Potential Tariff Votes Dominate Congress and SCOTUS
Congress: House and Senate votes on President Donald Trump’s tariff policies in the coming weeks could challenge Trump’s tariff policies ahead of the November midterms.
House leaders had shielded their most vulnerable Republicans from politically explosive votes on tariffs for more than a year, but now the fallout is reverberating on Capitol Hill and in tough battleground races around the country.
Last week, the House approved a resolution to disapprove of the national emergency Trump declared to raise tariffs on Canada was approved 219-211 by the House. Republican Reps. Kevin Kiley of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Jeff Hurd of Colorado and Dan Newhouse of Washington voted in favor of the measure and against the tariffs. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.
As the House vote wrapped up, Trump took to Truth Social to warn Republican lawmakers who opposed his tariff strategy. The resolution now goes to the Senate, where it could pass; the upper chamber has already approved two similar resolutions on Trump’s Canada tariffs with the support of four Republicans.
The Senate likely has the votes to pass the House’s latest resolution and send it to Trump’s desk, with Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul remaining clear in their disapproval of the president’s tariff agenda. The group sided with Democrats in April and October to reject increased duties on Canadian exports.
But the defections could end there as the Trump administration assuages some lawmakers with trade agreements and positive economic numbers. Sen. Thom Tillis, who voted to disapprove of Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, has yet to commit to undoing the Canada tariffs. The president would certainly veto the resolution, and Congress is unlikely to muster the two-thirds majority in both chambers needed to overturn a veto.
SCOTUS: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the two consolidated tariffs cases in early November but has yet to release a ruling. At the beginning of the 2025 October term, some court watchers suggested the justices might expedite the writing and release of their opinion in January.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told CBS Mornings in an interview aired last week that the high court is still in the process of deliberating and writing its opinion in a pair of cases that ask whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act empowers the president to levy tariffs. Trump has invoked the law to impose a smorgasbord of tariffs, including reciprocal ones aimed at addressing trade deficits with other countries and tariffs targeting Canada, China and Mexico to staunch the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.
“There are lots of nuanced legal issues that the court has to thoroughly consider,” Justice Jackson said. “We had oral arguments, as we normally do in cases, and — people may not be familiar with the court’s process — we actually deliberate over a period of time where each of the justices decides how they feel about the issues and writes, and it takes a while to write.” ”The court is going through its process of deliberation and, you know, the American people expect for us to be thorough and clear in our determinations, and sometimes that takes time,” she added.
SCOTUS is proceeding in their normal opinion writing speed in the tariffs dispute. On average, the justices take roughly 3½ months to write opinions, and it appears they aren’t deviating from that timeline in this case. The Supreme Court hasn’t announced when the next issues will receive opinions.
Steel and Aluminum Tariff Compliance Relief on the Way?
The White House is flatly denying claims that it plans to scale back sector-based tariffs, even as senior administration officials signal significant changes could be coming for how those duties are applied. The pushback follows a Financial Times report that claimed the administration was preparing to roll back some steel and aluminum tariffs.
“You may want to sometimes adjust the way some of the tariffs are applied for compliance purposes,” USTR Jamieson Greer said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Tuesday. “We’ve heard stories of companies that have had to hire extra people for compliance. We’re not trying to have people do so much bean counting that they’re not running their company correctly.”
The expansion — and how Customs and Border Protection has implemented it — has drawn pushbacks from importers, with a lawsuit alleging the administration has aggressively applied duties to downstream products — in some cases to the full value of goods rather than just their steel or aluminum content.
A White House official, speaking to Politico on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s tariff strategy, told Politico that “there is no immediate change to our current tariff regime at this time, and any reporting suggesting so is baseless speculation.”
Trade lobbyists close to the White House are reporting that officials are exploring ways to streamline application of the tariffs to downstream products. U.S. steel and aluminum industry leaders are urging the Trump administration to maintain tariffs on the two metals after the Financial Times article was reported.
Trump originally imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018 using Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. He raised the duties to 50 percent this past year and expanded the scope of tariffs to cover over 400 additional product categories. It also initiated a process in September to consider tariffs on additional steel and aluminum derivative products but still has not announced any actions.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in an interview Friday on CNBC, disparaged the Financial Times report but indicated some modifications could be made. Reuters, quoting an unidentified White House official, reported there would be no changes to steel and aluminum tariffs unless Trump announced them himself.
Senate Finance USMCA Hearing: AFL-CIO Voices Concerns with USMCA
The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on USMCA and North American Competitiveness, where labor and manufacturers discussed U.S. competitiveness.
“More than five years since the USMCA entered into force, it is clear that the agreement is failing to deliver for workers in all three countries,” policy specialist Eric Gottwald will tell lawmakers, according to a his opening statement.
Gottwald conveyed that a “rubber stamp” of the agreement is “not in the national interest,” echoing comments USTR Jamieson Greer made in his testimony to Senate Finance in December. Greer had claimed at the time that the U.S. would only recommend renewal of the deal if a litany of distinct issues with Mexico and Canada are addressed.
“We strongly encourage Congress and the Administration to … insist on improvements to the agreement so that it delivers on its promise to promote dignity and fair competition,” Gottwald says in his prepared remarks.
The AFL-CIO endorsed USMCA in 2019 only after the first Trump administration applied revisions to the pact’s labor enforcement provisions that it had demanded.
Other major labor groups have also called for sweeping changes to the pact. The United Auto Workers in December urged revisions to strengthen job security and wages, bolster labor rights protections and establish a floor for labor, health, safety and environmental standards across North America.
Former House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, who helped negotiate the deal, is testified at the hearing, along with Paul McCarthy, president and CEO of MEMA, the Vehicle Suppliers Association, and Ted Vander Schaaf of Vander Schaaf Farms, a family-owned company based in Idaho. They largely disagree with AFL-CIO’s assessment. Please join AAEI on February 25 for a webinar on the USMCA Review.
Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee on signaled strong support for continuing the nearly 6-year-old U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement in the face of growing concern that President Donald Trump could drop out of the deal he negotiated during his first term.
Administration Trade Lead Supports Last Sale Bill
Peter Navarro, Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, is supporting new legislation that could increase tariff payments on imported goods by requiring CBP to calculate duties based on the final pricepaid by U.S. buyers, rather than an earlier sale in the supply chain.
The bill, introduced Wednesday by Senate Finance members Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would change the way imported goods are valued under the Tariff Act of 1930.
“President Trump imposed historic tariffs to re-shore our industrial base and defend America’s economic and national security,” Navarro said in a statement released by Cassidy’s office announcing the bill introduction. “Yet sophisticated global supply chains — aided by K Street law firms openly marketing ‘tariff mitigation’ services — are exploiting the First Sale rule to artificially lower declared customs values and erode the effectiveness of those tariffs.”
The “first sale” rule gives them the ability to pay duties on the lower valuation of the product in question, instead of seeing tariffs assessed on the cost of goods to the importer. According to the lawmakers, the “loophole” in trade policy amounts to a legal form of duty evasion, as it allows importers to declare an “artificially low” value on goods.
Opponents of the bill argue that shifting to a last-sale valuation model could increase costs for U.S. companies and, in turn, raise prices for consumers. In response, first sale proponents emphasize that the existing program operates under rigorous, well-established compliance and enforcement standards, countering claims that it invites fraud or abuse. Additionally, many supply chain risk managers contend that the first sale framework enhances upstream visibility, strengthening due diligence efforts and helping companies identify and mitigate forced labor and other illicit trade risks.
USTR Announces Deals with Taiwan and North Macedonia
The Trump administration finalized a reciprocal trade agreement with Taiwan that locks in a 15 percent tariff rate and secures commitments from Taipei to eliminate most duties on U.S. goods, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced.
The deal follows an agreement sealed last month that committed Taiwan to funnel up to $500 billion in direct investment and credit guarantees aimed to fuel the growth of the U.S. artificial intelligence and semiconductor manufacturing sectors.
USTR also announced a separate framework deal with North Macedonia, a small Balkan nation, that would eliminate duties on U.S. exports of industrial and agricultural goods. The United States will maintain a 15 percent reciprocal tariff.
The two sides also committed to address non-tariff barriers, strengthen cooperation on supply chains and export controls, expand energy ties — including future purchases of U.S. liquefied natural gas — and advance commitments on labor, environmental standards, digital trade and intellectual property protections. And the country agreed not to impose digital service taxes and committed to a permanent moratorium on customs duties on e-commerce at the WTO.
Trump Administration Eyes Tariffs on Chinse Imports of Anode Materials
The Trump administration on Thursday moved one step closer to finalizing steep new tariffs on imports of Chinese active anode material, a key ingredient in battery manufacturing.
The Commerce Department announced final affirmative determinations that would impose a 93.5 percent antidumping duty and a 67 percent countervailing duty on active anode material coming from China, which is typically composed of graphite.
The antidumping duty aligns with the agency’s preliminary rates set last year, while the countervailing duty is much higher than its initial 6.55 percent general rate, though it scaled back its proposal to slap two specific Chinese companies with countervailing rates over 700 percent.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will begin collecting cash deposits from importers at the final rates, though the International Trade Commission still must find whether the U.S. companies have been “materially injured” by the unfair imports.
As part of the probe, Commerce also determined that a major Chinese battery material producer, BTR New Material Group Co., is subject to “de facto government control” by China.
CBP Proposes New Electronic Bond Requirements
CBP is proposing to amend its regulations to require that bonds be submitted electronically via ACE. The agency’s proposed rule would largely replace the procedures in CBP’s current regulations on bonds with the process used under its long-running electronic eBond test.
Applied Materials to Pay $252 Million Penalty to BIS for Illegally Exporting Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment
The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a settlement agreement with Applied Materials Inc. of Santa Clara, California (AMAT) and Applied Materials Korea, Ltd. (AMK), covering illegal exports of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China. AMAT and AMK agreed to pay a penalty of approximately $252 million – the second-highest penalty ever imposed by BIS.
This settlement is twice the value of the transaction, which is an increase many export attorneys haven’t seen in the past. Some questions whether this represent a new standard for penalty actions or is it specific to the semiconductor industry.
Trump Appoints White House Lawyer to CIT
President Donald Trump on Thursday tapped one of his White House lawyers to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that could prove pivotal in deciding tariff refunds if the Supreme Court strikes down some of the president’s duties.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said it is his “Honor” to nominate White House associate counsel Kara Westercamp, calling her “a very experienced Trade Lawyer.”
If confirmed by the Senate, Westercamp would receive a lifetime appointment to the nine-judge court, which has nationwide jurisdiction over civil cases arising under U.S. trade laws, including challenges to tariff actions and disputes over how U.S. Customs and Border Protection assess and collects duties.