The difference between IEEPA tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, and Section 301 tariffs

Last updated on September 10, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. ET. Attend our webinar series, Trade and Tariff Tuesdays, to hear Avalara experts discuss global trade issues and their business implications.

President Donald J. Trump has invoked different laws to implement dozens of new tariffs on countries and specific products since returning to the Oval Office in January. Tariffs established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are facing legal challenges. Section 232 tariffs and Section 301 tariffs are not. 

On August 29, 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to “regulate” imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the challenged executive orders. The court allowed the IEEPA tariffs to remain in place while the parties ask the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. On September 9, 2025, the high court agreed to take the case; it will hold oral arguments in early November.

So, what’s the difference between IEEPA tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, and Section 301 tariffs? Why are IEEPA tariffs being challenged? Read on to find out.

• Section 232, Section 301, and IEEPA tariffs are distinct U.S. trade measures with different legal authorities, purposes, and applications.
• Section 232 tariffs target specific products deemed to impair national security. The aluminum, copper, and steel tariffs are Section 232 tariffs.
• Section 301 tariffs address unfair trade practices and apply to specific countries or products. The tariffs set on many Chinese goods during Trump’s first term are Section 301 tariffs.
• IEEPA tariffs respond to national emergencies originating outside the U.S. and can be quite broad. The so-called “fentanyl” tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, and the reciprocal tariffs on dozens of other countries are examples of IEEPA tariffs.
• In a 7-4 ruling on August 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that IEEPA does not explicitly grant the president “wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs.”
• The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review two IEEPA cases, Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. Oral arguments are set for early November.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president of the United States the authority to regulate economic transactions following a declaration of a national emergency. 

As the Congressional Research Service puts it, IEEPA empowers the president to take a variety of economic actions to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.”

That seems broad, but Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977 as part of an effort to limit — not expand — executive emergency authority granted under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917.

No president has ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs until now. That said, the Congressional Research Service report observes that a president “could likely use IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on imported goods, as President Nixon did under TWEA.” 

Trump is the first president to invoke IEEPA for tariffs, and 2025 is the first year he’s done so. But during his first term in office, he announced an intention to use IEEPA to impose tariffs on Mexico until “the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.” However, he indefinitely suspended the proposed IEEPA tariff a few weeks later.

Instead of IEEPA, U.S. presidents have generally used the authority granted to them under Section 232 to establish new tariffs.

It comes down to whether IEEPA gives the president the power to impose tariffs, and whether the United States is facing a national emergency. 

Per IEEPA, “The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.” (Emphasis mine.)

A group of businesses and 12 states are separately arguing that the U.S. is facing neither an unusual and extraordinary threat nor a national emergency, two conditions required by IEEPA. They also contend the president has overstepped the authority granted by IEEPA to regulate economic activity.

The U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the plaintiffs on May 28 and issued an injunction on the IEEPA tariffs. “Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President. We instead read IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then temporarily stayed the injunction to allow the Trump administration time to appeal. The Federal Appeals Court heard arguments on July 31, and on August 29, 2025, it ruled that IEEPA does not explicitly grant the president “wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs.”

The court allowed the IEEPA tariffs to remain in place through October 14, 2025, to give the parties time to ask the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.

On September 9, the Supreme Court agreed to expedite the review of Trump v. V.O.S. Sections and a related case, Learning Resources v. Trump. The court will hold oral arguments for both cases in early November. In the meantime, the tariffs will remain in effect. 

Several other lawsuits over the tariffs are moving through the lower courts or are on pause pending the Supreme Court decision. “A separate question for another day is whether the president has authority to commit the United States to tariff negotiations without further congressional action,” observes the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the U.S. president the authority to impose restrictions on imports or negotiate with trading partners if the U.S. Secretary of Commerce determines those imports “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. Unlike IEEPA, Section 232 talks of tariffs.

During his first term in office, President Trump invoked Section 232 to investigate aluminum, automobile and auto parts, steel, titanium sponge, transformers and transformer components, uranium, and vanadium. In 2018, he imposed Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. 

Less than a year into his second term, Trump has invoked Section 232 to set new tariffs on aluminum, cars, car parts, and copper. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, he’s also launched more than 200 investigations into other types of products, including pharmaceuticals.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) the authority to investigate and act to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements. These powers include imposing tariffs. 

An investigation may be requested by an interested party or initiated by USTR itself. Two presidents have requested Section 301 tariffs: 

• President Trump requested an investigation into China’s trade practices during his first term, leading to Section 301 tariffs on China. The president has also used Section 301 to initiate new tariffs during his section term.
• President Biden used Section 301 to extend and modify the China tariffs. 

Once imposed, Section 301 tariffs must be extended or modified after four years or be terminated. 

Types of tariffs FAQ

How do tariffs impact importers?

Tariffs increase the cost of importing goods and can cause delays at customs and/or penalties if improperly applied. Products subject to tariffs must be assigned the proper tariff codes, specifically the Harmonized System (HS) code, Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code, or Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) code.

Can importers get relief from tariffs?

Importers and affected businesses can request an exclusion from a tariff, though there’s no guarantee an exclusion request will be granted. Automating cross-border tax compliance can streamline tariff classification and help businesses comply with U.S. import regulations, easing the burden of trade compliance.

Are IEEPA tariffs still in effect?

IEEPA tariffs will remain in effect while the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case.

What products are subject to Section 232 tariffs?

Products subject to Section 232 tariffs include automobiles and auto parts, copper, and steel and aluminum. The U.S. is considering Section 232 tariffs on a number of other products, including critical minerals, commercial aircraft, jet engines, lumber and timber, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and trucks.

What products are subject to Section 301 tariffs?

Section 301 tariffs apply to hundreds of billions of Chinese imports, both consumer products and industrial goods. Affected Chinese products include apparel, electric vehicles, electronics, certain polysilicon, solar wafers, and tungsten. USTR is currently investigating setting Section 301 tariffs on certain Brazilian goods.

How can Avalara help with tariff compliance?

Avalara has a portfolio of international trade compliance solutions to help businesses improve and streamline cross-border compliance. And Avalara Tax Research provides clear, concise answers to tariff compliance questions.