Why It Matters

A recent Congressional Research Service report updated Aug. 14 examines escalating U.S.-China trade tensions and a series of tariff actions that have sharply increased duties on Chinese imports since President Donald Trump returned to office. Congress retains authority to support, modify or oppose tariff actions, alter trade authorities delegated to the president or require congressional approval for trade agreements that result in tariff changes.

For the Trump administration, the tariff strategy reflects its stated goal of addressing Chinese trade practices, economic policies and other actions it argues harm U.S. interests. For consumers and businesses, the tariffs can affect prices, supply chains, sourcing decisions and economic growth.

The Big Picture

Average U.S. tariff rates on Chinese goods rose from 2.7% in 2017 to 19% by 2019. After the Trump administration imposed new tariffs in 2025, the average rate briefly surged to 164% in April 2025 before declining through subsequent negotiations and policy changes. The shifts illustrate how U.S.-China trade policy has moved increasingly toward tariffs and other unilateral trade measures.

Many of the underlying U.S. concerns date to 2018, when the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative concluded that China engaged in practices involving forced technology transfer, cyber-enabled theft of U.S. intellectual property and trade secrets, discriminatory licensing practices and state-backed acquisitions of U.S. technology. The United States subsequently imposed Section 301 tariffs of 7.5% to 25% on roughly $370 billion of imports from China.

The Phase One agreement signed in 2020 addressed some U.S. concerns but did not resolve many of the structural issues identified by USTR. China continues to export substantially more goods to the United States than it imports from the country. Beijing also has responded to U.S. trade actions with tariffs and other measures, including export controls on key production inputs, restrictions affecting U.S. companies and actions involving U.S. agricultural and aircraft purchases.

The legal framework for Trump’s tariff policy changed substantially in February 2026. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided together with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The administration subsequently ended the additional tariffs imposed under IEEPA while leaving duties imposed under other authorities, including Sections 232 and 301, in place.

The administration then turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. President Trump initially proclaimed a temporary 10% import surcharge for 150 days beginning Feb. 24. Section 122 permits temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for no more than 150 days unless Congress extends them.

USTR also launched a new series of Section 301 investigations in March into whether 60 economies, including China, failed to effectively prohibit imports produced with forced labor. USTR determined in July that those practices warranted trade action and imposed tariffs of 10% or 12.5%, depending on the economy and product. China was among the economies covered by the investigation.

U.S.-China trade policy has therefore become increasingly layered. Earlier Section 301 tariffs remain in effect alongside other duties and trade restrictions, while the administration has continued pursuing negotiations with Beijing and additional investigations into Chinese trade practices.

The Bottom Line

Congress faces decisions over how much tariff authority should remain with the executive branch as the administration continues to reshape U.S.-China trade policy. Lawmakers could maintain existing delegations of trade authority, modify or withdraw them, impose additional requirements on presidential tariff actions or require congressional approval for agreements that alter tariffs.

The Supreme Court’s February decision eliminated IEEPA as a source of presidential tariff authority, but it did not invalidate tariffs imposed under statutes such as Sections 232 and 301. The administration has responded by relying on those authorities and Section 122 while USTR continues investigating Chinese and other foreign trade practices.

U.S. and Chinese officials have held negotiations since 2025, but the broader trade dispute remains unresolved. Existing tariffs, export controls and other trade restrictions continue to shape bilateral commerce even as the two governments negotiate over potential changes.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article