What’s going on with Trump’s tariffs? Key considerations for investors around the July 24 deadline

The legal basis for President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda has shifted in 2026. On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling the statute didn’t provide clear authorization for the president to enact broad duties without Congress. After that ruling, the administration pivoted to a temporary 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that allows surcharges of up to 15% for a period of no more than 150 days unless extended by Congress. The Section 122 surcharges currently in place are set to expire July 24 unless they are extended. Markets are eagerly awaiting the outcome because the Trump administration has prepared alternative tariff pathways that could be both longer lasting and more targeted.

The White House has already been preparing for this eventuality: In early March, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) launched a series of investigations due for completion in July, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

Both laws allow for tariff measures to be imposed against specific countries – Section 301 in response to their violating trade agreements or harming U.S. commerce, and Section 232 to address imports deemed a threat to U.S. national security. Trump has previously used Section 232 to implement a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum, as well as other sectors such as autos and furniture.

Under Section 301, the Trump administration has proposed duties of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries – including many of the United States’ largest trading partners – for allegedly exporting goods that are made with forced labor. With the investigations set to conclude before the Section 122 tariffs deadline, these new tariffs could go into effect before July 24.

Why the July 24 deadline matters

July 24 matters because it may mark a handoff from a broad, temporary tariff posture to a more targeted and longer-lasting one – or a lapse in the current regime. For investors, deadlines like this can drive short-term volatility because markets may quickly adjust to reflect the shifting odds of multiple outcomes.

With that in mind, here are three possible paths for tariffs:

With the Section 122 tariffs facing their own legal challenges, the administration may not garner the congressional support necessary to reimplement these temporary levies. Rather, the Trump administration is looking to primarily replace Section 122 with Section 301. All countries currently face a 10% tariff, and 60 of those countries will continue to face that tariff – or a slightly higher one – after Section 301 is in place. While this represents a more permanent approach to tariff policy, some countries will not face any extra tariffs after the termination of Section 122.

How new tariff headlines move markets – if they do at all – remains to be seen. When Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, 2025, for example, markets immediately plunged. On the first day of trading after the announcement, markets plunged further, with the benchmark S&P 500 falling 4.8% in a single day. And when Trump announced the 10% global tariff back on February 20 – and then the higher 15% rate the next day – the S&P 500 ended down 1% the next trading day.

The big wild card: Legal authority and ongoing litigation

Legal authority is the wild card in this situation because it can change policy faster than economics can. Even when tariffs are announced, court challenges as well as injunctions or stays can affect whether tariffs remain in force, for whom and for how long. This creates uncertainty for both corporations and investors.

On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down Trump’s 10% tariffs imposed under Section 122 in yet another blow to his administration’s trade agenda. Still, the decision limited relief to only the three importer plaintiffs who came before the court, which means all other importers are still subject to the 10% rate. While the government has already appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and been granted a stay, other importers could eventually be paid refunds if the CIT decision is ultimately upheld.

The Trump administration has made clear that it intends to use Section 301 tariffs as the new long-term, country-specific means of imposing duties on trade partners. USTR is currently holding public hearings and conducting consultations as required under Section 301, with investigations expected to conclude before the Section 122 tariffs expire on July 24. And unlike Section 122, Section 301 tariffs don’t have limits on the duration or size of the levies imposed.

Compared to IEEPA, which allowed for speed and discretion, and Section 122, which was time-constrained, Section 301 is slower to enact and subject to a stricter legal process. That said, once the investigations are complete, Section 301 could be used by the administration as a framework to implement longer-term tariffs.

Tariffs so far: Revenue up, but macro impact debated

Tariffs can raise revenue because they function like a tax collected at import. But raising revenue doesn’t automatically result in more economic growth, which instead depends on productivity, investment, labor supply and demand. Tariffs can therefore raise input costs or trigger retaliation, so the net growth outcome is often ambiguous. Indeed, while tariffs generated $264 billion in net revenues in 2025, research suggests they had a minimal impact on gross domestic product (GDP). There’s also limited evidence of manufacturing job gains or a reduced trade deficit.

What’s more, research shows tariffs contributed to a one-time spike in inflation, with roughly 90% of the economic burden from tariffs falling on U.S. firms and consumers, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. While tariffs are paid by the importer of record at the border, these costs are typically passed on and shared across companies (in the form of lower margins), consumers (as higher prices) and suppliers (through price concessions).

Key considerations for investors before July 24

Frequent changes in trade policy can raise business risk, especially for small and mid-sized businesses, which – in addition to consumers – bear the brunt of the passed-through costs. A Tax Foundation analysis found that since the start of Trump’s second term in January 2025, U.S. tariff policy has changed more than 50 times.

The companies most sensitive to tariffs tend to have import-focused businesses, complex global supply chains, low pricing power or high input-cost sensitivity. If a manufacturer imports components and can’t quickly find an alternative source, for example, tariffs can negatively impact margins – and fast. If the manufacturer raises prices, that in turn may hurt demand, which may create a trade-off between volume and profitability.

Investors can consider several signals of “tariff stress.” Look for mentions of tariffs, pricing actions or input costs on corporate earnings calls. Investors may also be able to identify more uncertain language in corporate guidance or in reference to “pulled-forward” inventory. In general, though, it may be best to avoid letting headline cycles drive portfolio allocation decisions. Volatility can be a good time to review diversification and exposures, not chase policy news.

Key considerations for investors after July 24

After July 24, investors should have a better idea of not only whether tariffs will continue but also how they are structured. After all, the Trump administration has made no secret that it is planning to rebuild its tariff authority via Section 301 and Section 232 investigations.

While more targeted than previous efforts, these tariffs can still have a global impact if they trigger retaliation, supply-chain rerouting or negotiated exemptions. Investors may want to view trade developments with major partners as an ongoing risk factor rather than a one-day headline.

Trump has used Section 301 to enact tariffs before, imposing duties on China and the European Union during his first term as president. This time around, however, it remains to be seen whether the courts will allow Section 301 to be applied so broadly to so many countries at once.

The bottom line: Uncertainty is part of the story

While the looming July 24 deadline matters, it’s part of a broader pattern of legal challenges and shifting authorities. The range of potential outcomes remains wide.

In the meantime, investors may want to focus on their diversification, time horizon and portfolio exposure to trade-sensitive sectors. For example, industrials, autos, retail apparel and metals-intensive manufacturers may feel tariff impacts more directly through input costs and sourcing complexity. Many domestically oriented businesses, however, may be less directly exposed.

Investors who own index or sector funds may want to screen those funds to determine if they’re heavily exposed to sectors that rely on trade, such as retail goods and auto manufacturing. Investors can also review Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings to find corporate supply-chain disclosures and get an idea of which companies are most vulnerable to sudden cost spikes.

Given past market volatility around tariff news as well as the ongoing uncertainty around the legality of different duties, long-term investors may want to avoid trying to time their trading around the July 24 deadline. Our strategists reiterate that investors should be well-diversified across geographies, themes and sectors. Investors can also consider real assets such as gold, which are often less sensitive to trade-related news. Speak to a qualified financial advisor if you have questions on how to add more resilience to your portfolio.

View Disclosures