In a split opinion issued today, a two-judge majority on the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the surcharge imposed by the Trump administration under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is inconsistent with the requirements of that statute.

Yesterday, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initiated the second review of the Section 301 tariffs originally imposed on Chinese imports during the first Trump administration, and subsequently reviewed, extended, and modified during the Biden administration.

Yesterday and today, top Trump administration trade officials weighed in on issues related to the the planned visit by President Trump to China, as well as various other China trade issues.

Last week, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented pharmaceutical products and ingredients. Imports of pharmaceuticals from China are largely generics, though, and may not feel much impact from these tariffs.

Beijing signaled last week that it would not let previously announced sanctions stand in the way of a possible visit by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a fresh sign of pragmatic diplomacy as Washington and Beijing try to stabilize ties.

During an interview on Fox Business News today, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer weighed in on several issues related to China-U.S. trade relations after the meeting with his Chinese counterparts in Paris.

After the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's IEEPA tariffs, his administration immediately turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for replacement tariffs (to be supplemented by additional tariffs under Section 301 of that same statute, as well as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion