IEEPA vs. Section 301 vs. Section 232: Understanding Your Tariff Exposure

Why it matters which tariff you paid

Since 2018, U.S. importers have been hit with tariffs under three major legal authorities: Section 301, Section 232, and — starting in 2025 — IEEPA. Each has a different legal basis, different products affected, and different prospects for recovery. Understanding which tariff applies to your imports is the first step in evaluating your options.

Section 301 — The "China Tariffs"

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President to take action against foreign trade practices deemed unfair. The Trump administration first used it in 2018 to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, eventually covering over $350 billion in annual imports at rates of 7.5%–25%.

Key characteristics:

• Targets goods from China specifically
• Applied in four "lists" covering different product categories
• Legal challenges have had mixed results — the CIT ruled List 3 and 4 tariffs were improperly expanded, but appeals are ongoing
• Exclusion processes were available (and some have been reinstated)

Recovery outlook: Moderate. The legal landscape is complex, and outcomes depend on which list your goods fall under. Some refunds have been ordered; others are tied up in appeals.

Section 232 — Steel and aluminum tariffs

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs on imports that threaten national security. In 2018, 25% tariffs were imposed on steel and 10% on aluminum from most countries.

Key characteristics:

• Applies to steel and aluminum products regardless of country (with some exceptions)
• Broad presidential discretion under national-security rationale
• The Supreme Court has been reluctant to second-guess national-security determinations
• Exclusion requests were notoriously slow and inconsistent

Recovery outlook: Low. Courts have generally upheld Section 232 authority. There is limited basis for refund claims unless you obtained an approved exclusion.

IEEPA — The 2025 emergency tariffs

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act was passed in 1977 to give the President authority to impose economic sanctions during national emergencies — asset freezes, transaction prohibitions, and similar measures. In 2025, it was used for the first time to impose tariffs, a use many legal scholars consider unauthorized.

Key characteristics:

• Applies broadly across countries — not limited to one nation or product type
• Legal authority is being actively challenged on multiple fronts
• Federal courts have already issued preliminary rulings questioning the tariff authority
• The statute's text and legislative history strongly suggest tariffs were not an intended use

Recovery outlook: Strong. IEEPA tariff claims are widely considered the most legally vulnerable of the three tariff categories, making them the most attractive for institutional buyers and the most likely to result in importer refunds.

Comparison at a glance

	IEEPA (2025)	Section 301	Section 232
Legal basis	Emergency economic powers	Unfair trade practices	National security
Countries	Broad (dozens)	China	Most countries
Products	All imports from affected countries	Listed Chinese goods	Steel & aluminum
Recovery prospects	Strong	Moderate	Low
Claim market	Active — buyers purchasing now	Limited secondary market	Minimal

What should importers do?

If you've paid tariffs under any of these authorities, the most important step is to ensure CBP protests were timely filed. For IEEPA tariffs specifically, the legal environment is moving quickly, and institutional buyers are actively purchasing claims at favorable rates. The window for maximum recovery value may narrow as litigation progresses and uncertainty decreases.