Businesses worldwide are urging caution as the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office prepares for key hearings central to President Donald Trump’s renewed push for higher import taxes, an effort aimed at rebuilding a protectionist tariff wall.
Trump could implement the higher tariffs as early as July under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to impose tariffs after investigating specific trade issues. The administration launched these investigations in March, with hearings set for May 5. A major concern for businesses is the possibility of exemptions. Section 301 has no established process for exclusions, but a recent Congressional Research Service report noted uncertainty about whether the Trade Representative’s Office “would establish a new exclusion process for current or future tariff actions.”
Businesses began submitting public comments last week ahead of the hearings.
Ford, of the nation’s largest auto makers, urged the Trade Representative’s Office to ensure that the new Section 301 tariffs do not add to the existing tariffs.
“Ford strongly supports USTR’s intention to ensure continuity between the tariff structure deployed under IEEPA and any new Section 301 tariff framework. This will ensure that any tariff remedy enacted as a result of these investigations is not placed upon vehicles with internal combustion engines and parts from China already subject to Section 232 auto tariffs,” Ford’s Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel Steven Croley wrote in a letter. “We ask that automakers be able to use our tariff offset credit for imported content subject to any new remedy implemented under Section 301.”
The National Corn Growers Association said that the administration must take steps to shield farmers from higher tariff costs.
“Farmers must have relief from additional cost pressures on inputs, which duty-free treatment for all categories of agricultural inputs would help alleviate. As the Administration pursues this Section 301 investigation in 60 countries, NCGA asks for Mexico and Canada to be exempted from this investigation, strong consideration to preserving and enhancing market access, and duty-free treatment for all inputs to prevent burdening farmers with even higher costs.”
Waterloo, Wisconsin-based Trek Bicycle Co. urged against blanket tariffs that penalize everyone.
“The investigation covers 60 countries and does not identify specific goods with documented forced labor issues. We are concerned that broad-based tariffs applied across virtually all imports from most of the world’s economies will not effectively target bad actors – they will simply raise costs for American consumers and businesses alike,” Trek’s General Counsel Robert Burns wrote.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association also requested exemptions from the Section 301 tariffs. The group, which represents U.S. manufacturers of electrical goods, said if tariffs must be used, “we urge the Agency to pursue a sensible exclusion strategy that mitigates the impact of duties on electricity prices and U.S. AI leadership.”
The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office received more than 400 such letters, many of which sought exemptions, including from the Premium Cigar Association, which noted that the U.S. imports less than 1% of cigars from the European Union but that import taxes could still affect U.S. prices and consumers. It said cigars should be excluded from such tariffs.
“The greater majority of premium cigar retailers in the United States are single store, family owned, small businesses which operate on thin margins. Any price increases will be directly passed on to the consumer,” the group noted.
The Alliance for American Manufacturing called on the administration to use tariffs to stamp out force-labor practices in other countries.
“The lack of enforcement by foreign governments regarding bans on forced labor imports adversely affects U.S. commerce in several ways: it replaces domestically produced goods with lower-cost imports; it inhibits investment and job growth within the United States; it weakens supply chain resilience in critical sectors; and it incentivizes exploitative practices that are rightly prohibited for U.S. firms both legally and ethically.”
Delta said it supports narrow, targeted efforts to go after forced labor. However, it “respectfully urges USTR not to apply tariffs or other broad remedies to civil aircraft, engines, or aircraft parts as part of this Investigation.”
Magtech Ammunition Company and Taurus Holdings urged against tariffs on “Brazilian-origin imports that are necessary to U.S. manufacturing; that equip hunters, sport shooters, and law-enforcement agencies nationwide with reliable, affordable ammunition; and that support U.S. national security interests,” an attorney wrote on behalf of the two companies.
The shift to Section 301 comes after a turbulent legal period for the administration’s trade policy. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose worldwide tariffs was an overreach of executive power.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump’s tariffs “could be back in place at the previous level by [the] beginning of July.”
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to implement “retaliatory import restrictions” against a country that is found to have engaged in unfair or “discriminatory” trade policies or practices toward U.S. businesses.
In April 2025, Trump unilaterally imposed the highest tariffs in nearly a century. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods paid by importers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs worldwide. The court did not decide the fate of $166 billion in import taxes already collected, leaving the U.S. Court of International Trade to oversee ongoing litigation over refunds.
At the same time, the states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s IEEPA tariffs have also challenged Trump’s latest 10% global entry tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That challenge remains pending before the Court of International Trade.
Trump has defended the tariffs, saying the revenue could fund increased military spending and other goals, including a tariff refund check for some Americans. Experts have questioned whether tariffs will raise enough money to cover these costly spending plans.
Trump has also said the tariffs will help bring back manufacturing jobs lost to low-wage countries over the past few decades.
Multiple economic studies have found that U.S. businesses and consumers are bearing the brunt of Trump’s tariffs. A Federal Reserve Bank of New York report, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, and a December 2025 Duke University study all concluded that Americans are paying nearly the entire cost of tariffs, not foreign nations, as the White House has said.