US tariff shift signals prolonged trade pressure: expert

Recent developments indicate that trade pressure will likely persist under shifting legal frameworks and enforcement tools, according to Dr. Dao Gia Phuc, director of the Institute of International and Comparative Law at the University of Economics and Law, part of Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City.

The policy shift suggests U.S. tariffs are not disappearing but evolving in form and legal basis, Dr. Phuc stressed.

Shifting legal tools reshape US tariff enforcement

On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose global tariffs was inappropriate.

The court also invalidated duties previously collected by Washington on imported goods.

However, the U.S. government quickly moved to maintain tariff pressure through another legal mechanism, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary global tariffs of 15 percent on imports for up to 150 days.

While IEEPA is typically reserved for national security emergencies, Section 122 is designed for balance-of-payments situations, allowing special tariff measures when prolonged trade deficits require corrective action, according to Dr. Phuc.

At the same time, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has announced plans to launch investigations under Section 301 of the same Act into practices deemed unreasonable, discriminatory, or burdensome to U.S. commerce.

These investigations could span sectors from manufacturing and digital technology to pharmaceuticals and seafood, and may lead to longer-lasting and more forceful tariff measures than those permitted under Section 122.

Taken together, the moves suggest Washington is prepared to deploy multiple legal pathways to pursue trade rebalancing, meaning tariff risks are likely to persist in more complex and evolving forms.

Vietnam sees temporary relief, mounting long-term risks

For Vietnam, the shifting U.S. tariff strategy brings limited short-term relief but growing long-term uncertainty.

Tariffs imposed under Section 122 come with defined limits and timelines, reducing the risk of abrupt steep duties, while the 150-day window allows room for negotiation and strategic adjustment.

Dr. Phuc reiterated that the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court does not signal the end of tariffs but rather a shift in the legal instruments Washington may deploy.

Long-term risks remain substantial, he warned, as Vietnam’s trade surplus with the U.S. continues to reach record levels.

U.S. authorities have repeatedly raised concerns that Vietnam could be used as a transshipment point for goods from third countries entering the American market.

Such concerns could trigger Section 301 actions, including anti-circumvention tariffs or tighter border inspections targeting specific industries, potentially disrupting exporters.

In response, Vietnam needs to combine diplomatic engagement with proactive domestic measures, including regular dialogue, transparent trade data sharing, and trade-balancing proposals such as expanding imports of U.S. goods aligned with long-term domestic demand, Dr. Phuc said.

Authorities should also promote two-way investment and strengthen enforcement against origin fraud and tariff evasion.

As trade rebalancing becomes central to U.S. policy, effective responses may depend less on public messaging and more on demonstrating through data and concrete policy implementation that Vietnam supports stable, rules-based trade.

Vietnam should make full use of the current window for dialogue, proactively propose trade-balancing solutions, and strengthen supply chain transparency, origin verification, and regulatory compliance.

If successful, the country could not only reduce the risk of being drawn into a new tariff cycle but also reinforce its position as a reliable link in global supply chains.

Vietnamese businesses urged to strengthen compliance, preparedness

For businesses, transparency and preparedness are becoming increasingly critical, Dr. Phuc emphasized.

Recent developments suggest trade oversight by the U.S. will intensify, particularly if Section 301 investigations expand as expected.

Companies are therefore advised to prepare documentation on product origin, localization rates, production processes, and input compliance in advance, rather than waiting for formal reviews.

Understanding U.S. legal requirements, from customs rules and origin standards to technical, safety, labor, and environmental regulations, is essential to maintaining access to one of the world’s largest markets.

Industry associations are also expected to play a more prominent role as enforcement shifts from broad measures to sector-specific investigations.

They can help gather information, standardize compliance criteria, issue early warnings, and support firms during consultation processes.

Individual companies may struggle to keep pace with rapid legal changes, but strong industry groups can help reduce compliance costs, prevent systemic errors, and safeguard the reputation of exports from Vietnam against allegations of tariff evasion.