Executive Order 14193: Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border
President: Donald J. Trump
Imposed additional duties on most Canadian goods in response to the administration’s fentanyl and border emergency findings.
Status: Struck down. The IEEPA tariff mechanism, not every underlying emergency action.
Is Executive Order 14193 still in effect? No. Its IEEPA tariff program cannot operate after the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the same-day termination in EO 14389. CBP specified February 24, 2026 for ending collection on covered entries. This label concerns the tariffs: EO 14389 expressly left the national emergency and non-tariff actions unaffected. Supreme Court opinion, February 20, 2026; EO 14389, sections 1–2; CBP collection cutoff.
What does Executive Order 14193 do?
The measure relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The order remains part of the historical presidential record, but its IEEPA duty direction cannot supply current tariff authority.
Reading the operative provisions of Executive Order 14193
EO 14193 originally directed duties on covered imports from Canada under IEEPA, citing the declared emergency at the northern border. The original text assigned tariff-schedule notice work to the Homeland Security Secretary, with Treasury, Justice and Commerce consulted on implementation; it did not name USTR as an original lead. Later amendments paused or changed the duties while the administration assessed Canadian measures. Each tariff notice therefore matters for the rate, effective date, product coverage, and exceptions that applied at a given time.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariffs. That ruling concerns the asserted IEEPA authority; it does not erase tariffs imposed under other statutes, such as trade laws with their own procedures. Nor does the order itself resolve importer refund claims, which depend on customs entries and later court or agency instructions.
A separate temporary surcharge under section 122 of the Trade Act operated from February 24 through July 24, 2026, under a different authority. It should not be described as a continuation of EO 14193’s IEEPA duties. The court opinion and current USTR or Customs records are the sources for what tariffs could lawfully be collected after the ruling. Read Executive Order 14193 in the Federal Register; read the Supreme Court opinion.
For Canadian goods, the original text distinguished a 25% additional rate from a 10% energy rate, but neither is a current IEEPA tariff rate. The transit certification, foreign-trade-zone status, no-drawback direction and statutory exceptions belonged to that original framework; later changes must be read for a historical entry. Original section 2; Later termination and preserved measures.
CBP’s February 22, 2026 bulletin distinguished the termination direction from its entry-system implementation: collection ceased for covered consumption entries and warehouse withdrawals from 12:00 a.m. eastern time on February 24. That cutoff does not decide the refund treatment of every earlier entry. Official collection guidance.
Before and after
Before the order
Tariff treatment was set by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and measures issued under specific trade statutes.
IEEPA had not previously been used to impose the broad tariffs at issue in the 2026 Supreme Court cases.
After the order
EO 14197 paused implementation; EOs 14226 and 14231 later changed de minimis treatment and the effective duty framework.
The Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The administration then used other statutes for separate measures, including a temporary section 122 surcharge that ran from February 24 to July 24, 2026.
Who had to do what
| Agency / official | Original direction | Timing and limits |
|---|---|---|
| Homeland Security Secretary | Determine tariff-schedule changes and publish the notice; regularly consult on conditions, notify the President of adequate foreign action and recommend additional action if needed; sections 2(e) and 3. Implement under section 4; coordinate emergency reports under section 5. | Original tariff date: 12:01 a.m. eastern time on February 4, 2025, subject to the text’s transit exception and later amendments. Consultation: regularly; recommendations conditional. No new numeric reporting deadline. |
| Secretary of State | Consult on northern border conditions and coordinate potential further-action recommendations; sections 3(a)–(b). | Regular consultation; additional recommendations if needed. Not an independent tariff-schedule assignment. |
| Attorney General | Consult/coordinate on conditions, further action, implementation and congressional reporting; sections 3–5. | Regular or action-dependent consultation; reporting follows the cited statutes, not a new fixed order deadline. |
| Treasury Secretary | Consult with DHS on implementation and coordinate national-emergency reporting; sections 4–5. | As implementation/reporting arises; not the original lead for setting the tariff schedule. |
| Commerce Secretary | Consult on implementation and coordinate national-emergency reporting; sections 4–5. | As implementation/reporting arises; no separate numeric deadline. |
| Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs | Consult/coordinate with DHS on conditions, further action and emergency reports; sections 3 and 5. | Regular consultation; additional recommendations conditional; statutory reporting framework. |
| Assistant to the President for Homeland Security | Consult/coordinate with DHS on conditions, further action and emergency reports; sections 3 and 5. | Regular consultation and action-dependent coordination; no separate fixed report. |
| U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Receive the importer’s certification for the original in-transit exception specified by the Federal Register notice; section 2(a). | Applies only if the original transit and entry conditions are met; later amendments and termination must be checked. |
| All executive departments and agencies | Take appropriate implementation measures within their own authority; section 4. | As required for implementation, consistent with law; not a power to impose duties after their statutory basis was rejected. |
| President | May expand duties in response to retaliation and determines sufficient foreign action for removal; sections 2 and 3. | Conditional powers in the original text, not fixed deadlines or evidence that a determination occurred; later limited by the Court’s IEEPA ruling. |
Full original signed assignments. The original authority and deadlines must be distinguished from the later end of tariff collection. USTR is not named in this original order’s assignments.
What happened next
EO 14193 signed.
The signed order was published in the Federal Register. The original February 4 entry date was a separate provision, subject to subsequent changes. Original publication.
The Supreme Court rejected IEEPA tariff authority, affirmed the Federal Circuit judgment in V.O.S. Selections and vacated the separate district-court judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Controlling decision.
EO 14389 ended this order’s IEEPA additional duties, preserving the emergencies and non-tariff actions. Termination scope.
CBP issued CSMS 67834313 with the operational collection cutoff and ACE tariff-number changes. Dated CBP bulletin.
CBP’s bulletin specified no IEEPA duty collection for covered consumption entries or warehouse withdrawals from 12:00 a.m. eastern time. Entry cutoff.
EO 14389 was published at 91 FR 9437, after its signing and the CBP collection cutoff. Official publication.
A separate temporary 10% surcharge operated under section 122 of the Trade Act.
Current position checked against the Court judgment and official USTR tariff record.
Court status
See the court documents in Sources by type.
Legal and source detail
How it works legally
The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision held that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs. It affirmed the Federal Circuit judgment in No. 25–250, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, while vacating the District of Columbia judgment in No. 24–1287, Learning Resources, with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This is not simply a still-pending preliminary injunction, nor a holding that Congress can never authorize tariffs. Opinion, 607 U.S. 229, 254–255.
EO 14389 then ended these IEEPA additional duties while expressly preserving the emergencies and non-tariff actions. Separate duties under sections 232 and 301 were not ended by that order. The Struck down label here identifies the invalid tariff mechanism, not a claim that every emergency declaration or customs measure was annulled. Sections 1 and 2(c)–(d).
Sources by type
If a source is unavailable, first check the cited publisher or another official repository. The cited publisher remains the authority.
Primary and official sources
Orders, laws, court records and official implementation material.
How we checked this
Last checked against the sources above on September 9, 2026. How we research →
Additional evidence review: October 16, 2026. Compared the original assignments, Supreme Court holding and judgments, EO 14389’s preserved-action clauses and CBP’s dated entry cutoff. This does not determine an individual entry’s refund or certify every later customs dispute.