Executive Order 14194: Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border
President: Donald J. Trump
Imposed additional duties on Mexican goods in response to the administration’s fentanyl, migration and border emergency findings.
Status: Struck down. The IEEPA tariff mechanism, not every underlying emergency action.
Is Executive Order 14194 still in effect? No. The Mexico IEEPA duties lost their asserted statutory basis in the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump decision; EO 14389 ended them that day. CBP’s collection cutoff applies to covered entries from February 24, 2026. The ruling is about tariff authority, not a judicial termination of the emergency or every non-tariff action, which EO 14389 preserved. Supreme Court opinion, February 20, 2026; EO 14389, sections 1–2; CBP collection cutoff.
What does Executive Order 14194 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 14194
EO 14194 directed duties on covered Mexican imports, initially under IEEPA and an emergency declaration related to the southern border. The order assigned customs and trade agencies to publish tariff codes, collect duties, and monitor conditions. Its effective date, exceptions, and later pauses were modified through follow-on actions. Importers therefore need the specific customs notice and Harmonized Tariff Schedule provisions for the entry date, not only the original executive order.
The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources concluded that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariffs. The decision limits the authority used for this duty program; it is not a ruling that the President lacks all tariff authority. Congress has enacted other trade statutes that permit tariffs under specified conditions, and measures under those statutes need their own findings and procedures.
The separate section 122 surcharge had a limited period and legal basis. Its dates do not revive EO 14194’s IEEPA tariff direction. Questions about refunds, entries already liquidated, or goods in transit depend on Customs and court procedures. Check the opinion and current official tariff schedule for the relevant date. Read Executive Order 14194 in the Federal Register; read the Supreme Court opinion.
The original Mexico measure covered an additional 25% duty, with a specified in-transit certification exception and foreign-trade-zone treatment. It did not assign a new tariff-schedule role to USTR. The original date and rate are historical terms, not current amounts owed. 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 14198 paused implementation; EOs 14227 and 14232 later changed de minimis treatment and brought the duties into effect.
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(d) 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 southern 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 14194 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.