Publication
China Tariff Update: November 4 Executive Orders Signal Temporary Easing, Not Policy Reversal
By Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, and T. Troy Galan
On November 4, 2025, President Trump issued two new Executive Orders modifying the tariff structure on imports from the People’s Republic of China (China). The changes modestly lower certain tariff rates and extend others, reflecting temporary cooperation rather than a significant, long-term policy shift. While these adjustments may ease short-term import costs, they also reaffirm that the U.S. Government remains committed to strategic decoupling from China. Companies with a global supply chain that goes through China may take this opportunity to again evaluate policies and procedures, and determine the applicability of other options to mitigate tariff impact on operational costs.
Specifically, the reduction in tariff rates should be viewed not as a path to normalization, but as a recalibration within an ever-evolving trade framework still defined by enforcement risk, supply-chain scrutiny, and continued national-security considerations. Companies should continue exploring options for onshoring or nearshoring, such as Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) in the United States, the IMMEX (Maquiladora) program in Mexico, or backup vendors in other countries that do not have the same tariff risk and volatility as China.
These changes also come amid critical legal uncertainty. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs at all. The outcome could directly affect how certain, but not all, Chinese tariffs are administered — and potentially refunded. In addition, the heightened enforcement environment underscores the need for companies to have formal agreements in place with Chinese suppliers rather than relying solely on the traditional purchase-order approach.
I. Key Tariff Modifications
- Fentanyl Tariff – The additional 20% tariff on imports from China imposed earlier this year in response to fentanyl-related concerns will be reduced to 10%, effective for goods entered or withdrawn for consumption on or after 12:01 a.m. EST, November 10, 2025.
- Reciprocal Tariff – The baseline 10% reciprocal tariff on imports from China will remain in effect through November 10, 2026, instead of increasing to 34%.
- Sections 301 and 232 Tariffs – These Executive Orders do not modify other underlying Sections 301 and 232 tariffs, which continue to apply to a wide range of Chinese goods, though certain Section 301 exclusions have been extended through November 10, 2026.
II. Reading Between the Lines
Despite the headline reductions, the Executive Orders only reaffirm that the U.S. Government’s trade posture toward China remains cautious and conditional. Both Executive Orders and the White House Fact Sheet expressly reserve the right to raise tariffs if China fails to meet commitments on fentanyl control or trade reciprocity.
The pending U.S. Supreme Court review of the President’s tariff authority under the IEEPA further underscores that the tariff landscape remains unsettled. Regardless of the outcome of that case, the administration will continue to implement tariffs using other statutory authority, and the policy of strategic decoupling and diversification away from China remains unchanged.
III. Key Takeaways
Companies should consider continuing the pursuit of long-term mitigation strategies such as:
- Onshoring or expanding Foreign Trade Zone operations in the United States to mitigate tariffs and reduce import costs;
- Nearshoring production to Mexico through the IMMEX program, which can preserve tariff and VAT efficiencies while maintaining proximity to the U.S. market;
- Friend-shoring production to countries that have already negotiated new trade deals (e.g., South Korea, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom) to mitigate the impact of the reciprocal tariffs; and
- Strengthening supplier diversification and contract-management programs to maintain flexibility as tariff structures evolve.
These strategies should not be viewed as temporary adjustments; they have become central components of sustainable trade risk management.
IV. Compliance Implications
The shifting tariff environment has led many Chinese suppliers to offer Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) INCOTERMS terms, where the seller serves as the importer of record and pays the tariff. However, relying solely on purchase-order relationships with DDP terms is risky. Even when the Chinese seller pays the tariff, the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) — typically the buyer — can still face liability if entry data, classification, or valuation are incorrect.
These risks are amplified by tariff volatility and changes in enforcement. Under a DDP structure, U.S. buyers often lack visibility into how entries are filed or how customs brokers are instructed. Missteps in these filings can result in penalties or delayed shipments, and the buyer may have little recourse.
To mitigate this risk, U.S. companies opting for DDP terms should consider implementing purchase or supplier agreements with Chinese suppliers that explicitly address who controls the customs-broker relationship, how liability for entry errors is allocated, and how refunds or tariff adjustments are handled if rates change or are repealed. Even if the parties are using a different delivery term, the actual nuances of specific supply agreements or purchase orders may shift liability. In addition, the choice of law and force majeure provisions are key to mitigating risk that may arise from shifting tariff liability after contract execution. These considerations are particularly important for long-term supply agreements, where the benefits of tariff-mitigation strategies are magnified. Having experienced trade counsel review these arrangements is a critical safeguard in today’s enforcement climate.
V. Actions to Consider
As a result of tariff changes, such as those announced on November 4, 2025, companies should consider an internal compliance review. Customs brokers act as attorneys-in-fact when filing entries, meaning their mistakes are legally attributed to the importer. If a broker applies the wrong rate or classification, the importer — not the broker — bears the liability. In the event that a potential liability arises, importers should assess whether a protest may be appropriate, keeping the statutory timelines in mind.
Engaging trade counsel during these transition periods ensures that new tariff rates are correctly applied to each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) line, entry summaries and post-summary corrections reflect accurate tariff treatment, and potential issues are caught early — before they escalate into enforcement matters. Periodic legal reviews following Executive Orders or rate changes help confirm broker accuracy and preserve defensible import records. In addition, a periodic review and modification of freight transportation agreements and supply agreements with vendors can help ensure understanding of any risk posture.
VI. Conclusion
The November 4, 2025 Executive Orders represent a short-term tactical adjustment in a trade relationship that remains far from settled. The U.S. Government continues to use tariffs as a national-security policy, foreign-policy, and economic-policy tool, and the long-term trend still favors decoupling from China rather than normalization.
Importers should take this opportunity to review customs filings, supplier contracts, and tariff-mitigation strategies to ensure alignment with the evolving regulatory environment. Experienced trade counsel can help companies confirm correct tariff application, address importer-of-record risks, and identify opportunities such as FTZs or IMMEX programs to offset the persistent cost of doing business with China.
** Any opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the firm or their colleagues.
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 17 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
