In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reject the Trump administration’s argument that reciprocal tariffs could be imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These country-specific tariffs, announced on April 2, had been central to U.S. trade negotiations. The administration has indicated it may explore other statutory authorities to maintain the tariffs. The SCOTUS decision does not address refund procedures, and whether the tariffs have been halted immediately is unclear, creating new uncertainty around implementation. AMT – The Association For Manufacturing Technology will continue to follow developments.
For U.S. manufacturing technology companies, this ruling adds another layer of complexity to an already challenging tariff environment. Over the past year, tariff-driven costs for key components, inputs, and finished products have risen sharply, with some increases exceeding 30%. The result: unexpected expenses, contract disruptions, and greater supply chain risks. As we move through 2026, understanding the evolving policy landscape is essential for planning and competitiveness.
Despite the IEEPA decision, the broader tariff environment for AMT members remains highly complex. Multiple duties continue to increase the cost of finished machines, components, and raw materials.
Many industrial products from China remain subject to Section 301 tariffs of 7.5% or 25%, depending on classification. These tariffs were previously stacked with IEEPA measures, meaning imported components such as castings, ball screws, drives, and controls faced multiple layers unless exclusions applied. While some Section 301 exclusions have been extended into late 2026, they remain narrow and highly product-specific, complicating supply chain planning for U.S. manufacturers.
Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, including those on derivative products, continue to add cost pressure. Manufacturing technology equipment is included among these derivatives. Even when equipment is not directly classified as a metal product, manufacturers still face higher input costs, supplier price increases, and added compliance tied to metal content.
The most significant policy risk is the ongoing Section 232 investigation into robotics and industrial machinery, including CNC machine tools and related equipment. If new trade actions are implemented, the industry could face direct tariffs on finished machine tools under a national security framework, on top of existing measures. Unlike actions under the IEEPA, Section 301 and Section 232 actions are not subject to judicial review.
There are signs of a more measured approach. The expansion of steel and aluminum tariffs to additional products has slowed, offering greater near-term stability. Recent Section 232 outcomes in areas such as semiconductors and critical minerals also point to a preference for more targeted measures, which is encouraging.
AMT continues to engage policymakers to ensure efforts to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity reflect how modern manufacturing actually works. Building resilient U.S. industrial capability requires sustained investment, stable demand, and continued collaboration with trusted global partners. We will keep working to ensure that policies strengthen the industrial base without creating unintended consequences for manufacturers.
To support this work, we invite members to share real-world examples of how tariffs are affecting operations. These insights directly inform AMT’s advocacy and help ensure that member voices shape practical, effective policy solutions. For more information, please contact me at athomas@AMTonline.org or Kevin Bowers at kbowers@AMTonline.org.
