Regulatory & Compliance

The Rules Changed. Most Companies Haven’t Caught Up.

Tariffs, immigration enforcement, subsidies, and compliance requirements are all moving targets. Here’s what Asia-Pacific companies need to know in 2026.

The trade frameworks that gave Asia-Pacific exporters predictable U.S. market access for decades are being rewritten in real time. The regulatory environment isn’t just complex — it’s unstable. Tariff rates can change by executive order. Trade deals are announced and then renegotiated within months. Immigration enforcement has expanded to industrial sites that were previously untouched. And on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the president’s sweeping IEEPA tariffs in a 6-3 ruling — only for the administration to impose a 15% global replacement tariff under different legal authority within 24 hours.

For Asia-Pacific companies entering the U.S. market, regulatory preparedness is no longer a back-office function. It is a front-line business decision that directly impacts pricing, market access, and operational viability.

Tariffs: A Moving Target

The KORUS FTA has been effectively overridden — and the legal basis keeps shifting. Korea’s free trade agreement with the United States, which eliminated virtually all tariffs when it took effect in 2012, was layered over with executive tariff actions under Section 232 (national security) and IEEPA (reciprocal tariffs). The July 2025 bilateral deal that reduced Korea’s reciprocal rate to 15% was built on IEEPA authority — which the Supreme Court has now struck down. The administration immediately imposed a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the maximum rate allowed — but this statute has never been used for tariffs before, was designed for balance-of-payments crises in a fixed-exchange-rate era, and trade experts have already questioned whether it has any valid legal basis in the current context. Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days (~July 2026) and require congressional approval to extend. The administration has ordered Section 301 investigations to create permanent replacement tariffs, but those typically take a year or more — Trump has promised five months. Section 232 tariffs on steel (50%), aluminum (50%), and autos (25%) remain fully in effect.

Critically, Section 122 requires nondiscriminatory application — unlike IEEPA, it cannot set country-specific rates. This means the bilateral deal architecture that gave Korea 15% while other countries faced higher rates no longer has a functioning enforcement mechanism. Both governments have stated the Korea-U.S. trade deal remains intact, but the legal foundation it was built on no longer exists. Korean companies are expected to maintain their U.S. investment strategies, but the uncertainty is real: the 150-day clock is ticking, and what comes next is unclear.

The Section 122 tariff exempts products already covered by Section 232 (steel, aluminum, autos), as well as certain agricultural goods, some electronics, pharmaceuticals, and USMCA-compliant products. For Korean exporters, this means the effective tariff rate varies significantly by product category — some face 15% under Section 122, others face 25–50% under Section 232, and some may be temporarily exempt.

50%
tariff on steel &
aluminum (Section 232)
25%
tariff on automobiles
(Section 232)
15%
global tariff under
Section 122 (temporary — 150 days)
9
ongoing Section 232
investigations

What happened — and keeps happening

Feb 2025
Steel and aluminum tariffs raised to 25% on all trading partners, eliminating country exemptions and quota arrangements.
Mar–Apr 2025
25% tariffs imposed on automobiles and auto parts under Section 232, with implementation spanning several weeks.
Apr 2025
“Liberation Day” — reciprocal tariffs announced on all trading partners. South Korea initially hit with 25%. Markets plunged.
May 2025
U.S. Court of International Trade ruled IEEPA-based tariffs unconstitutional. Case moves to Supreme Court. U.S.-China tariff truce reached (125% → 10%).
Jun 2025
Steel and aluminum tariffs doubled to 50%. Expanded to derivative products (400+ product codes added).
Jul 2025
U.S.-Korea Strategic Trade and Investment Deal announced. Korea negotiates 15% reciprocal rate in exchange for a multi-hundred-billion-dollar investment commitment.
Nov 2025
Korea deal formally implemented via Federal Register. Auto tariffs set at 15% for Korean vehicles (down from 25%). Supreme Court hears IEEPA arguments.
Jan 2026
President Trump threatens to raise Korean auto tariffs back to 25%, citing Korea’s National Assembly failing to ratify the investment deal.
Feb 2026
Supreme Court rules 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, striking down all “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs. Trump immediately signs a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — then raises it to 15% the next day, the maximum allowed under that statute. Section 122 tariffs are temporary (150 days) and require congressional approval to extend. Administration signals Section 301 investigations to create permanent replacement tariffs before the 150-day window closes. Up to $175 billion in tariff refunds potentially owed to importers.
Key Risk Tariff rates are cumulative and layered — and the legal landscape just shifted dramatically. A single product can be subject to multiple tariff actions simultaneously — Section 232, Section 301, and now Section 122 tariffs can stack on top of each other. The Supreme Court struck down all IEEPA-based tariffs on February 20, 2026, but the administration replaced them with a 15% global tariff under Section 122 within 24 hours — and signaled permanent replacements under Section 301 before the 150-day window expires. For any supplier entering the U.S., tariff exposure must be calculated product-by-product, not assumed from headline rates — and recalculated every time the legal framework shifts.

Upcoming Section 232 investigations

Nine active Section 232 investigations could result in additional tariffs on products critical to Asia-Pacific exporters. These investigations cover semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, aircraft, drones, polysilicon, wind turbines, robotics, and medical supplies and equipment. For Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese suppliers in these categories, the outcome of these investigations will directly shape market access.

Immigration & Workforce Compliance

Immigration enforcement expanded dramatically in 2025, with direct impact on Asia-Pacific companies operating in the United States.

Case Study In September 2025, an ICE raid on a Korean-built battery plant in Georgia detained over 300 workers and halted 22 factory construction projects nationwide. The signal was unmistakable: immigration compliance is no longer optional for any Asia-Pacific company with U.S. operations, even those using subcontractors.

What’s changed: E-Verify enforcement has intensified. Worksite audits have expanded beyond agriculture and food processing into industrial construction and manufacturing. Companies using subcontractors are being held responsible for the immigration status of workers on their projects — not just their direct employees.

What this means for Asia-Pacific companies: Any company planning U.S. operations — whether setting up a subsidiary, sending technical personnel, or managing construction projects — needs immigration counsel that understands the current enforcement environment. Visa strategy (L-1, E-2, H-1B, B-1/B-2) must be planned months in advance, not treated as a last-minute logistics item.

Personnel Visas

L-1 intracompany transfers, E-2 treaty investor visas, and H-1B specialty worker visas all face longer processing times and higher scrutiny. Korean nationals benefit from E-2 treaty access, but documentation requirements have increased.

Business Travel

B-1/B-2 visas for business meetings, trade shows, and client visits remain available but cannot be used for productive work on U.S. soil. The line between “business activity” and “work” is being enforced more strictly.

Subsidies & Incentives: The Other Side

Not everything in the regulatory landscape is a barrier. The United States is simultaneously offering unprecedented financial incentives for companies that manufacture or invest in America.

Opportunity The CHIPS and Science Act provides $52.7 billion in semiconductor manufacturing subsidies and investment tax credits. The Inflation Reduction Act offers tax credits for EV batteries, clean energy components, and critical mineral processing — with specific incentives for domestic manufacturing. State-level incentives add billions more.

CHIPS Act (Federal)

$39B in direct manufacturing incentives plus 25% investment tax credit for semiconductor fabrication. Available to foreign-owned companies manufacturing in the U.S. Samsung, SK Hynix, and TSMC have all received or applied for CHIPS funding.

Inflation Reduction Act (Federal)

Production and investment tax credits for EV batteries, solar modules, wind components, critical minerals, and clean hydrogen. Credits tied to domestic content requirements that can favor companies assembling or manufacturing in the U.S.

State-Level Incentives

States aggressively compete for manufacturing investment. Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Indiana, and Tennessee have all offered multi-billion-dollar incentive packages to Asia-Pacific manufacturers. Tax abatements, workforce training, infrastructure support, and site preparation are all on the table.

Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs)

Over 190 FTZs across the U.S. allow companies to defer, reduce, or eliminate tariffs on imported components used in manufacturing. For Asia-Pacific suppliers facing high tariff exposure, FTZ structures can significantly reduce landed costs.

Product Standards & Certification

Beyond tariffs and immigration, Asia-Pacific companies frequently underestimate the compliance burden of selling products in the U.S. market. American product standards, labeling requirements, and certification processes differ significantly from Korean, Japanese, and EU frameworks.

UL / ETL / CSA Certification

Most electrical and electronic products sold in the U.S. require third-party safety certification. Products certified to Korean or IEC standards typically need separate U.S. testing and listing.

FDA Registration

Food, cosmetics, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals require FDA registration and compliance. Korean cosmetics companies routinely underestimate the time and cost of FDA-compliant labeling and ingredient review.

EPA & State Environmental

Chemical products, coatings, and materials face EPA registration requirements. California’s Proposition 65 adds additional labeling obligations that can affect nationwide distribution strategy.

Buy America / Buy American

Federal and state procurement contracts increasingly require domestic content. The threshold for “Made in USA” claims and government procurement eligibility has been raised, affecting which products can access public-sector buyers.

The Wild Card: Legal Challenges

The legal foundations of U.S. tariff policy were fundamentally reshaped on February 20, 2026. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA to impose tariffs — holding that the statute “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” and that no president had ever used it for this purpose before. The ruling invalidated all IEEPA-based tariffs, including the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs and the negotiated bilateral deals built on that authority.

Uncertainty The ruling eliminated IEEPA-based tariffs on all countries, including the 15% reciprocal rate on South Korea negotiated in the July 2025 bilateral deal. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos remain fully in place. Within 24 hours, Trump signed a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — the maximum rate allowed, and temporary (150 days without congressional approval). The administration has signaled Section 301 investigations to build permanent replacement tariffs before that window closes, though those investigations typically take months or longer. Trade experts have also questioned whether Section 122 itself is legally valid in this context, since the statute was designed for balance-of-payments crises — not trade deficits. Meanwhile, importers who paid IEEPA tariffs may be owed up to $175 billion in refunds, though the court was silent on the process. For businesses, the message is clear: the legal authority changes, but the tariffs don’t disappear — they get replaced, restructured, and challenged again.

The Bottom Line for Asia-Pacific Companies

The U.S. regulatory environment in 2026 is simultaneously more hostile and more rewarding than at any point in the last two decades. Tariffs are higher, immigration enforcement is stricter, and compliance requirements are more complex. But subsidies are larger, incentive packages are more generous, and the demand for non-Chinese supply chain alternatives has never been stronger.

The companies that succeed will be the ones who treat regulatory strategy as a core business function — not a cost center. They’ll build tariff mitigation into their pricing from day one, plan immigration strategy before they need it, pursue every available incentive and subsidy, and structure their U.S. operations to maximize both market access and regulatory protection.

The companies that treat compliance as an afterthought are the ones absorbing margin-destroying costs — or getting blocked from the market entirely.

Navigate the Complexity with Confidence

Blue Crane Global helps Asia-Pacific B2B companies understand and prepare for the U.S. regulatory environment before they enter the market — not after they’ve already made costly mistakes.

Schedule a Consultation ← Back to U.S. Market