Newsletter
Press Release
- August 17, 2026
Newsletter
Welcome to the Q2 2026 quarterly Supply Chain & Tariff Update, presented by Steptoe & Johnson Member and Supply Chain Team Leader, Randy Whitlatch.
(organized by month)
Plumbers v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-196, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73428, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged securities fraud based on certain statements concerning inventory “flow,” while dismissing other challenged statements as protected opinion, puffery, or forward-looking statements. The Court concluded that representations regarding inventory flow concerned present operational conditions and therefore could be actionable where plaintiffs alleged inventory had accumulated throughout the company’s distribution network, requiring additional storage and contributing to margin pressure from markdowns. The opinion reflects the growing importance of inventory management and distribution operations in securities litigation involving alleged misstatements about supply chain performance.
Takeaway: Statements concerning inventory movement and other present supply chain conditions may be actionable where internal operational data allegedly reflects materially different circumstances.
Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Dep’t of War, No. 26-1049, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11185, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 8, 2026)
On Anthropic’s motion for a stay pending review, the D.C. Circuit denied relief from a Department of War supply-chain-risk determination that barred Anthropic from providing artificial intelligence (AI) goods or services to the department. The Court acknowledged that the petition raised difficult questions regarding what qualifies as a supply chain risk under 41 U.S.C. § 4713 and whether the challenged action was reviewable, but it declined to reach the merits because the balance of equities did not favor interim relief. The Court emphasized the government’s interest in avoiding forced reliance on an unwanted vendor of critical AI services during an ongoing military conflict. The ruling shows that even when supply-chain-risk designations face meaningful legal challenge, courts may be reluctant to disturb procurement restrictions on an emergency basis where national security interests are asserted.
Takeaway: Contractors challenging supply-chain-risk exclusions may face a high burden for emergency relief, especially where the government frames vendor restrictions as tied to critical national-security procurement needs.
McCormick v. Merlo S.P.A. Industria Metalmeccanica, No. 25-1679, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10679, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2026)
On appeal from dismissal, the Sixth Circuit reinstated a tortious-interference claim arising from the restructuring of a farm-equipment distribution network while affirming dismissal of claims under Michigan’s farm-equipment dealer statute. The Court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that the manufacturer induced its former distributor to cut him out of the distribution chain after he had been led to believe he would continue selling equipment through the manufacturer’s newly created U.S. subsidiary. The opinion turns on the transition from a multitier distribution model to a more vertically integrated structure and the commercial expectations created during that transition.
Takeaway: Manufacturers restructuring distribution channels should be careful in communications with existing intermediaries, as assurances about future channel participation may create exposure apart from any final written agreement.
Signal Pump, L.L.C. v. Arrow Elecs., Inc., No. E2024-01376-COA-R3-CV, 2026 Tenn. App. LEXIS 171, at *1 (Apr. 17, 2026)
On appeal following a bench trial, the Court affirmed as modified a judgment arising from the breakdown of an exclusive supply relationship between a light-tower manufacturer and an electronics supplier. Applying New York law, the Court held that although both parties breached the agreement, the contract’s limitation-of-liability provision barred recovery of lost profits allegedly resulting from delayed component deliveries. The court further rejected punitive damages, concluding that the supplier’s failure to deliver parts, disclose issues, and establish an inventory system did not rise beyond a contractual dispute. The supply chain consequence of the case lies in the Court’s enforcement of risk-allocation language even where the buyer alleged substantial downstream production losses from component shortages.
Takeaway: In exclusive supply relationships, limitation-of-liability clauses can control the economic consequences of delayed supply even where the supplier’s nonperformance disrupts downstream sales.
Prairie Petfood Ingredients v. Hubbard Ingredients, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-205-L, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84744, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2026)
On the parties’ summary judgment motions, the Court narrowed a dispute arising from a sourcing agreement and sales compensation plan governing an imported protein-meal supply chain. The Court held that Hubbard Ingredients was entitled to judgment on liability for portions of its breach-of-contract claim based on miscalculated and unpaid commissions, while allowing claims involving supplier diversion, customer circumvention, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and interference with supplier relationships to proceed. The Court rejected efforts to sidestep the agreement’s commission language through Texas’ procuring-cause doctrine, focusing instead on how the parties allocated rights to sourced product, supplier contacts, and commission payments.
Takeaway: Sourcing agreements should clearly define when commissions are earned and how supplier and customer relationships may be used, because courts are unlikely to rewrite negotiated supply chain compensation structures through equitable doctrines.
DiNapoli v. BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 26-11075-LTS, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92577, at *1 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2026).
On plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered BJ’s to include the shareholder proposal in its proxy materials upon the posting of a $20,000 bond. The Court rejected defendants’ arguments that the proposal was excludable under Rule 14a-8 and concluded that the shareholder had plausibly stated a claim under Section 14(a). Although procedurally focused, the dispute reflects the continued use of shareholder proposals to influence corporate oversight of supply chain governance and environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related risks.
Takeaway: Companies should expect continued shareholder scrutiny of supply chain governance through the proxy process, particularly where proposals seek enhanced board oversight of ESG-related operational risks.
CMT Highway, L.L.C. v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc., No. 24-1158, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 46, at *1 (Apr. 24, 2026)
On further review in a sale-of-goods dispute, the Iowa Supreme Court held that an aggrieved buyer was not required to purchase cover goods from the breaching seller merely because the seller later offered the same goods at a lower price than the buyer paid elsewhere. Applying Iowa’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) cover provision, the Court held that Logan Contractors reasonably purchased substitute road-construction materials from other vendors at market prices after CMT refused to perform unless Logan accepted higher prices. The Court emphasized the public-road construction context, where suppliers and manufacturers operate around competitive bids, rolling delivery schedules, and just-in-time production for government projects.
Takeaway: Buyers facing a supplier’s price-driven breach may preserve cover remedies by making reasonable market purchases from alternative suppliers rather than returning to the breaching supplier.
Fluresh, LLC v. Aerco Int’l, Inc., 2026 Mich. Cir. LEXIS 218, at *1 (Apr. 24, 2026)
On defendants’ motions for summary disposition, the Court dismissed tort claims arising from a water heater that allegedly leached nickel into irrigation water and caused the loss of a cannabis crop. Applying Michigan’s economic loss doctrine, the court held that Fluresh’s claims sounded in disappointed commercial expectations because the water heater was selected, purchased, and installed through a project supply chain involving engineers, contractors, subcontractors, and product suppliers. The Court rejected Fluresh’s effort to avoid the doctrine by arguing that it lacked direct contractual privity with the manufacturer and distributor, reasoning that Fluresh acted through closely related project participants who could have negotiated specifications, warranties, or compatibility protections.
Takeaway: Commercial buyers using layered construction or equipment-procurement chains should allocate product-performance risks by contract, because courts may treat losses from unsuitable equipment as economic losses even without direct privity.
City Pension Fund for Firefighters & Police Officers in Tampa Bay v. Generac Holdings Inc., No. 22-cv-1436-bhl, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95135, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2026)
On defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended securities complaint, the Court dismissed claims alleging that Generac concealed negative facts concerning generator demand, defects in solar components, and concentration risk in its solar dealer network. The Court held that plaintiffs again failed to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s (PSLRA) pleading standards for falsity and scienter. The allegations turned heavily on Generac’s dealer-based sales and installation channels, reported backlog, extended lead times, and dependence on channel partners such as Pink Energy, but the Court found the amended pleading still did not adequately tie those supply chain and distribution facts to actionable omissions.
Takeaway: Securities claims based on dealer-channel weakness, installation bottlenecks, or product defects require particularized allegations connecting those supply chain issues to specific misleading statements or omissions.
OFI Inv. Asset Mgmt. v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00282-DCN, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107203, at *1 (D. Idaho May 12, 2026).
On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged securities fraud as to certain statements concerning Lamb Weston’s enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation while dismissing other challenged statements under the PSLRA. Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s new ERP system created inventory visibility failures that resulted in missed customer orders, lost business, and operational disruption, even as Lamb Weston continued to highlight supply chain productivity, manufacturing optimization, and modernization initiatives. The Court concluded that several statements regarding the ERP rollout and its operational effects were sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal, while others constituted nonactionable opinion, puffery, or forward-looking statements.
Takeaway: Companies implementing enterprise wide ERP systems should carefully evaluate public disclosures regarding inventory management and supply chain performance, as statements concerning operational readiness and system effectiveness may create securities exposure where internal information reflects significant implementation failures.
Power Drives, Inc. v. Cummins Inc., No. 25-CV-533-JLS(F), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106220, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 13, 2026).
On Cummins’ motion to dismiss, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court allow Power Drives’ breach-of-express-contract claim to proceed, while dismissing portions of its implied contract and tort claims. The dispute arose after Power Drives alleged Cummins refused to purchase component inventory maintained to support its engine manufacturing operations. The Report and Recommendation illustrates the legal risks that arise when suppliers maintain substantial inventories in reliance on long-standing purchasing relationships without clearly defining inventory disposition obligations following changes in production requirements. (The district Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on July 2.)
Takeaway: Long-term supply relationships should expressly address inventory ownership and buy-back obligations to avoid disputes when production volumes decline or sourcing strategies change.
TE Connectivity Corp. v. Sumitomo Elec. Wiring Sys., No. 22-cv-10283, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113232, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2026).
On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court denied both motions in a dispute arising from delayed deliveries of automotive components during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding contract formation, the governing terms and conditions, delivery obligations, and responsibility for pandemic-related supply disruptions. The Court also granted Sumitomo leave to amend its counterclaim to add TE Connectivity’s Mexican affiliate and alternative theories of liability arising from the parties’ cross-border supply relationship. The opinion underscores the importance of clearly defining contractual obligations and affiliated-party responsibilities in global automotive supply chains.
Takeaway: Automotive suppliers should ensure that governing terms, delivery obligations, and affiliated-party responsibilities are clearly established before supply disruptions arise, particularly where multiple corporate entities participate in cross-border manufacturing.
Farooq Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv-06172-NW, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116055, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2026).
On defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, the Court denied the motion, holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged securities fraud based on statements concerning ChargePoint’s ability to manage demand, supply chain constraints, and channel inventory. The Court concluded that the amended complaint sufficiently connected contemporaneous internal information to the challenged public statements, adequately pleading falsity and scienter under the PSLRA.
Takeaway: Securities claims premised on supply chain disruptions are more likely to survive dismissal where plaintiffs identify contemporaneous internal information that directly contradicts public statements regarding operational performance.
Smith v. Gap, Inc., No. 25-1130, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15173 (2d Cir. May 28, 2026).
On appeal from dismissal, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of consumer protection claims alleging that Gap misrepresented the country of origin of certain products. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an economic injury attributable to the challenged sourcing representations, even assuming consumers may have viewed the statements as material. The decision reinforces the principle that supply chain transparency claims require proof of a concrete economic loss resulting from the alleged misrepresentation.
Takeaway: Product sourcing claims require more than allegations of inaccurate country-of-origin representations; plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the representations caused a measurable economic injury.
Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal En Techniek v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118843, at *1 (D.N.J. May 29, 2026).
On defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, the Court dismissed the securities claims with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs again failed to plead actionable misstatements or omissions concerning Verizon’s legacy lead-sheathed cable network. The Court rejected theories based on statements about replacing copper infrastructure with fiber, employee safety, environmental responsibility, and e-waste disposal, concluding that plaintiffs had not shown how the omitted information rendered the challenged statements materially misleading. The opinion reflects the difficulty of converting environmental and supply chain infrastructure concerns into securities claims without a specific connection between the undisclosed condition and the public statement at issue.
Takeaway: Environmental or infrastructure risks within a company’s operating network alone do not establish securities fraud; plaintiffs must connect those risks to specific statements rendered misleading by the omission.
Akhmad v. Bumble Bee Foods, L.L.C., No. 25-cv-00583-BAS-DEB, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131746, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2026).
On Bumble Bee’s motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, certification for interlocutory review, the Court largely preserved its earlier ruling allowing Indonesian fishermen’s Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) claims to proceed. The Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged extraterritorial application of their civil claim and participation in a venture through Bumble Bee’s continuous commercial relationship with companies operating the vessels on which the alleged forced labor occurred. It further found that reports sent to company executives, fleet relationships, and Bumble Bee’s vessel-auditing and fisheries-improvement programs plausibly supported knowledge or reckless disregard of forced labor on vessels within its sourcing network.
Takeaway: Direct sourcing, auditing, and certification involvement concerning particular vessels or facilities may support TVPRA exposure beyond generalized knowledge of labor risks in an industry.
Sundancer Pools, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-1291T, 2026 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1510, at *1 (Fed. Cl. June 23, 2026).
On the government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an Employee Retention Credit (ERC) refund action, the Court concluded that Sundancer had not adequately alleged that its operations were fully or partially suspended by a qualifying governmental order during the disputed 2021 quarters. The Court explained that supplier disruptions may support ERC eligibility only when the employer cannot obtain critical goods or materials elsewhere and its operations actually cease or are suspended; increased costs or ordinary shortages are insufficient. The Court deferred ruling and allowed Sundancer an opportunity to seek leave to amend its complaint.
Takeaway: Supply chain disruption alone does not establish ERC eligibility; businesses must connect an inability to obtain critical inputs, an actual operational suspension, and a qualifying governmental order.
L & W L.L.C. v. Sonora Forming S.A. de C.V., No. 26-cv-11312, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140262, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 24, 2026).
On defendant Sonora’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court ordered the plaintiff to continue supplying automotive components under the terms of purchase orders the parties had continued performing after their stated expiration. The Court held that the parties’ uninterrupted course of performance renewed the 2024 purchase orders and rejected Tower’s attempt to suspend shipments unless Sonora accepted higher prices and modified contractual terms. Finding that an interruption would disrupt Ford’s production and cause cascading harm throughout the automotive supply chain, the Court concluded that the balance of equities and the public interest strongly favored injunctive relief.
Takeaway: Courts remain willing to compel continued performance in automotive supply disputes where an abrupt interruption threatens downstream original equipment manufacturer production, particularly where the parties’ course of dealing demonstrates an ongoing contractual relationship.
On March 13, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14392, Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to Be Made in America, directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize enforcement against deceptive Made in America, Made in USA, and similar American-origin claims. Although the order does not alter the FTC’s long-standing “all or virtually all” standard for unqualified Made in USA claims, it significantly expands the government’s enforcement posture by encouraging greater scrutiny of online marketplaces, directing agencies to consider regulations promoting consistent country-of-origin labeling, and requiring agencies administering governmentwide acquisition contracts to periodically verify contractors’ Buy American Act, Country of Origin USA, and similar origin claims. Products found to be misrepresented may be removed from federal procurement, and contractors may be referred to the Department of Justice for potential False Claims Act enforcement.
Takeaway: Companies should revisit all U.S.-origin marketing claims — not only on product labels but also on websites, catalogs, social media, distributor materials, online marketplace listings, and government-contract certifications — to ensure that Made in America, Made in USA, Buy American, and similar representations are fully substantiated. The executive order signals heightened enforcement rather than a new legal standard, increasing both consumer-protection and government-contracting risks for inaccurate origin claims.
On April 2, the president issued Presidential Proclamation 11021 — Strengthening Actions Taken to Adjust Imports of Aluminum, Steel, and Copper Into the United States, restructuring the Section 232 tariff treatment of steel, aluminum, copper, and derivative products. The proclamation generally imposed a 50% duty on covered metal products and a 25% duty on covered derivative products, modified the duty calculation to apply to the full customs value of covered imports, and established reduced rates for certain U.S.-content and U.K. products. The changes significantly expand the importance of derivative-product classification and product composition for manufacturers importing finished goods and industrial equipment.
Takeaway: Importers should reassess finished goods — not just raw metals — for Section 232 exposure because duty liability increasingly depends on derivative-product classification and full entered value.
On April 2, the president issued Presidential Proclamation — Adjusting Imports of Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical Ingredients into the United States, establishing a new Section 232 tariff regime for patented pharmaceuticals and associated pharmaceutical ingredients. The proclamation imposes different tariff treatment depending on the manufacturer’s onshoring commitments, negotiated agreements with the federal government, and the type of pharmaceutical product involved, while excluding certain generic products and biosimilars. The action represents one of the most significant federal efforts to encourage domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing through trade policy.
Takeaway: Pharmaceutical companies should evaluate tariff exposure alongside domestic manufacturing strategies because duty treatment may depend on both product classification and company-specific commitments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modified the opening date for submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule. The rule requires manufacturers and importers — including, subject to applicable provisions and exemptions, importers of articles — to report information regarding PFAS manufactured or imported since January 1, 2011. The reporting obligation is unusually consequential for downstream companies because compliance may require historical inquiries across product specifications, bills of material, supplier declarations, and legacy sourcing records. Small manufacturers whose only reportable activity is importing articles receive additional time under the rule. Federal Register notice.
Takeaway: Companies should not treat PFAS reporting as solely an environmental-department exercise; procurement, engineering, product stewardship, customs, and supplier-management teams all may be needed to reconstruct historical product content.
On May 6, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated the second statutory four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions addressing China’s technology-transfer, intellectual property, and innovation practices. The review considers whether the actions remain necessary, their effectiveness, alternative measures, and their broader economic effects. Initiation did not itself alter existing tariff rates, but it creates a process through which the USTR could continue or modify the current measures. USTR four-year-review materials.
Takeaway: Importers should document the operational effects of Section 301 duties — including supplier relocation, pricing, capacity constraints, and the feasibility of non-Chinese sourcing — so they are positioned to support requests for modification or continued relief.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) issued entry guidance for approved United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)-qualifying medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including procedures for applying Section 232 duties to non-U.S. content where the Department of Commerce has approved the importer’s U.S.-content calculation. The process requires close alignment among vehicle-content calculations, supplier-origin data, Commerce approval, Chapter 99 reporting, and Automated Commercial Environment entry information. CBP Cargo Systems Messaging System materials.
Takeaway: The benefit depends on auditable content tracing and accurate customs reporting; a qualifying North American vehicle does not automatically receive non-U.S.-content treatment without Commerce approval and correct entry procedures.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) requested input on initiatives to scale domestic suppliers of critical components, subcomponents, materials, tooling, and specialized manufacturing capabilities. A related request sought information on gaps in critical-industry supply chains and how entrepreneurial and technical-assistance programs could support new entrants. The requests may shape future financing, technical-assistance, matchmaking, and capacity-expansion programs for small and midsize manufacturers. Scaling Critical Suppliers request and Supply Chain Gaps request.
Takeaway: Manufacturers facing domestic bottlenecks should identify specific tooling, qualification, financing, workforce, and demand-certainty barriers rather than describing resilience needs only in general terms.
The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) amendments requiring covered contractors and subcontractors to disclose beneficial ownership and foreign ownership, control, or influence and to update those disclosures when circumstances change. DoD could require mitigation throughout contract performance, and the requirements could extend to commercial products and services where a designated official identifies national-security risk involving sensitive data, systems, or processes. Proposed DFARS rule.
Takeaway: Defense contractors may need visibility beyond their immediate contracting entity into ownership structures, investors, parent companies, and subcontractors throughout the performance chain.
EPA proposed rescinding the federal drinking water standards for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA—commonly associated with GenX— and the hazard-index mixture of those substances with PFBS. EPA stated that the proposal rests on its conclusion that the standards were adopted through an unlawful statutory procedure; it would not disturb the PFOA and PFOS limits. The EPA separately proposed extending certain compliance deadlines associated with PFOA and PFOS. Proposed rescission and proposed deadline extension.
Takeaway: The proposal may alter treatment and compliance obligations for drinking water systems, but it does not eliminate broader PFAS exposure under state law, TSCA reporting, waste regulation, contracts, tort law, or customer specifications.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposed restructuring the rules and applications governing manufacturing and procurement quotas for controlled substances, including clearer treatment of quantities intended for domestic sale and export. Because quota decisions influence the availability of active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished controlled substance medicines, the proposal is relevant to manufacturers, contract manufacturers, distributors, health systems, and other participants in pharmaceutical supply chains. DEA proposed rule.
Takeaway: Pharmaceutical companies should evaluate whether their demand forecasts, export plans, customer commitments, and procurement data align with the proposed quota categories and application requirements.
On June 1, the president further modified the April Section 232 metals regime by expanding reduced-rate treatment for certain industrial machinery, agricultural equipment, HVAC equipment, and other downstream products while adding additional derivative products to the tariff scope.
Presidential Proclamation – Further Adjusting the Tariff Regimes for Imports of Aluminum, Steel, and Copper Into the United States also revised the domestic-metal threshold applicable to certain preferential treatment and adjusted numerous Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classifications.
Takeaway: Companies should not assume that April’s tariff treatment remains applicable. The June proclamation requires a fresh review of HTS classifications, derivative-product coverage, and domestic-metal content.
The USTR determined that 60 economies’ failure to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on imports made with forced labor was actionable under Section 301 and proposed responsive trade measures. The initiative reaches beyond the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act detention practice by examining whether foreign governments maintain comparable import-control regimes, and it raises the prospect of tariffs or other restrictions tied to forced-labor policy. USTR announcement and proposed-action materials.
Takeaway: Forced-labor compliance is becoming both a product-level due diligence issue and a country-level tariff and market-access issue.
CBP issued interim final rules implementing an indefinite suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment for commercial merchandise valued at $800 or less, covering non-postal shipments and international mail through separate rules. Non-postal shipments must use formal or informal entry procedures, and CBP also established a new electronic informal-entry test for international mail. Non-postal rule, postal rule, and electronic mail-entry test.
Takeaway: E-commerce and direct-to-consumer businesses must reassess landed cost, classification, valuation, broker capacity, importer-of-record arrangements, and the viability of parcel-by-parcel fulfillment models.
The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) released multiple proposed rules as part of a governmentwide overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The proposals would streamline and relocate substantial portions of the FAR, revise acquisition planning, reduce prescriptive requirements, and change rules affecting information technology, supply chain security, competition, protests, emergency acquisition, and contract administration. Proposed revisions to FAR Parts 1, 2, 4, 33, 39, 40, and 53 and proposed revisions to Parts 6, 7, 10, 18, 26, 37, and 41.
Takeaway: Government contractors should not assume that familiar compliance requirements have disappeared merely because text is shortened or relocated; they should map proposed deletions against statutes, agency supplements, contract clauses, and forthcoming companion guidance.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed revisions to regulations implementing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. Among other changes, the proposal would broaden and clarify categories of agricultural land and entities of concern and expressly recognize that entities within animal and agricultural product supply chains may present national-security risks if disrupted. USDA proposed rule.
Takeaway: Agricultural, food, forestry, biotechnology, and infrastructure companies should evaluate whether acquisitions, leases, ownership changes, and corporate structures create new federal disclosure obligations or national-security scrutiny.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed codifying and modifying policies for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, including methods for calculating and publishing maximum fair prices across National Drug Codes (NDCs), dosage forms, package sizes, and Part B billing units. The proposal directly affects manufacturers, wholesalers, dispensing entities, pharmacies, Part B providers, and other pharmaceutical supply chain participants responsible for making negotiated pricing available to eligible patients. CMS proposed rule.
Takeaway: Implementation will require precise product-master, NDC, package, rebate, charge-back, dispensing, and billing-unit data across the pharmaceutical distribution chain.
This bipartisan proposal would create tax incentives supporting domestic production across the permanent-magnet value chain, from rare earth oxides through finished magnets used in motors and defense systems. House Select Committee announcement.
Takeaway: The proposal targets the entire processing chain rather than only mineral extraction, reflecting increased recognition that domestic mine capacity does not ensure domestic component availability.
The proposed legislation would establish a 25% tax credit intended to increase U.S. production of printed circuit boards and substrates and reduce dependence on foreign manufacturing for components needed in semiconductor and electronics assembly. Protecting Circuit Boards and Substrates Act.
Takeaway: Electronics resilience policy is moving downstream from semiconductor fabrication toward boards, substrates, packaging, and other components required to turn chips into usable systems.
Introduced June 24, the bill would amend the Export Control Reform Act to strengthen federal authority concerning security risks in information and communications technology and services supply chains. ICTS Supply Chain Security Act of 2026.
Takeaway: Companies supplying connected products, telecommunications equipment, software, cloud services, or digital infrastructure should expect continued convergence between procurement restrictions, Information and Communication Technology and Services (ICTS) review, ownership screening, and cybersecurity compliance.
The proposal would authorize the Army to partner with private companies to develop lithium-brine resources at Red River Army Depot and other organic industrial-base facilities. Army Organic Industrial Base Mineral Partnerships Act of 2026.
Takeaway: Federal industrial-base policy increasingly contemplates direct public-private development of domestic mineral resources, not merely grants or purchase incentives.
The first six-year joint review occurred on July 1. The United States did not confirm renewal of the agreement in its current form. Consequently, the USMCA was not extended for a new 16-year term at that review. Critically, however, the agreement did not terminate and remains in force. Under the USMCA review mechanism, the parties will continue reviewing the agreement annually unless they later agree to extend it; absent an extension, the existing agreement is scheduled to expire in 2036. USTR’s July 1 statement.
During the second quarter, the United States and Mexico conducted bilateral negotiating rounds addressing automotive and other industrial rules of origin, steel and aluminum, economic security, agriculture, labor, environmental issues, and third-country participation in North American supply chains. They also supported creating a committee to review implementation of the Chapter 12 sectoral annexes and improve regulatory compatibility. A third U.S.-Mexico round was scheduled for the week of July 20. May negotiating-round statement and June joint statement.
Takeaway: The immediate consequence is continued uncertainty rather than loss of USMCA preferences. Companies should continue using the agreement where eligible but should model possible changes to automotive and industrial rules of origin, regional-value calculations, third-country content, steel and aluminum requirements, regulatory annexes, and enforcement practices.
Copyright © 2026 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
