Client Alerts & Insights
Reciprocal Tariff Comment Period – One Week Remains to Submit
March 4, 2025
Authored By:
One week remains for clients to submit comments in response to review of potential reciprocal tariffs being conducted by the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”). Comments are due by March 11, 2025. The USTR solicited comments from the public on global unfair trade practices in a Federal Register notice published February 25, 2025 (90 FR 10677). The review follows the White House’s Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs published on February 13, 2025.
The USTR will review comments and identify unfair trade practices and recommend appropriate actions to address those practices. The review will result in delivery of a report to the President which is anticipated by April 1, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs are expected to be announced shortly afterward. Additional remedies for unfair trade practice may follow.
Public comment is intended to assist in identifying any unfair foreign practices that are harmful to domestic interests. Examples of potentially unfair trade practices include any foreign policies that harm the U.S., any barriers to U.S. production or exports, and any failure to address non-market policies. The Memorandum specifically calls for examination of:
- Tariffs imposed on U.S. products;
- Unfair, discriminatory, or extraterritorial taxes imposed by trading partners on U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers, including a value-added tax;
- Costs to U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers arising from non-tariff barriers or measures and unfair or harmful acts, policies, or practices, including subsidies, and burdensome regulatory requirements on U.S. businesses operating in other countries;
- Policies and practices that cause exchange rates to deviate from market value to the detriment of Americans; wage suppression; and other mercantilist policies that make U.S. businesses and workers less competitive; and
- Any other practice that imposes any unfair limitation on market access or any structural impediment to fair competition with the market economy of the U.S.
Comments must include the foreign country involved, a description of the practice of concern, an explanation of the operation of the practice or arrangement, and a quantifiable explanation of the domestic U.S. impact. The USTR will focus on submissions related to countries with the largest trade economies and those with the largest trade deficits in goods with the U.S., including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the E.U., India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the U.K., and Vietnam.
Parties wishing to submit comment may do so through the USTR online portal at https://comments.ustr.gov/s/. Alternative methods to submit are also available. The docket number for this solicitation is USTR-2025-0001.
The Benesch Team assists clients in navigating customs-related changes and all manner of resulting supply chain implications. Our most recent bulletins on preparing for the Trump Administration’s trade policy and other tariff implementation initiatives are available below. You can sign up for our bulletins and client alerts on supply chain, international trade, and global transportation & logistics matters here.
Trump Tariffs – 2025 Expectations, Facts, and Options
UPDATE: Trump Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, China – Supply Chain Impact and Strategies
Steel and Aluminum Tariffs – Impact and Timeline of President Trump’s Proclamation
Jonathan Todd is Vice Chair of the Transportation & Logistics Practice Group at Benesch Law. He may be reached at 216.363.4658 or jtodd@beneschlaw.com.
Megan K. MacCallum is an Associate in the Transportation & Logistics Practice Group at Benesch Law. She may be reached at 216.363.4185 or mmaccallum@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
UPDATED: The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.
Tariff Refund Litigation: A Primer on Common Plaintiff’s Theories of Recovery and Importer of Record Defenses
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump did not have constitutional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump Administration responded quickly, implementing a universal 10 percent surcharge under the authority of Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act.
Supreme Court 2025: Key Free Speech Rulings
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions signaled a more regulator-friendly view of the internet—upholding laws on age verification and foreign-owned platforms under intermediate scrutiny, even where speech is burdened. These cases reaffirm that content-neutral rules that incidentally affect speech are likely to survive constitutional challenge.
Nobody—Not Even Einstein—Has Figured Out What Causes Gravity, but You Need to if You Are Facing a Putative Consumer Class Action in the 9th Circuit
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.