Lead: Hours after the Supreme Court struck down a major part of his tariff program on Feb. 21, 2026, the White House confirmed it will keep the de minimis import exemption closed. The de minimis rule — which had allowed goods valued under $800 to enter the United States without routine duties or full customs paperwork — has been largely ended for Chinese-origin goods since May 2025 and for other origins since July 2025. The administration says the move targets unfair pricing, preserves U.S. manufacturers, and reduces illicit flows; critics warn it will hit small sellers and online shoppers.
Key Takeaways
- The de minimis exemption exempted shipments valued under $800 from routine duties and simplified customs processing; the threshold was raised from $200 to $800 in 2016.
- President Trump moved to end the exemption for goods from China in May 2025 and for goods from other countries in July 2025.
- The White House linked the exemption to both large-scale e-commerce imports from China and to alleged channels for synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.
- Hours after the Supreme Court on Feb. 21, 2026 limited parts of the administration’s tariff program, the White House reiterated that the de minimis change will remain in force.
- U.S. small merchants using platforms like Etsy and Shopify, and consumers buying from apps such as Shein and Temu, will face new customs requirements or costs for many previously exempt shipments.
- Customs and Border Protection will need to scale inspection and collection processes, potentially raising enforcement costs and import processing times.
- Analysts say the change could reduce low‑priced imports over time but may increase prices for consumers and complicate supply chains that rely on micro‑shipments.
Background
The de minimis exemption dates back nearly a century as a practical tool to let customs agencies avoid processing very small consignments that consume disproportionate time and resources. Over decades, the monetary threshold for that exemption has been adjusted; most recently it rose from $200 to $800 in 2016 to reflect inflation and changing trade practices. The rule’s intent was administrative efficiency rather than a trade policy lever.
Since the 2010s, the rise of global e-commerce and direct‑to‑consumer platforms transformed how goods move from factories to buyers. Chinese exporters, aided by domestic policies encouraging overseas sales, increasingly used low‑value express shipments to reach U.S. consumers cheaply. Retail platforms and small U.S. sellers likewise leaned on the exemption to reduce overhead and offer low prices.
Against that backdrop, administrations of both parties have at times questioned whether the exemption created distortions — by advantaging sellers who can ship many small parcels without duties — and whether it impeded effective enforcement of product safety and controlled‑substance controls.
Main Event
On Feb. 21, 2026 the Supreme Court issued a decision that curtailed a significant piece of the president’s tariff-based trade policy. Within hours, the White House said it would keep the end of the de minimis exemption intact, framing the move as complementary to broader efforts to rebalance trade and protect U.S. industries. Officials pointed to the logistical burden of millions of low‑value shipments and to alleged security risks tied to uncontrolled small‑parcel flows.
The administration’s prior steps left the exemption removed for goods from China in May 2025 and extended that removal globally in July 2025. White House statements have emphasized those earlier steps as policy choices distinct from, but legally related to, the tariff questions at issue before the court. The administration argued the statutory authority it used to change the de minimis practice is on firmer legal footing.
Industry groups representing major online platforms warned the move would force many sellers to collect duties and fill customs declarations they previously bypassed. Logistics providers and customs brokers will face increased paperwork and verification responsibilities, and some small sellers said the change will raise costs or push them out of cross‑border commerce.
Law enforcement and customs officials say ending the exemption makes it easier to monitor shipments and collect duties, and may close pathways that traffickers have exploited. The administration cited seizures and internal reviews as part of its rationale, while civil‑liberties advocates and some trade economists cautioned that enforcement capacity and legal safeguards will determine actual outcomes.
Analysis & Implications
Economically, closing the de minimis exemption is a blunt instrument. It eliminates a long-standing administrative shortcut that kept processing costs low for small parcels, but it also raises the friction — and the explicit cost — of moving low‑value goods across borders. For consumers used to inexpensive imports, some pricing pressure may emerge; for domestic producers, reduced competitive pressure from low‑cost micro‑imports could provide relief.
Small U.S. merchants who sell low‑priced items on marketplaces could be disproportionately affected. Many rely on the exemption to keep margins viable; requiring duties and paperwork on numerous small shipments could push sellers to consolidate shipments, raise prices, or withdraw from international sourcing. Marketplaces may adapt by absorbing compliance costs or restricting cross‑border listings.
From a policy and diplomatic perspective, the move increases trade tensions with major exporters, particularly China, which had been a primary source of de minimis shipments. It also raises questions about equivalence in international trade rules — whether unilateral administrative changes will trigger diplomatic negotiations or challenges at forums such as the World Trade Organization.
Operationally, U.S. Customs and Border Protection must scale data systems, broker oversight, and audit capacity. Without sufficient investment in customs infrastructure, the intended targets — illicit commodity flows and unfair pricing — may persist even as legitimate small exporters and consumers bear increased costs.
Comparison & Data
| Year/Period | De Minimis Threshold | Relevant Note |
|---|---|---|
| Pre‑2016 | $200 (prior level) | Threshold used before 2016 adjustment |
| 2016 | $800 (current benchmark) | Threshold raised to $800 to reflect trade growth |
| May 2025 | End for China | Administration removed exemption for Chinese‑origin goods |
| July 2025 | End globally | Exemption removed for other origins |
The table shows the policy shifts: an administrative threshold raised in 2016 and the two-step removal in 2025. These discrete policy moves interact with broader trade measures, including tariffs partially altered by the Supreme Court on Feb. 21, 2026. Analysts measure potential price effects by comparing import volumes below $800 before and after the change; initial estimates suggest billions in previously duty‑free value were affected.
Reactions & Quotes
Administration officials framed the action as both economic and security policy. A senior White House statement tied the change to trade fairness and risk reduction, while emphasizing legal authority to adjust customs practices.
“We will not allow a longstanding administrative loophole to undermine American jobs or public safety,” the White House said in a Feb. 21, 2026 release.
White House (official statement)
Trade groups and small sellers offered swift pushback, noting the compliance burden and possible pass‑through costs to consumers.
“Smaller merchants face immediate compliance hurdles that could force higher prices or lost market access,” a trade group for small online sellers warned in response to the announcement.
Industry group (trade association)
Customs officials defended the policy shift as a way to increase visibility over parcel flows and to strengthen enforcement of import laws.
“Requiring documentation and duties on low‑value shipments improves our ability to detect illegal items and enforce trade rules,” a customs official said.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (agency official)
Unconfirmed
- Direct causation between the de minimis exemption and the bulk movement of fentanyl precursors into the United States remains under investigation and is not definitively established in public records.
- Whether the same legal reasoning that led the Supreme Court to limit parts of the tariff program squarely applies to the administrative authority used to end de minimis treatment is contested and subject to ongoing legal analysis.
Bottom Line
The closing of the de minimis exemption marks a consequential administrative shift with both immediate practical effects and broader political meaning. It tightens controls on low‑value parcel imports that have underpinned much of the online‑retail boom connected to China, while prompting concerns about costs for small sellers and consumers.
Implementation and enforcement will determine who ultimately bears the economic burden: consumers, small merchants, or foreign sellers. Policymakers and enforcement agencies will need to balance trade‑policy goals, enforcement capacity, and the downstream effects on e‑commerce and cross‑border commerce.
Sources
- The New York Times — (news report)
- White House Briefing Room — (official statement/press releases)
- Supreme Court of the United States — (official court opinions and docket information)
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection — (official agency data and enforcement guidance)