The 10 percent across-the-board tariff imposed under Section 122 did not remain in force after July. Tax Foundation’s tariff tracker says it ran from February 24 through July 24, 2026, a 150-day period. The rate that actually took effect was 10 percent, not the 15 percent that had been threatened. On July 24, the tracker says a Section 301 forced-labor tariff took effect as the largest replacement.
The replacement is not identical to the tariff that expired. Tax Foundation describes the new Section 301 measure as a forced-labor tariff at 10 or 12.5 percent. That rate range, the legal authority, and the policy label all distinguish it from the earlier across-the-board Section 122 action. The same July 24 date links the two developments, but it does not make them the same policy.
The Section 122 Tariff Had a Defined 150-Day Run
The timeline matters because “a tariff on everything” can sound as though it is a continuing, permanent charge. According to the Tax Foundation tracker used for this article, the Section 122 tariff began February 24, 2026 and ended July 24, 2026. That span is 150 days. It was a temporary across-the-board measure, and its expiration date is part of the central fact rather than background detail.
The enacted rate also needs its own correction. The tracker says the Section 122 tariff took effect at 10 percent rather than the threatened 15 percent. A report that repeats the 15 percent figure as the applied rate would overstate what the tracker says actually happened. The difference between an announced possibility and the rate put into effect is especially important in an area where trade policies can change quickly.
The expiration does not mean that U.S. tariff policy simply returned to an earlier baseline on July 24. Tax Foundation records a replacement that began the same day. The appropriate description is therefore not that all tariffs ended, but that the Section 122 across-the-board tariff expired and a different Section 301 forced-labor tariff took its place in the policy sequence.
The programs nobody is enrolled in automatically: Each of the eleven has its own income limit and its own application, and none of them starts on its own. See the eleven programs in The Benefits Checklist.
The Replacement Uses a Different Tariff Authority
The July 24 replacement identified in the tracker is a Section 301 forced-labor tariff, not an extension of Section 122. Tax Foundation gives its rate as 10 or 12.5 percent. The range is part of the reported policy description, so the article does not collapse it into a single universal percentage. Nor does it say that every import, seller or household faces one identical new charge.
Tax Foundation calls this the single largest replacement and estimates its conventional ten-year scale at $954 billion, or $611.7 billion net of offsets. Those are the organization’s estimates, not a tally of money already collected and not a direct measure of any household’s bill. They explain why the tracker treats the new policy as significant after the temporary Section 122 measure expired.
The tracker places this change within a much larger period of policy churn. It says U.S. tariff policy has changed more than 50 times since January 2025. That context is a reason to anchor any account to dates, legal authority and rate rather than treat an older headline as a current description. The Section 122 dates and the July 24 replacement are the current facts supported by the source used here.
Why “Expired” Does Not Mean Every Tariff Disappeared
The headline is intentionally limited to the temporary 10 percent Section 122 tariff. Its expiry means that particular across-the-board measure ended on July 24. It does not say that the United States ended all tariffs, and it does not claim that the replacement reaches every product in exactly the same way. The replacement’s forced-labor framing and 10-or-12.5-percent rate are proof that the later policy is not a continuation of the earlier tariff under a new name.
Tax Foundation also reports that the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, invalid since inception. That decision is separate from the Section 122 timeline. The tracker uses it as context for the shifting tariff landscape, while the Section 122 measure began four days later and then ended after its 150-day period.
For readers trying to follow the change, the durable sequence is straightforward: an across-the-board Section 122 tariff began February 24 at 10 percent; it expired July 24; and a Section 301 forced-labor tariff at 10 or 12.5 percent began that same day. The source does not support treating the old 10 percent charge as current after July, nor treating the replacement as a generic payment program or a tariff refund for consumers.
Separating a Policy Headline From a Program
A federal economic policy change does not itself create a benefit payment or an application route. That distinction matters when a headline about tariffs, taxes or prices is followed by an offer that claims a government program has automatically started.
The Benefits Checklist is a 69-page guide covering 11 benefit programs and a 50-state phone directory.
See the printable tracker that comes with The Benefits Checklist.
This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI and reviewed by The Money Overview editorial team.
