Trade Perspectives©

Back

6 October 2025

Beyond IEEPA: The US Administration’s ‘toolbox’ for further tariff measures

By Tobias Dolle, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano

On 5 November 2025, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the legality of the additional tariffs imposed by the US Administration on the basis of the US’ International Emergency Economic Powers Act (hereinafter, IEEPA). The US Supreme Court’s decision, expected by the end of the year, will be pivotal in determining the scope of the US President’s authority under the IEEPA, which forms the basis for various tariff measures taken over the past months. The US Administration has already made clear that, whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, imposing new and additional tariffs would continue to be a cornerstone of the trade policy of this Administration. Indeed, the US Administration has other instruments in its ‘toolbox’ of trade measures that it can wield against its trading partners in order to advance its America First Trade Policy.

This article discusses the ‘toolbox’ of different trade measures available to the US Administration and examines the implications of framework agreements negotiated by certain trading partners.

Legal challenges to IEEPA tariffs before the US Courts

The IEEPA authorises the US President to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”. US President Donald J. Trump used the IEEPA as the legal basis for imposing a universal baseline tariff of 10% on all countries, additional country-specific ‘reciprocal’ tariffs, as well as tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China in response to their alleged failure to address illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking.

On 29 May 2025, the US Court of International Trade ruled that US President Trump had exceeded his statutory authority under the IEEPA in imposing the tariffs and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision on 29 August 2025. The tariffs remain in place while the US Administration’s appeal to the US Supreme Court is pending. Given the possibility of the IEEPA tariffs being declared illegal, the US Administration may decide to base similar trade measures on other available legal bases. 

Addressing imports that “threaten to impair US national security”

Another trade measure in the US’ toolbox is found in Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Based on an investigation and affirmative determination by the US Department of Commerce that certain imports threaten to impair US national security, the President of the US may determine appropriate action to “adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security”.

To date, the US Administration has used Section 232 to impose additional tariffs on imports from all trading partners of steel and aluminium (50%), cars and car parts (25%), copper (50%) timber (ranging from 10 to 50%). Other investigations, including on industrial machinery, robotics, pharmaceutical products, medical devices and personal protective gear, critical minerals, aircraft, and wind turbines, remain pending.

Importantly, past legal challenges regarding Section 232 measures did not succeed, with the US Supreme Court concluding that the Statute grants the US President broad discretionary authority to act on national security concerns related to imports, while setting clear preconditions for presidential action, and also limiting the President’s authority to actions deemed “necessary to adjust imports” to protect national security (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 9 of 5 May 2025).

Addressing unreasonable or discriminatory acts of trading partners

Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 grants the Office of the US Trade Representative (hereinafter, USTR) authority to investigate and address “unreasonable or discriminatory acts, policies, or practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce”. In order to address such practices, Section 301 states that “actions may be taken that are within the power of the President with respect to trade in any goods or services, or with respect to any other area of pertinent relations with the foreign country”.

In this regard, Section 301 authorises the USTR to: 1) “suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of, benefits of trade agreement concessions to carry out a trade agreement with the foreign country”; 2) Enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to either cease the conduct in question or compensate the US; and 3) “impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the services of, such foreign country for such time as the Trade Representative determines appropriate”. 

Section 301 actions automatically terminate after four years, unless the USTR receives a request for continuation and conducts a review of the case. During US President Trump’s first term, the US had imposed Section 301 tariffs of 25% on a wide range of imports from China due to China’s practices related to forced technology transfers and violations of intellectual property rights . These tariffs were reviewed in May 2024 and are still in force.

The current US Administration initiated a new Section 301 investigation into Brazil’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Digital Trade and Electronic Payment Services; Unfair, Preferential Tariffs; Anti-Corruption Enforcement; Intellectual Property Protection; Ethanol Market Access; and Illegal Deforestation, which could result in the introduction of trade restrictions vis-à-vis Brazil.

Tariff measures to address serious injuries or threats thereof to domestic industries

Section 201 of the US Trade Act of 1974 concerning safeguard measures states that if the US International Trade Commission determines that an article is being imported into the US “in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article”, the US President must “take all appropriate and feasible action within his power which the President determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs”. 

Section 201 explains that “a positive adjustment to import competition” occurs when: 1) “the domestic industry is able to compete successfully with imports” after termination of the safeguard measure, or “the domestic industry experiences an orderly transfer of resources to other productive pursuits”; and 2) “dislocated workers in the industry experience an orderly transition to productive pursuits”. Actions that the US President can impose under Section 201 include “an increase in, or the imposition of, any duty on the imported article”, “a tariff-rate quota on the article”, and “a modification or imposition of any quantitative restriction on the importation of the article into the United States”.

In terms of duration, the US President may grant import relief for an initial period of up to four years and extend it one or more times, up to a maximum of eight years. Section 201 actions are deemed consistent with US international obligations if they conform to the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Safeguards. Since 2017, during the first term of US President Trump, safeguard measures on certain imports remain in effect, including on solar cells and modules and on large residential washing machines.

Temporary tariff measures to address balance of payments crises

The balance of payments refers to a statistical summary of a country’s trade in goods, services, and cross-border financial flows vis-à-vis the rest of the world in a specific period and an important economic indicator that tracks the flow of resources and money. With respect to the balance of payments, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the President of the US to take action.

Section 122 provides that, “whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports” in order to: “(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance of-payments deficits, (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or (3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium”, the US President must proclaim: “(A) a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem, in the form of duties (in addition to those already imposed, if any) on articles imported into the United States; (B) temporary limitations through the use of quotas on the importation of articles into the United States; or (C) both a temporary import surcharge described in subparagraph (A) and temporary limitations described in subparagraph (B)”.

The US President may impose Section 122 actions for a period not exceeding 150 days unless extended by the US Congress. Section 122 has not been used before and, therefore, US Courts have had no occasion to interpret its provisions. Unlike the other legal bases, Section 122 does not condition the US President’s authority to impose tariffs on any investigation or factual finding by an executive agency.

Tariff mitigation through trade agreements

Although all of the above legal avenues for imposing additional tariffs have various procedural and substantial requirements and/or limitations, they offer a legal foundation for durable trade restrictions. For US trading partners, this underscores a persistent vulnerability. Even if one set of tariffs falls, a new measure may be forthcoming.

Over the past few months, key US trading partners, such as China, the EU, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, have negotiated “framework agreements” with the US Administration to obtain tariff relief, notably in relation to tariffs imposed on the basis of the IEEPA tariff and Section 232. Although these framework agreements are more political declarations than legally binding commitments, they appear to deliver relief for certain trading partners. For instance, US President Trump’s Executive Order announcing the imposition of Sections 232 tariffs on wood imports, issued on 29 September 2025, provides that “pursuant to the terms of the framework agreements” that the US had negotiated with the EU and Japan, the tariff rate applicable to them would “not exceed 15 percent”. 

Framework agreements as a solution? 

Even if the IEEPA tariffs were to be declared illegal by the US Supreme Court, the tariff risk will persist, as the US Administration could pivot to other measures in its ‘toolbox’ to pursue  comparable measures. In this regard, framework agreements appear to present a solution, enabling trading partners to manage the risk of future tariff measures.

Businesses and governments should adopt an expert-guided and evidence-based proactive engagement strategy with the US Administration to secure tailored relief or exemptions from current and future actions, regardless of the legal basis. At least for now, such agreements appear to shield off recent new tariffs. 

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano 

Towards more harmonised nutrition labelling? ASEAN Member States endorse ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines

By Imelda Jo Anastasya, Joanna Christy, and Paolo R. Vergano

In August 2025, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (hereinafter, ASEAN) endorsed the ASEAN Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (hereinafter, ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines), which were finalised during the 39th Meeting of the Prepared Foodstuff Product Working Group (hereinafter, PFPWG) held from 31 October to 1 November 2024. The ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines recommend “procedures for the nutrition labelling of foods” and aim, inter alia, at ensuring that nutrition labelling across ASEAN is effective in conveying information of the nutrient content, does not present information in a false, misleading, deceptive, or insignificant manner, and ensures that no claim is made without proper labelling.

This article provides an overview of the new Guidelines, explores the lack of harmonisation among ASEAN Member States (hereinafter, AMSs) compared to EU nutrition labelling rules, and highlights the potential implications of establishing a harmonised nutrition labelling framework in ASEAN.

The ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines 

Nutrition labelling refers to labels that provide information on the nutrient content of food. Its purpose is to help consumers assess the nutritional value of a given product. Typically, such labels include information on various nutrients, such as energy, protein, and total fat. Currently, nutrition labelling practices and rules vary among AMSs, lacking harmonisation. Recognising the challenges that this poses for both consumers and businesses, experts from AMSs’ food regulatory agencies, during the 29th PFPWG Workshop on the Harmonisation of Nutrition Labelling held in November 2019, had emphasised the need to establish a standardised approach to ensure that nutrition information is presented in a clear and consistent manner. This led to the development of the ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines.

In relevant part, the ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines contain provisions on: 1) The nutrient declaration; 2) Principles and criteria for the legibility of nutrition labelling; and 3) Supplementary nutrition information. The ASEANNutrition Labelling Guidelines, provide that a nutrient declaration, which refers to a standardised statement or listing of the nutrient content of a food, should be mandatory for all prepackaged foods. It also stipulates that nutrition declarations must be presented in numerical form, including when providing information, such as the energy value, amounts of protein, fat, and saturated fat.

Point 4.1 of the ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines recommends that, in presenting the mandatory nutrition information, it should follow Sections 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, and 8.2 of the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, which require the nutrient labelling of prepackaged food to, inter alia, not be separated from the container, to be clear, readily legible, and in a language acceptable to the consumer. The ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines further provide that supplementary nutrition information, which refers to additional details regarding the nutritional value of the food, may be used to enhance consumer understanding and assist in interpreting nutrient declarations. Its use is optional and should accompany, rather than replace, nutrient declarations, except for target populations with high illiteracy or limited nutrition knowledge, where symbols or visuals may be used on their own. 

As the ASEAN Nutrient Labelling Guidelines are non-binding, it is for AMSs to decide whether to follow the recommendations. However, the Guidelines’ potential impact should not be dismissed. Notably, the Guidelines could provide a common reference point to “bridge” regulatory gaps, especially among least-developed AMSs, in shaping their domestic regulations, and could also mark the first step towards the eventual development of a binding ASEAN instrument on nutrition labelling.

Front-of-packaging nutrient labelling under the ASEAN Nutrient Labelling Guidelines

In addition to nutrition labelling, a key novelty of the ASEAN Nutrient Labelling Guidelines is Annex 2 on front-of-pack (hereinafter, FoP) nutrition labelling, a form of supplementary nutrition information that presents simplified nutrition information on the FoP of prepackaged foods, which is growing in popularity in AMSs.

The Annex provides general guidelines for the establishment of FoP nutrition labelling systems in order to help consumers in making appropriate comparisons between foods. The Annex includes, inter alia, recommendations that FoP nutritional labelling be government-led, limited to a single system per country, and defining food products that should be exempt from FoP schemes, such as infant formula and food for medical purposes. 

Towards greater harmonisation of nutrition labelling? 

Nutrition labelling regulations continue to vary across ASEAN. While AMSs’ domestic regulations generally provide for similar definitions of ‘nutrition labelling’, nutrition labelling is mandatory only in a few AMSs, while it remains voluntary in others. Notably, several AMSs that initially had voluntary rules on nutrition labelling, such as Cambodia, have since made it mandatory, reflecting a gradual move towards mandatory labelling and regional alignment.

In other jurisdictions, detailed rules exist. For instance, the EU has adopted harmonised rules on nutrition labelling, as regulated under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. This Regulation requires the vast majority of prepacked foods to bear a nutrition declaration, which must provide the energy value and the amounts of fat, saturates, carbohydrate, sugars, protein, and salt in the food, and may be supplemented with voluntary information on nutrients, such as the amounts of fibre, vitamins, and minerals. At the same time, aggregate FoP nutrition labelling has not yet been harmonised in the EU. 

Towards the broader adoption of Front-of-Pack nutrition labelling?

Among AMSs, Singapore has introduced the most detailed rules on nutrition labelling. Not only is the labelling mandatory, but the country has also introduced the ‘Nutri-Grade’ labelling scheme, as regulated under the Sale Of Food Act (Chapter 283) Food (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2021. Unlike the detailed nutrition labelling, the ‘Nutri-Grade’ labelling scheme classifies beverages from ‘Grade A’ to ‘D’ based on sugar and fat content, and requires a FoP label to inform consumers of the nutritional value at a single glance (e.g., ‘Grade A’ has lower sugar and fat content, which may be healthier) (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 8 of 24 April 2023).

Indonesia appears to follow Singapore’s approach, having published a draft Regulation on Nutritional Value Information on Food Labels to implement Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 on the Implementation of the Health Law, which seeks to make the ‘Nutri-Level’ FoP nutrition labelling scheme mandatory for packaged food products sold in the country.

The ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines could open up the possibility of moving towards harmonised FoP nutrition labelling in the future by serving as a framework that AMSs can build upon. This is particularly relevant given the challenges in adopting FoP schemes in ASEAN, due to opposition by the food industry.

In the EU, the ‘Nutri–Score’, comparable to ‘Nutri-Grade’ in Singapore and ‘Nutri-Level’ in Indonesia, has been adopted in various EU Member States, including France and Germany. Although the EU is in the process of developing a harmonised FoP nutrition labelling scheme (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 13 of 1 July 2024), the legislative proposal has been delayed due to industry pushback, particularly from food industry bodies and governments like Italy’s, which fear that a ‘Nutri–Score’-like approach could negatively impact sales.

Implications for stakeholders

The ASEAN Nutrition Labelling Guidelines carry significance by guiding AMSs in developing new or revising existing nutrition labelling regulations, including FoP schemes, while promoting alignment with Codex Alimentarius standards. The Guidelines could serve as a regional benchmark, helping to reduce regulatory differences among AMSs, facilitating intra-ASEAN trade, and potentially laying the groundwork for future binding commitments within the region.

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano 

Does existing EU law adequately address ‘shrinkflation’ of food products? EU Member States address growing concerns

By Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, and Tobias Dolle

‘Shrinkflation’ refers to the practice of reducing the weight or quantity of a product without changing or even increasing its price without adequately informing consumers. This commercial practice is a growing concern within the EU. Some EU Member States, notably France, and Italy, have taken steps to address the issue. Most recently, on 5 September 2025, Belgium announced similar plans.

This article assesses whether existing EU rules adequately address ‘shrinkflation’ and examines which requirements EU Member States’ measures need to fulfil to be deemed compatible with EU law. 

‘Shrinkflation’ identified as a pricing practices affecting consumer trust

In July 2025, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) held a public hearing on the ‘Rise of consumer prices in the internal market’, in which ‘shrinkflation’ was identified as one of the pricing practices that “may be affecting consumer trust and contributing to market fragmentation and regulatory gaps”.

According to the European Commission’s 2025 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, 74% of consumers had noticed that some of the packaged goods they regularly purchase had reduced in size without a decrease in price. 

Existing EU law does not specifically address ‘shrinkflation’

The EU has legislated on the indication of the selling price and the price per unit of measurement, as well as on the indication of the quantity of goods (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 1 of 25 January 2024), but there is no specific legislation on ‘shrinkflation’, which must, therefore, be assessed on a case-by-case basis under the general prohibition of unfair and misleading commercial practices.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal marketstates that “a commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct”, in relation to elements, such as quantity or price and is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that he or she would not have otherwise taken. Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC, therefore, covers factually correct information that deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer and, arguably, may be applied in case a product’s size or quantity has been reduced, but where the price has stayed the same.

Article 7(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC on ‘Misleading omissions’ states that “A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features and circumstances and the limitations of the communication medium, it omits material information that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision and thereby causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise”. When shopping, the consumer may not have the price and quantity of a product in mind that applied three months ago. Arguably, omitting that a package has shrunk, while the price remains identical, may be considered as misleading under Article 7(1). Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC lists commercial practices that are “in all circumstances considered unfair”, but does not currently include misleading packaging practices. 

Recent legislative developments apparently do not address the matter. Although it has been discussed in the past to add misleading packaging practices to Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, they are not specifically listed as misleading commercial practices in Directive (EU) 2024/825 amending Directives 2005/29/EC as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information. In practice, product manufacturers have faced court proceedings for reducing the quantity of their product while keeping the same packaging and price.

In Germany, the Hamburg Regional Court Hamburg ruled on 20 February 2024 that reducing the filling quantity of a spreadable fat from 500g to 400g, while maintaining the same packaging, without sufficiently informing the consumer about the lower content, was misleading under § 5 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG), which prohibits misleading commercial practices that are likely to influence a consumer’s transactional decision. On 2 September 2025, the Hamburg Consumer Association announced that it was suing Mondelez Deutschland GmbH before the Bremen Regional Court for reducing the filling quantity of Milka brand chocolate bars without any clearly visible notice.

Specific rules targeting ‘shrinkflation’ in some EU Member States

As EU law does not specifically address this practice, in recent years, several EU Member States, such as France, and Italy, have adopted specific rules targeting ‘shrinkflation’, while others, such as Belgium, are actively considering similar measures.

In France, since 1 July 2024, retailers in the food retail sector, with stores with more than 400 square meters, are required to inform consumers, according to the Order of 16 April 2024, “about the price of products that have undergone a downward change in quantity at unchanged or rising purchase prices”. This information notice has to be displayed for a period of two months from the date the product is made available for sale in its reduced quantity, on the packaging of the product or on a label placed close to the product.

In Italy, the Government introduced a new Article 15-bis to the Consumer Code on “Measures to counter the commercial practices of resizing pre-packaged products”. Since 1 October 2025, it requires that “Producers who offer for sale, also through distributors operating in Italy, a consumer product that, while maintaining the previous packaging, has undergone a reduction in the nominal quantity and a related increase in the price per unit of measurement, shall inform the consumer about the reduced quantity and the increase in the price in percentage terms, by affixing a specific label with special graphic highlighting such in the sales packaging”. This information must be placed on the packaging, or on a sticker, for a period of six months from the date the affected product is displayed in its reduced quantity, and must include the wording: “This package contains a product X (unit of measurement) less than the previous quantity”.

In Belgium, on 5 September 2025, Belgium’s Minister responsible for Consumer Protection, Rob Beenders, announceda plan to introduce a requirement to ensure that any changes in the quantity or weight of products are clearly displayed for consumers. Details of this planned obligation have not been disclosed yet.

Infringement procedure against Italy against disproportionate measure

On 12 March 2025, the European Commission formally opened infringement proceedings by sending a letter of formal notice to Italy for failing to address the incompatibility of its labelling requirements with Articles 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

With respect to the obligation to affix on consumer products a specific indication informing that the product’s quantity has been reduced while its packaging remains unchanged, leading to an increase in the price per unit, the Commission acknowledges the importance of informing consumers about such changes. However, the Commission notes that “requiring this information to be displayed directly on each concerned product does not seem proportionate” and that “National labelling requirements constitute a major internal market barrier and seriously undermine the free movement of goods. The Commission considers that the Italian authorities have not provided sufficient evidence concerning the proportionality of the measure, as other less restrictive options are available (e.g., displaying the same information near the products concerned)”.

Therefore, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Italy, which had two months to respond and address the shortcomings raised by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion. It is worth noting that the French measure has not been targeted by the Commission, which is likely due to notable differences compared to the Italian legislation. In France, the information must be provided by distributors. Most notably, France allows the information to be provided on a sign placed near the product, as an alternative to a label on the packaging. It is precisely the labelling requirement, without alternative options, that the Commission considers as creating obstacles to the free circulation of products on the EU Single Market.

Outlook

Since there are strong economic incentives in the market for indirect price increases, such as ‘shrinkflation’, the introduction of a mandatory (temporary) indication of changes in filling quantities on a sign placed near the product, as an alternative to the label on the packaging, may be considered. Once specific legislation regulating ‘shrinkflation’ is proposed in Belgium, its legality will have to be assessed in the light of EU law. 

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Ignacio Carreño Garcia

Recently Adopted EU Legislation

Trade Law 






Trade Remedies









Customs Law













Food Law





Food Law





















Imelda Jo Anastasya, Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, Joanna Christy, Tobias Dolle, Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano contributed to this issue.





Follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social





To subscribe to Trade Perspectives©, please click here. To unsubscribe, please click here.