EO-14411
Strengthening Customs Enforcement
- Signed
- Jun 3, 2026
- Published
- Jun 10, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-11595
Source: Federal Register.
Tightening Rules for Companies That Import Goods Into the U.S.
What it does
This order directs the Department of Homeland Security to tighten the rules for who can import goods into the United States and how. It requires importers to hold more financial assets or bonds, disclose more information about their ownership and supply chains, and meet stricter compliance standards to maintain "good standing" with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Foreign-based importers face additional restrictions, including a ban on using the simpler "informal entry" process and tighter bonding requirements for formal entries.
Who benefits
U.S.-based manufacturers and retailers who compete with foreign importers, since stricter rules would raise costs and barriers for foreign competitors. American workers in industries affected by undercutting from low-cost imports. Domestic customs brokers and compliance firms, who would see increased demand for their services. Consumers who buy products that may currently enter the country with falsified safety or origin data. Workers in countries with forced labor protections, as the order prioritizes enforcement of forced labor import bans. U.S. government revenue collectors, as higher bond requirements and stricter duty collection would reduce unpaid customs debts.
Who is affected
Foreign companies and individuals who currently import goods into the U.S. using the informal entry process, which would be eliminated for them. Small and mid-sized foreign exporters who lack the U.S. assets, bonding capacity, or compliance infrastructure to meet the new requirements. U.S. consumers who buy imported goods, as higher compliance costs for importers could raise retail prices. E-commerce platforms and marketplace sellers that rely on direct-from-foreign-manufacturer shipping models. Customs brokers who represent non-compliant clients, who face higher penalties. Freight forwarders and bonded warehouse operators subject to new vetting requirements. Foreign manufacturers currently using continuous bonds, who would need to obtain transaction-specific bonds or CTPAT certification.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current customs system contains well-documented loopholes that allow foreign importers to undervalue goods, misrepresent origins, evade duties, and import products made with forced labor — all with limited financial consequences because their assets are overseas and largely beyond U.S. enforcement reach. They contend that requiring foreign importers to hold U.S.-based assets or bonds, disclose beneficial ownership, and use formal entry processes simply puts them on a genuinely equal footing with U.S.-based importers who already face these accountability mechanisms. Supporters further argue that stronger customs enforcement protects national security by reducing the flow of illicit goods, including fentanyl precursors, and that the order's reliance on existing statutory authority under Title 19 keeps it well within established congressional delegations of power.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the order's differential treatment of foreign importers — barring them from informal entry and imposing asset and bonding requirements that U.S. importers do not face — could violate U.S. obligations under World Trade Organization agreements and bilateral trade treaties that require non-discriminatory treatment of imports. They contend that the new disclosure and bonding requirements would impose significant compliance costs that effectively function as non-tariff barriers, raising prices for American consumers and disrupting supply chains that U.S. businesses depend on. Opponents also argue that key terms like "good standing" and "significant domestic assets" are left undefined pending agency rulemaking, creating legal uncertainty and potential due process concerns, and that the breadth of the agency discretion granted may face heightened scrutiny under the major questions doctrine given the sweeping economic significance of restructuring import eligibility rules.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order cites Article II presidential authority and directs action under multiple Title 19 statutes, specifically 19 U.S.C. §§ 66, 1484, 1498, 1623, 1624, and 4320, which delegate to the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to regulate customs entry procedures, set bond requirements, and establish importer eligibility rules. Implementation must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, meaning new regulations require notice-and-comment rulemaking and are subject to independent judicial review under the post-Loper Bright standard, which eliminates automatic deference to agency interpretations of their own statutory authority.