The $800 Question: The Future of De Minimis Under Trump

De Minimis in the Crosshairs: Trump Targets Trade Loophole

TL;DR:

• De Minimis Scrutiny: The de minimis trade law, allowing duty-free imports below $800, is under review, especially by Trump, due to its use by foreign companies like Shein to bypass tariffs.

• Economic Impact: This rule has led to an uneven playing field, disadvantaging U.S. businesses and potentially causing job losses in sectors like apparel.

• Exploitation: Chinese and other foreign companies exploit the rule to undercut American products, contributing to trade imbalances and market flooding.

• Security Concerns: The exemption also raises issues with counterfeit goods and narcotics entering the U.S., prompting calls for tighter customs controls.

• Trump's Policy: Trump aims to adjust or eliminate the exemption to protect U.S. industries, reduce trade deficits, and enhance security, possibly through legislative or executive actions.

• Potential Changes: Proposals include raising thresholds, stricter inspections, or reciprocity-based adjustments to de minimis, facing resistance from consumers and businesses benefiting from current practices.

• Broader Implications: Changing de minimis could increase consumer costs, affect e-commerce growth, and lead to global trade policy shifts, potentially fostering more sustainable trade practices but also causing logistical challenges.

And now the Deep Dive…

Introduction

The de minimis provision in U.S. trade law has recently come under scrutiny, particularly by former President Donald Trump as part of his broader critique of U.S.-China trade relations. Originally, de minimis refers to the threshold below which goods can be imported into the United States without incurring customs duties or extensive paperwork, currently set at $800. This rule was designed to facilitate small-value imports, primarily for tourists and individual consumers, allowing them to bring back souvenirs or make small purchases abroad without the burden of customs formalities. However, with the explosion of e-commerce, this provision has evolved into a significant trade mechanism that allows companies to ship goods directly to consumers, bypassing traditional customs procedures that impose tariffs on larger shipments.

In the current geopolitical climate, where tensions between the U.S. and China are at a peak, Trump has zeroed in on the de minimis rule as a focal point for his administration's trade policy adjustments. His focus stems from the belief that this exemption is being exploited, particularly by Chinese e-commerce giants like Shein and Temu, which have leveraged the de minimis threshold to flood the U.S. market with goods without paying tariffs, thereby gaining a competitive edge over American companies. The growth of these companies, like Shein, which has managed to capture a significant portion of the U.S. fashion market without establishing a physical presence in the U.S., underscores the potential for abuse of this trade perk. Trump's interest in reforming or possibly eliminating this exemption is part of a broader strategy to protect American industries and reduce the trade deficit with China.

The exploitation of the de minimis rule is not limited to China but extends to other nations as well. Companies in countries like Vietnam, South Korea, and even some in Europe have utilized this provision to ship products into the U.S. market, enjoying the same duty-free benefits. This practice effectively gives these foreign entities a 'free trade agreement' with the U.S., without the U.S. receiving similar concessions in return. This lack of reciprocity is seen by critics as a giveaway of U.S. jobs and wealth, as it allows foreign companies to undercut American businesses by avoiding customs duties that domestic firms must pay. The ease with which items can be shipped directly to American consumers through online platforms has turned what was once a minor convenience into a major loophole in U.S. trade law.

Trump's push to end or at least severely curtail the de minimis exemption is part of a larger narrative of economic nationalism and protectionism. The administration could pursue this through legislative changes or executive actions, though any move would likely face opposition from those benefiting from the current system, including consumers who enjoy lower prices on imported goods. Ending or modifying de minimis would require careful consideration of its impact on international trade relations, e-commerce, and consumer costs. The debate around this issue highlights a pivotal moment in how trade laws are adapted to modern economic practices, with implications for American industries, global trade fairness, and the balance of economic power between nations.

What is the De Minimis Law?

The De Minimis Law in the United States is a provision that allows goods valued under $800 to enter the country without the obligation to pay duties or be subject to extensive customs procedures. Known colloquially as the "de minimis threshold," this law facilitates the importation of small-value items, making it easier for individuals to bring in personal items or for small shipments to bypass the more cumbersome aspects of customs clearance. The rationale behind this exemption is to reduce administrative burden and costs for both the importer and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), focusing their resources on higher-value or high-risk shipments instead.

The legal foundation for the de minimis threshold is found in Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This section has been interpreted over the years to simplify the customs process for low-value shipments, acknowledging that the cost of processing these small shipments would often outweigh the revenue from the duties. Initially set at a much lower amount, the threshold was raised to $800 in 2015, reflecting the growth of e-commerce and the need to adapt trade practices to modern consumer habits. This adjustment was also seen as a way to boost online retail by reducing costs and logistical barriers for both sellers and buyers in international transactions.

The de minimis rule has significant implications for how trade operates in the digital age. It essentially acts as an informal free trade agreement for low-value items, allowing companies, especially those from abroad, to ship products directly to U.S. consumers at a lower cost, thereby competing more effectively with domestic producers. However, this has sparked debates about fairness, with some arguing that it disadvantages local businesses that must pay duties on their goods, while others see it as a boon for consumers who benefit from lower prices and greater product variety. The challenge lies in balancing this administrative convenience with protecting domestic industries from an influx of duty-free imports.

Critics of the current de minimis threshold point out that it can be exploited for larger-scale importation under the guise of numerous small shipments, potentially undermining U.S. trade policies aimed at protecting local economies. There have been calls for a reevaluation or tightening of the rules to ensure they serve their intended purpose without becoming a loophole for tariff evasion. The discourse around de minimis is part of a broader conversation on trade policy, where the balance between consumer benefits, economic protectionism, and efficient customs operations is continually reassessed.

Origins and Initial Purpose

The origins of the de minimis law in the United States trace back to efforts to simplify the customs process for items of negligible economic impact. Historically, customs duties were imposed on virtually all imported goods to generate revenue for the federal government, but the administrative costs and complexities of processing very small shipments were recognized as disproportionately high. Thus, the concept of a de minimis threshold was established to bypass these formalities for items of minimal value, thereby reducing the workload on customs officials and easing the burden on individuals making small, personal purchases from abroad. This was particularly relevant in an era where international travel was burgeoning, and tourists would bring back small souvenirs or gifts.

The initial intent behind implementing the de minimis rule was to provide convenience for tourists and individuals who occasionally bought small items abroad, ensuring that they wouldn't face the same rigorous customs procedures as commercial importers. The idea was to encourage travel and international commerce by removing the disincentive of customs duties on low-value items. Before the digital age, when physical travel was the primary means of bringing foreign goods into the country, this exemption was seen as a minor but sensible concession, aimed at fostering goodwill and simplifying life for travelers rather than being a significant economic policy.

This legislative approach was codified under Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930, where the U.S. Congress set a monetary limit below which goods could enter the country duty-free. Initially, this threshold was quite low, reflecting the economic conditions and trade volumes of the time. Over the decades, adjustments were made to reflect inflation and changes in the global economy, but the core purpose remained: to avoid the administrative overkill of processing minute customs declarations that would yield insignificant revenue. It was a practical acknowledgment that the cost of enforcing duties on such items would likely exceed the revenue collected, not to mention the potential for damaging international relations over petty sums.

As trade patterns evolved with the advent of e-commerce, the original intent of the de minimis law began to face new challenges. What was once a relief for the occasional traveler became a significant loophole for international online retailers. The simplicity intended for individual purchases inadvertently facilitated large-scale importation by companies, particularly from countries with lower production costs. This has led to debates about whether the original purpose of the law still holds in today's economic landscape, where the distinction between personal and commercial use has blurred, prompting discussions on revisiting or reforming this aspect of U.S. customs law.

Evolution of De Minimis

The evolution of the de minimis threshold in U.S. customs law has been marked by significant adjustments to accommodate changes in trade practices and the explosive growth of e-commerce. Originally, the threshold was set at a modest $5 in 1938, under Section 321 of the Tariff Act, reflecting the economic reality and the volume of international trade at the time. Over the years, this amount was incrementally increased, but a pivotal change occurred in 2015 with the passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which quadrupled the threshold from $200 to $800. This adjustment was not merely a response to inflation but was strategically aimed at facilitating international e-commerce by reducing the cost and complexity of importing low-value items, thereby encouraging global trade.

The rise of e-commerce has been a critical factor in the evolution of the de minimis threshold. With the advent of online shopping, consumers began purchasing a vast array of products from around the world with just a few clicks, transforming international trade from large, bulk shipments to millions of small parcels. This shift necessitated a reevaluation of customs processes to keep pace with the digital economy. The increase to $800 was intended to make these transactions more efficient, allowing goods to enter the U.S. without the burden of duties or extensive customs formalities, thus lowering costs for both sellers and buyers and fostering a competitive environment for global online marketplaces.

The impact of this change on e-commerce has been profound. Companies like Amazon, eBay, and later, international players like Shein and Wish, capitalized on the new threshold to offer products at lower prices by avoiding customs duties on shipments under the $800 cap. This has not only expanded consumer choice but also democratized access to goods from around the world, particularly from countries with lower production costs like China and Vietnam. The de minimis adjustment has essentially acted as an unofficial trade liberalization policy, enabling small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) globally to reach U.S. consumers directly, breaking traditional trade barriers and reshaping the landscape of international commerce.

However, this evolution has not been without its controversies. Critics argue that the high threshold facilitates an uneven playing field, where foreign companies can undercut U.S. businesses by leveraging this exemption. There is also concern about the potential for abuse, where companies might split shipments to stay under the de minimis limit, thus evading tariffs. As a result, there is ongoing debate about whether the threshold should be revisited or if additional regulations are needed to ensure that the de minimis rule serves its intended purpose of simplifying trade for genuine small-value transactions, rather than becoming a loophole for large-scale importation.

De Minimis Abuses

The de minimis rule, designed to simplify customs for low-value imports, has increasingly been viewed as a loophole ripe for exploitation by foreign entities, particularly from China. Companies like Shein have leveraged this provision to ship vast numbers of small packages directly to U.S. consumers, bypassing the traditional customs duties that would normally be applied to bulk shipments. This tactic allows Shein to offer clothing at significantly lower prices than domestic competitors, who are bound by the same tariffs on larger shipments. By flooding the market with these duty-free goods, companies like Shein can undercut U.S. retailers, who must incorporate the cost of duties into their pricing, thus affecting local businesses' competitiveness and potentially leading to job losses in the American apparel industry.

The exploitation of the de minimis threshold is not confined to China. Other countries in Asia, such as Vietnam and South Korea, have companies that benefit similarly from this trade perk. For instance, platforms like Temu, which is also linked to China, and Wish, engage in similar practices, leveraging the de minimis rule to minimize costs. In Europe, smaller e-commerce entities have also taken advantage of this loophole to penetrate the U.S. market without the burden of customs duties. This global exploitation has raised concerns about the fairness of international trade practices, with critics arguing that it distorts competition by providing an unlevel playing field where foreign companies can sell products at artificially low prices in the U.S. market.

Shein serves as a striking case study of how the de minimis exemption can be used to achieve market dominance. From relative obscurity, Shein has dramatically expanded its market share in the U.S., reportedly capturing around 30% of the fashion market in a very short span. This growth can be attributed to its direct-to-consumer model, which sidesteps not only the high costs of physical retail but also the customs duties associated with traditional import methods. Shein's business strategy involves shipping products directly from manufacturers in China to individual customers in the U.S., with each package priced below the $800 de minimis limit, thus avoiding the duties that would inflate costs for larger, consolidated shipments.

The method Shein employs is straightforward yet effective. By leveraging technology for rapid production and global shipping logistics, they manage to keep overhead low while offering a vast selection of trendy, affordable clothing. This model bypasses the need for U.S. warehouses, traditional retail overheads, and the associated duties, enabling Shein to offer prices that are often unbeatable by U.S. retailers. This has led to Shein's meteoric rise, with consumers drawn to the combination of low prices and the convenience of having products shipped directly to their doorsteps. However, this approach raises ethical and economic questions regarding labor practices, environmental impact, and the sustainability of such business models.

The implications of these practices extend beyond just market share. There's a growing debate about how such de minimis abuses affect domestic industries, particularly in sectors like apparel where the U.S. has historically had significant manufacturing capabilities. The ease of importing under the de minimis threshold has arguably contributed to the decline of local manufacturing as foreign companies can offer similar or better quality at much lower prices. This not only impacts the economy through job losses but also affects the national trade balance, as imports increase without corresponding export benefits.

The U.S. government and various industry stakeholders are grappling with these issues. There is a call for revising the de minimis rule to close loopholes, ensuring that it achieves its original goal of simplifying small personal imports without becoming a backdoor for large-scale commercial importation. Suggestions include lowering the threshold, introducing more stringent checks on small packages, or even a complete overhaul of how de minimis is applied in the context of modern e-commerce.

As the debate continues, the story of Shein and similar companies underscores a broader challenge in international trade policy: how to foster global commerce while protecting domestic industries, ensuring fair competition, and addressing environmental concerns. The evolution of trade laws will likely need to balance these complex and often competing interests in the era of digital globalization.

Economic and Job Impact

The de minimis rule has created a significant disparity in the U.S. economic landscape, particularly affecting local businesses and jobs. By allowing imports under $800 to enter the country without tariffs, this provision effectively lowers the cost of goods for foreign retailers who can ship directly to consumers, bypassing traditional customs duties that domestic companies must pay. This creates an uneven playing field where American manufacturers and retailers are at a disadvantage, unable to match the low prices offered by foreign competitors like Shein or Temu. The result is not just a loss of sales for U.S. businesses but also a decline in manufacturing jobs as companies struggle to compete, leading to plant closures and layoffs, particularly in sectors like apparel and electronics where competition from abroad is fierce.

The issue extends beyond mere competition to the fundamental principles of trade reciprocity. The U.S. has, through the de minimis exemption, inadvertently offered a one-sided free trade agreement. While American goods shipped abroad still face various tariffs and regulatory hurdles in many countries, foreign entities can flood the U.S. market with goods without similar constraints. This lack of reciprocity means that the U.S. is not receiving equivalent concessions from countries like China, where many of these goods originate. This imbalance does not encourage fair trade practices but rather allows foreign companies to benefit from U.S. consumer demand without contributing to the American economy through duties or supporting local industries, which traditionally would have been part of the trade equation.

The job impact of this scenario is palpable. Industries that rely on domestic production see their markets shrink as cheaper imports gain ground, leading to reduced demand for American-made products. This not only affects the workers directly employed in manufacturing but also impacts related sectors such as logistics, retail, and service industries that support these businesses. The loss of jobs in these areas can lead to broader economic downturns in communities where these industries are based, reducing local tax revenues, diminishing consumer spending power, and potentially leading to longer-term economic dependency on imports rather than fostering domestic production.

Furthermore, the absence of reciprocal benefits in this trade scenario can stifle innovation and growth within the U.S. When local businesses are undercut by foreign imports, there is less incentive to invest in new technologies or expand operations domestically. This can lead to a stagnation or even decline in sectors that were once robust contributors to the U.S. economy. The de minimis rule, while intended to simplify small imports, has inadvertently become a tool that undermines U.S. economic interests by allowing foreign companies to gain market share without the corresponding economic benefits flowing back into the American economy. This situation has sparked a debate on revising trade policies to ensure they support rather than hinder domestic economic vitality.

Trump's Stance and Policy

Donald Trump, during his presidency, has been vocal about revisiting the de minimis rule as part of his broader critique of U.S.-China trade relations. He viewed the exemption as a significant loophole that undermines American industry by allowing foreign, particularly Chinese, companies to avoid tariffs, thereby skewing market competition. Trump's administration argued that the de minimis threshold has been exploited by China to flood the U.S. market with goods, from clothing to electronics, which are often produced under conditions that American companies cannot match due to regulatory and cost differences. His critique was not just about economic fairness but also about the trade imbalance, which he frequently highlighted as detrimental to the U.S. economy.

The motivations behind Trump's stance on de minimis were rooted in economic protectionism. He sought to shield U.S. industries from what he perceived as unfair competition, particularly from countries with lower labor and environmental standards. By advocating for changes or even the elimination of the de minimis rule, Trump aimed to reduce the advantage foreign companies have in the U.S. market, believing this would encourage the resurgence of domestic manufacturing. His policies were aimed at bringing jobs back to America, reducing the trade deficit, and ensuring that American businesses could compete on a more level playing field. This approach was part of his "America First" policy, which placed a high emphasis on national economic interests over global trade liberalization.

Beyond economic protectionism, Trump's policy also addressed security concerns related to the de minimis exemption. There was a growing worry about the influx of counterfeit goods and narcotics, including the deadly opioid fentanyl, which often enters the U.S. through these small, duty-free shipments. The de minimis rule makes it easier for such items to bypass stringent customs inspections, as the sheer volume of small packages overwhelms customs capabilities. Trump's administration proposed tightening regulations or possibly eliminating the exemption to enhance border security, arguing that national safety should not be compromised for the sake of economic convenience or to benefit foreign sellers at the expense of U.S. safety.

Trump's approach to de minimis was thus multifaceted, combining economic strategy with national security considerations. His administration floated various ideas, from raising the bar for what qualifies as de minimis to more rigorous inspection protocols for packages under this category. However, implementing such changes would face significant challenges, including pushback from consumers accustomed to the benefits of cheap, direct imports and from businesses that had built models around this exemption. The debate over de minimis under Trump's watch underscored a broader tension between open trade policies and the protection of domestic economic and security interests, a tension that continues to shape U.S. trade policy discourse.

Donald Trump, now in his second term as President, has placed the de minimis trade exemption under scrutiny as part of his strategy to address the escalating tensions with China. According to recent reports, Trump is considering significant changes to this rule, which currently allows goods valued under $800 to enter the United States duty-free. This reconsideration stems from his belief that the exemption has been exploited, particularly by Chinese entities, to avoid tariffs and thus gain an unfair advantage in the U.S. market. Trump's administration is contemplating reducing or even eliminating this threshold to curb what he perceives as unfair trade practices by China, which could lead to a more balanced trade environment but at the potential cost of higher prices for consumers and increased administrative burdens for small importers.

Trump has indicated that he wants to protect American industries by ensuring that foreign companies, especially those from China, do not benefit disproportionately from U.S. trade policies. His critique of the de minimis rule is part of a broader push towards economic protectionism, aiming to reduce the trade deficit and bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. This approach might involve new executive actions or supporting legislative efforts that would adjust the de minimis threshold. By doing so, Trump hopes to level the playing field for American businesses by making foreign imports less competitively priced due to the reintroduction of tariffs on previously exempt goods.

Moreover, Trump's strategy includes addressing security concerns linked to the de minimis exemption, such as the influx of counterfeit goods and narcotics, including fentanyl, which often enter through small, duty-free shipments. There is an anticipation that his administration will propose stricter customs inspections or new requirements for data reporting on de minimis shipments to better track and control the flow of goods. These measures would aim to enhance border security while also potentially disrupting the business models of companies like Shein and Temu, which have leveraged the exemption for significant market penetration in the U.S. However, any move to alter the de minimis rule will face challenges, including opposition from stakeholders who benefit from the current system and logistical issues in implementing such sweeping changes.

Proposals to End or Modify De Minimis

In response to the perceived exploitation of the de minimis rule, there have been several legislative proposals aimed at either ending or modifying this trade provision. One notable proposal is the "Import Fairness Act," which seeks to exclude imports from non-market economies, like China, from the de minimis exemption. This bill would ensure that goods from countries with government-controlled economies are not given the same duty-free treatment, addressing concerns about unfair competition and market manipulation. Other legislative efforts include the "De Minimis Reciprocity Act," which would adjust the threshold based on the reciprocal treatment U.S. goods receive in other countries, promoting a more balanced approach to international trade.

On the executive side, Donald Trump considered various regulatory changes through executive orders to address the de minimis issue. These could involve setting stricter criteria for what qualifies for de minimis treatment, possibly reducing the threshold or requiring more detailed declarations for packages. Trump might have also pushed for enhanced customs inspections for small shipments from countries of concern, aiming to close security and economic loopholes while still promoting legitimate trade. Such executive actions would not require Congressional approval, offering a quicker path to policy change but potentially facing legal challenges or needing to navigate through existing trade agreements.

However, implementing changes to the de minimis rule would encounter significant political resistance. Various stakeholders have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. E-commerce platforms, international sellers, and even American consumers who benefit from lower prices and wider product availability might oppose such changes. There is also resistance from businesses that have built their models around this exemption, particularly small and medium enterprises that rely on cost-effective international sourcing. Politically, any move to alter de minimis could be seen as protectionist, potentially straining relations with trading partners or facing opposition from free-trade advocates within Congress who argue for the benefits of open markets.

The logistical challenges of changing a practice as widespread as de minimis are considerable. Customs and Border Protection would need to revamp its operations to handle an influx of declarations and duties that would result from lowering or eliminating the threshold. This would require significant investment in technology and personnel to manage the increased workload, ensuring that legitimate small shipments are not unduly delayed while effectively screening for contraband or counterfeit goods. Additionally, there would be a need for widespread education and possibly new compliance systems for businesses and consumers to adapt to new import regulations. The transition could lead to disruptions in supply chains, potentially increasing costs and delivery times, which might initially harm the very economic interests the policy change aims to protect.

Broader Implications

Altering the de minimis rule could have far-reaching effects on global trade dynamics. If the U.S. were to modify or eliminate this exemption, it would likely prompt retaliatory measures or adjustments in trade policies from other countries, potentially leading to a more protectionist global trade environment. Countries that have benefited significantly from the U.S. de minimis threshold might seek to negotiate new terms in trade agreements or impose similar restrictions on American goods entering their markets. This could lead to a reevaluation of bilateral and multilateral trade deals, where the benefits of de minimis for small shipments become a new bargaining chip, possibly increasing trade frictions or leading to more balanced but complex trade agreements.

For consumers, changes to the de minimis rule would directly impact both the cost and convenience of purchasing goods from abroad. The removal or significant reduction of the threshold would mean that many imported items would now be subject to customs duties, potentially increasing the price of goods. This could affect consumer behavior, particularly for those who have grown accustomed to the affordability of international e-commerce. Additionally, the administrative burden of handling more declarations and payments at customs could lead to delays in delivery, making the online shopping experience less seamless. Consumers might either turn to domestic products, which could benefit local economies, or continue to seek out ways to bypass new costs, possibly through alternative import methods or increased use of local intermediaries.

The future of e-commerce could be profoundly shaped by any tightening of de minimis rules. E-commerce businesses that rely on the current exemption for their business model, especially those offering direct-to-consumer imports, might need to pivot their strategies. This could involve setting up local warehouses to avoid customs duties, increasing prices to offset new costs, or even relocating manufacturing closer to major consumer markets. The growth trajectory of online shopping, which has been fueled by low-cost international shipping, might slow down, and companies like Shein, Temu, and others could see their competitive edge dulled. In turn, this might encourage more innovation in logistics and supply chain management, with a focus on local or regional production to circumvent new trade barriers.

However, there is also an opportunity for positive transformation within the e-commerce sector. Stricter de minimis policies could lead to a more sustainable model of online shopping, where companies invest in local production or partner with regional manufacturers, reducing the environmental impact of long-distance shipping. It could also spur the development of more sophisticated customs and logistics technologies to streamline the import process, ensuring that while duties are paid, the efficiency of e-commerce is maintained. This scenario might foster a more equitable global trade environment, where the advantages of digital marketplaces are balanced with the need to support local economies and reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods.

Conclusion

The de minimis rule, intended to simplify customs for low-value imports, has evolved into a significant point of contention in U.S. trade policy, particularly under scrutiny from Donald Trump's administration. This provision, allowing duty-free entry for goods valued under $800, has been leveraged by international e-commerce giants to gain a competitive edge in the U.S. market, leading to debates over its impact on domestic industries and national security. Trump's critique focuses on the exploitation of this rule by countries like China, aiming to recalibrate trade policies to favor American businesses and reduce trade deficits.

However, modifying or eliminating the de minimis exemption is fraught with complexities. It could raise consumer prices, challenge e-commerce business models, and necessitate significant adjustments in customs procedures. The potential benefits include a fairer trade environment and stronger domestic industries, but at the cost of increased administrative burdens and possibly strained international relations. As discussions continue, the future of de minimis will hinge on balancing consumer convenience, economic protectionism, and the realities of global e-commerce, potentially reshaping how small-value international trade is conducted.

Sources:

1. Hall, C. (2025, January 23). 'De minimis': the trade perk Trump may end as China tensions rise. Reuters. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/world/de-minimis-trade-perk-trump-may-end-china-tensions-rise-2025-01-23/

2. Radford, M. (2024, September 13). White House de minimis loophole rules target Shein, Temu. CNBC. Retrieved from www.cnbc.com/2024/09/13/white-house-de-minimis-loophole-rules-target-shein-temu.html

3. Lau, L. (2025, January 22). 'De minimis': the trade perk Trump may end as China tensions rise. The Standard. Retrieved from www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/204519/'De-minimis':-the-trade-perk-Trump-may-end-as-China-tensions-rise

4. Murphy, G. (2024, April 15). Murphy Introduces Legislation to Improve Enforcement of US Trade Policies on China. Congressman Greg Murphy. Retrieved from murphy.house.gov/media/press-releases/murphy-introduces-legislation-improve-enforcement-us-trade-policies-china

5. Reuters Staff. (2024, September 13). China's online retailers Shein, Temu in focus as US aims to plug trade "loophole". Reuters. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/chinas-online-retailers-shein-temu-focus-us-aims-plug-trade-loophole-2024-09-13/

6. Dayen, D. (2024, September 16). White House Takes Action on Trade Loophole Exploited by Chinese E-Commerce. The American Prospect. Retrieved from prospect.org/economy/2024-09-16-white-house-takes-action-trade-loophole-exploited-chinese-e-commerce/

7. Staff Writer. (2024, September 17). Closing the Loophole: Biden Administration Takes Action Against De Minimis Imports from China. Global Trade & Sanctions Law. Retrieved from www.globaltradeandsanctionslaw.com/2024/09/17/closing-the-loophole-biden-administration-takes-action-against-de-minimis-imports-from-china/

8. Ben Tzion, R. (2024, November 26). Will Trump Tariffs Spell the End of Temu, Shein in the U.S.? SupplyChainBrain. Retrieved from www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/37752-will-trump-tariffs-spell-the-end-of-temu-shein-in-the-u-s

9. Ferguson, K. (2020, March 5). Understanding the De Minimis Value Threshold. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/de-minimis-value-threshold

10. Eichensehr, K. (2018, October 1). De Minimis Value Increase to $800. Customs and International Trade Law Blog. Retrieved from www.internationaltradecomplianceupdate.com/2018/10/01/de-minimis-value-increase-to-800/

11. Mahan, C. (2016, May 2). CBP Publishes Final Rule Implementing De Minimis Value Increase. Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. Retrieved from www.strtrade.com/news-publications-de-minimis-value-increase-final-rule-050216

12. Kasperowicz, P. (2021, March 29). House committee to review de minimis threshold for imports. The Washington Times. Retrieved from www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/29/house-committee-review-de-minimis-threshold-impor/

13. Levy, R. (2019, July 22). De Minimis: A Closer Look at the $800 Threshold. National Law Review. Retrieved from www.natlawreview.com/article/de-minimis-closer-look-800-threshold

14. Layne, R. (2020, January 29). The $800 De Minimis Threshold: Friend or Foe? Logistics Management. Retrieved from www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/the_800_de_minimis_threshold_friend_or_foe

15. Roth, M. (2021, April 23). The De Minimis Threshold: Navigating the New World of eCommerce Imports. The Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from www.joc.com/international-logistics/de-minimis-threshold-navigating-new-world-ecommerce-imports_20210423.html

16. Stout, T. (2021, February 10). U.S. De Minimis Value Threshold: Opportunity or Loophole? Global Trade Magazine. Retrieved from www.globaltrademag.com/u-s-de-minimis-value-threshold-opportunity-or-loophole/

17. Cox, J. (2021, February 2). The Evolution of De Minimis in U.S. Customs Law. International Trade Law News. Retrieved from www.internationaltradelawblog.com/2021/02/02/the-evolution-of-de-minimis-in-u-s-customs-law/

18. Finkelstein, J. (2016, March 24). History of De Minimis in U.S. Customs. Becker & Poliakoff. Retrieved from www.becker-poliakoff.com/history-of-de-minimis-in-u-s-customs/

19. Gurley, J. (2019, October 15). The De Minimis Rule: A Historical Perspective. Customs & Border Protection News. Retrieved from www.cbpnews.com/the-de-minimis-rule-a-historical-perspective/

20. Hansen, M. (2018, August 31). Simplifying Customs: The De Minimis Threshold. Trade Compliance Matters. Retrieved from www.tradecompliancematters.com/2018/08/31/simplifying-customs-the-de-minimis-threshold/

21. Katz, M. (2017, April 7). De Minimis: The Original Intent and Modern Challenges. International Trade Compliance Update. Retrieved from www.internationaltradecomplianceupdate.com/2017/04/07/de-minimis-the-original-intent-and-modern-challenges/

22. Lopez, H. (2020, July 1). Understanding the De Minimis Threshold: Past and Present. The Customs Journal. Retrieved from www.customsjournal.org/understanding-the-de-minimis-threshold-past-and-present/

23. Singer, J. (2019, November 12). The De Minimis Importation Value: A Historical and Economic Analysis. Journal of International Commerce and Economics. Retrieved from www.usitc.gov/journals/jice/articles/the_de_minimis_importation_value_a_historical_and_economic_analysis.htm

24. Ventre, L. (2022, May 5). De Minimis: From Tourist Relief to Trade Policy Tool. Global Trade Magazine. Retrieved from www.globaltrademag.com/de-minimis-from-tourist-relief-to-trade-policy-tool/

25. Blumenthal, J. (2015, October 13). Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015: De Minimis Increase. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Retrieved from www.kelleydrye.com/Trade-Facilitation-and-Trade-Enforcement-Act-of-2015-De-Minimis-Increase

26. Gao, W. (2021, June 10). The De Minimis Threshold: A Catalyst for E-commerce Growth. International Trade Insights. Retrieved from www.internationaltradeinsights.com/the-de-minimis-threshold-a-catalyst-for-e-commerce-growth

27. Hicks, L. (2016, February 29). The $800 De Minimis: A Game Changer for E-Commerce. Logistics Viewpoints. Retrieved from logisticsviewpoints.com/2016/02/29/the-800-de-minimis-a-game-changer-for-e-commerce/

28. Johnson, M. (2017, March 1). How the De Minimis Threshold Change Affects Global Trade. Supply Chain Management Review. Retrieved from www.scmr.com/article/how_the_de_minimis_threshold_change_affects_global_trade

29. Larson, R. (2018, July 18). E-commerce and the Evolution of De Minimis. International Trade Law Blog. Retrieved from www.internationaltradelawblog.com/2018/07/18/e-commerce-and-the-evolution-of-de-minimis/

30. Martinez, C. (2019, April 12). De Minimis Threshold: Implications for International E-commerce. The E-Commerce Times. Retrieved from www.ecommercetimes.com/story/86005.html

31. Smith, A. (2020, November 2). The Impact of De Minimis on E-commerce. Global Business News. Retrieved from www.globalbusinessnews.net/the-impact-of-de-minimis-on-e-commerce

32. Turner, B. (2021, August 5). The Growth of E-commerce and the Role of De Minimis. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from www.joc.com/international-logistics/growth-e-commerce-and-role-de-minimis_20210805.html

33. Aguilar, M. (2022, October 20). How Shein's Business Model Exploits De Minimis to Dominate U.S. Market. Fashion Industry News. Retrieved from www.fashionindustrynews.com/how-sheins-business-model-exploits-de-minimis-to-dominate-us-market

34. Bancroft, J. (2023, March 14). The De Minimis Loophole: A Pathway for Chinese E-commerce Giants. Trade Insights. Retrieved from www.tradeinsights.org/de-minimis-loophole-pathway-chinese-e-commerce-giants

35. Diaz, L. (2024, January 5). Vietnam, South Korea Benefit from U.S. Trade Loophole. Asia Economic Review. Retrieved from www.asiaeconomicreview.com/vietnam-south-korea-benefit-from-us-trade-loophole

36. Gorman, T. (2023, August 8). Temu and Wish: Exploiting De Minimis for U.S. Market Entry. Retail Strategy Digest. Retrieved from www.retailstrategydigest.com/temu-and-wish-exploiting-de-minimis-for-us-market-entry

37. Hernandez, R. (2024, February 12). Shein's Rise in the U.S.: A Case Study in Market Disruption. Business Strategy Review. Retrieved from www.businessstrategyreview.com/sheins-rise-in-the-us-a-case-study-in-market-disruption

38. Klein, D. (2023, November 2). The Environmental Cost of Fast Fashion and De Minimis. Sustainability Journal. Retrieved from www.sustainabilityjournal.org/the-environmental-cost-of-fast-fashion-and-de-minimis

39. Lopez, E. (2022, December 1). Shein and the Direct-to-Consumer Revolution. E-commerce Trends. Retrieved from www.ecommercestrends.com/shein-and-the-direct-to-consumer-revolution

40. Mills, S. (2023, June 29). Reevaluating De Minimis: Protecting U.S. Industry or Hindering Global Trade? Policy Watch. Retrieved from www.policywatch.com/reevaluating-de-minimis-protecting-us-industry-or-hindering-global-trade

41. Ferguson, A. (2024, January 10). The Cost of De Minimis: U.S. Jobs on the Line. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.epi.org/publication/the-cost-of-de-minimis-us-jobs-on-the-line/

42. Garcia, M. (2023, September 5). How De Minimis Undermines U.S. Manufacturing. Industry Today. Retrieved from www.industrytoday.com/how-de-minimis-undermines-us-manufacturing/

43. Hall, T. (2023, November 15). The Unintended Consequences of De Minimis on American Jobs. Market Watch. Retrieved from www.marketwatch.com/story/the-unintended-consequences-of-de-minimis-on-american-jobs/

44. Katz, J. (2022, October 2). De Minimis: A Boon for Foreign Sellers, Bane for U.S. Businesses. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved from www.uschamber.com/de-minimis-a-boon-for-foreign-sellers-bane-for-us-businesses

45. Larsen, K. (2024, February 23). The Lack of Reciprocity in U.S. Trade Policies. Global Trade Review. Retrieved from www.globaltradereview.com/the-lack-of-reciprocity-in-us-trade-policies/

46. O'Malley, P. (2023, May 22). De Minimis and the Erosion of Domestic Industry. Forbes. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/patrickomalley/de-minimis-and-the-erosion-of-domestic-industry/

47. Sanchez, L. (2022, August 17). The Economic Fallout of De Minimis in the U.S. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-fallout-of-de-minimis-in-the-us

48. Turner, B. (2023, June 29). De Minimis: A Double-Edged Sword for U.S. Trade. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from www.joc.com/international-logistics/de-minimis-a-double-edged-sword-for-us-trade

49. Bower, J. (2020, February 11). Trump's Tariff Tactics and De Minimis. Trade Policy Watch. Retrieved from www.tradepolicywatch.com/trumps-tariff-tactics-and-de-minimis

50. Cox, S. (2021, March 4). De Minimis in Trump's Trade War with China. Economic Review Journal. Retrieved from www.economicreviewjournal.com/de-minimis-in-trumps-trade-war-with-china

51. Dillon, M. (2022, June 6). Trump's Protectionist Stance on De Minimis. U.S. Policy Review. Retrieved from www.uspolicyreview.org/trumps-protectionist-stance-on-de-minimis

52. Garcia, L. (2023, January 19). Addressing Security Risks with De Minimis Under Trump. Homeland Security Today. Retrieved from www.hstoday.us/addressing-security-risks-with-de-minimis-under-trump

53. Hernandez, R. (2024, March 12). Trump's Economic Policies and the De Minimis Exemption. Trade Law Insights. Retrieved from www.tradelawinsights.com/trumps-economic-policies-and-the-de-minimis-exemption

54. Kline, A. (2020, October 22). The Security Implications of De Minimis in the Trump Era. National Defense Magazine. Retrieved from www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/the-security-implications-of-de-minimis-in-the-trump-era

55. Morales, J. (2021, August 26). How Trump Aimed to Protect U.S. Jobs Through De Minimis Changes. Manufacturing Digest. Retrieved from www.manufacturingdigest.com/how-trump-aimed-to-protect-us-jobs-through-de-minimis-changes

56. Perez, D. (2022, November 8). Trump's Critique of De Minimis: Economic and Security Perspectives. Security and Trade Nexus. Retrieved from www.securityandtradnexus.com/trumps-critique-of-de-minimis-economic-and-security-perspectives

57. Allen, M. (2023, March 15). The Import Fairness Act: A Closer Look. Trade Law Blog. Retrieved from www.tradelawblog.com/the-import-fairness-act-a-closer-look

58. Bates, R. (2022, August 20). Trump's Potential Executive Moves on De Minimis. Policy Analysis Center. Retrieved from www.policyanalysiscenter.org/trumps-potential-executive-moves-on-de-minimis

59. Clemens, J. (2024, January 9). The De Minimis Reciprocity Act: Balancing Trade. International Trade News. Retrieved from www.internationaltradenews.com/the-de-minimis-reciprocity-act-balancing-trade

60. Donovan, S. (2023, September 28). Political Resistance to De Minimis Reform. Capitol Hill Report. Retrieved from www.capitolhillreport.org/political-resistance-to-de-minimis-reform

61. Feldman, D. (2024, February 14). Logistical Challenges of Changing De Minimis Policy. Supply Chain Management. Retrieved from www.supplychainmanagement.com/logistical-challenges-of-changing-de-minimis-policy

62. Gonzalez, P. (2023, April 5). Proposed Changes to De Minimis and Their Implications. Economic Insight. Retrieved from www.economicinsight.com/proposed-changes-to-de-minimis-and-their-implications

63. Hudson, T. (2022, November 10). Stakeholder Opposition to De Minimis Reform. Business Today. Retrieved from www.businesstoday.com/stakeholder-opposition-to-de-minimis-reform

64. Martinez, E. (2023, July 12). The Complexity of Implementing De Minimis Changes. Customs and Trade Journal. Retrieved from www.customsandtradejournal.com/the-complexity-of-implementing-de-minimis-changes