New Executive Order Signals Broad Customs Enforcement Overhaul

On June 3, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14411, “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to revise rules, guidance, and enforcement practices governing both U.S.-based and foreign importers of record (IORs), customs brokers, freight forwarders, bonded merchandise custodians, and other participants in the import ecosystem. Although the EO does not itself change operative legal standards or impose new legal obligations, it directs the Secretary of DHS to take additional steps within the next 45 to 180 days that could significantly reshape customs enforcement across industries, including by tightening importer eligibility, requiring additional entry information and certifications, imposing heightened requirements on foreign IORs, and reducing the availability of penalty mitigation when customs violations are identified.

The EO should be understood in the context of the Administration’s broader trade agenda. Even after the adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump, which struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA),  the Trump Administration continues to rely heavily on tariffs and customs-related authorities as economic tools of national security and as a key source of leverage and revenue to implement its America First Trade Policy.

I. Key Provisions of the EO

a. Higher eligibility, bonding, and disclosure requirements for all IORs

Within 180 days, the DHS Secretary must take steps to revise importer eligibility regulations, guidance, and policies.  Those changes are expected to apply to both U.S. and foreign IORs and to both formal and informal entries.  The EO also directs CBP to require each IOR to maintain a minimum level of tangible domestic assets, bonding, or both, in an amount CBP determines is necessary to ensure compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws.  CBP must also increase minimum required bond coverage.

In addition, CBP is directed to require additional importer-identification and risk information from IORs, including anticipated import volumes, year organized, ownership and beneficial ownership disclosures, business affiliation disclosures, domestic asset disclosures, and any other data CBP deems necessary. When promulgated, these new requirements are likely to make importer onboarding and continued importer eligibility more document-intensive and rigorous, particularly for foreign importers and for companies using complex corporate or distributor structures. Moreover, these additional disclosure and documentation requirements may lay the groundwork for expanded enforcement actions, including investigations under the False Claims Act.

b. A new “good standing” requirement

The EO instructs DHS to require all IORs to maintain “good standing” with CBP. In particular, CBP is tasked with defining that standard, taking into consideration factors like an IOR’s and its affiliates’ customs compliance history, payment of customs liabilities, and “other relevant considerations.” Although the EO does not specify what such additional considerations may include, it identifies at least one automatic disqualifier: IORs found by CBP to have “illegally imported fentanyl, nitazene, or other illicit substances or contraband . . . for the purposes of manufacturing illicit substances” will not be considered in “good standing.”

The consequences of failing to maintain good standing could be significant.  The EO contemplates that an IOR not in good standing may be barred from importing goods into the United States or engaging in activities directly related to importation, including being prohibited from designating a customs broker to act as IOR on its behalf.

c. Separate and more burdensome rules for foreign IORs

The EO articulates new requirements to differentiate imports by “U.S. IORs” and “foreign IORs,” with an aim to place them on equal footing in terms of the regulatory burdens and hurdles they face.  The EO focuses on the “substantial barriers” the United States faces in enforcing its customs laws as the basis for these changes.  Under the provisions laid out in the EO, foreign IORs would face several additional restrictions:

• No informal entries.  DHS must prohibit foreign IORs from filing informal entries, which generally have been available for goods valued at $2,500 or less and often provide a faster and less expensive entry pathway.
• Restrictions on continuous bonds.  For formal entries, foreign IORs generally would be prohibited from relying on continuous bonds unless CBP determines that the bond fully protects revenue and assures compliance with applicable customs laws, regulations, and instructions.  Because continuous bonds typically remain in effect for 12 months and cover multiple entries, rather than a single shipment, they are standard practice for many importers.  Restricting their use would mark a significant departure from current practice and could require foreign IORs to obtain transaction-specific bonds for individual shipments, increasing both administrative burden and working-capital requirements.
• CTPAT-related requirement.  A foreign IOR must be validated in CBP’s Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT), if the foreign IOR is eligible, or must use a CTPAT-validated licensed customs broker to file entries.

d. More aggressive—and less forgiving—enforcement standards

In keeping with the Administration’s push for greater enforcement in this space, the EO directs DHS to revise its mitigation standards to establish a minimum penalty floor of at least 50 percent of the assessed penalty, unless exceptional circumstances exist that materially affect national security. DHS must also establish a minimum liquidated-damages floor and eliminate mitigation for repeat offenders.  In practical terms, the EO limits CBP’s ability to reduce penalties and signals that importers and brokers should expect less room to resolve violations through steep post-assessment mitigation.

The EO also directs DHS and the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement involving forced labor, misclassification, undervaluation, and illegal transshipment, including under the Enforce and Protect Act.  DHS is further directed to increase audits, pursue liquidated-damages claims against bonds, restrict in-bond utilization, and impose maximum penalties on brokers that fail to conduct due diligence, repeatedly represent noncompliant clients, or fail to cooperate with CBP requests for information.  These measures signal an intent to target not only IORs, but also brokers and other entities that support import activity.

II. Key Takeaways & Recommended Next Steps

Although the full implications of the EO will depend on the forthcoming regulations, guidance, and potential legislation, importers should not wait for final rules before preparing for the EO’s impact.  The EO signals that CBP will now place greater emphasis on importer identity, domestic asset presence, affiliate compliance history, bond sufficiency, and supply-chain documentation.  In addition, customs brokers and other intermediaries should be prepared to face heightened expectations for due diligence and respond promptly to CBP inquiries.

In light of these signals, IORs and their affiliates should:

• Map current IOR structures.  Identify which entities serve as IOR, whether any are nonresident or foreign IORs, and whether any U.S. entities used in the import chain have sufficient domestic presence, assets, and governance to support their role.
• Assess foreign IOR exposure.  Foreign IORs should evaluate whether they rely on informal entry for low-value shipments, whether they use continuous bonds, whether they can satisfy CTPAT-related requirements directly or through a broker, and whether their U.S. footprint or related-party structure could be challenged as insufficient to qualify as a U.S. IOR.
• Review compliance history across affiliates.  Evaluate prior penalties, liquidated-damages claims, prior disclosures, payment issues, detentions, seizures, audits, and broker communications that could affect good-standing determinations or risk tiering.
• Strengthen entry-data controls.  Confirm that classification, valuation, country-of-origin, forced-labor, supply-chain, and product-specification data are complete, supportable, and consistent across commercial, logistics, and customs records, should CBP request such information.
• Prepare for expanded certifications.  Assess whether current supplier questionnaires, contracts, and compliance procedures support certifications relating to CAATSA, forced labor, and other supply-chain requirements CBP may identify.
• Review IOR-for-others arrangements.  U.S. companies that serve as IOR for affiliates, suppliers, customers, or foreign principals should assess whether those arrangements could create affiliate-based scrutiny or liability for inaccurate or incomplete supplier-provided information.

III. Conclusion

The EO is the latest indication that tariffs and customs enforcement remain central to the Administration’s economic, trade, and national security agenda.  Although the post-Learning Resources landscape continues to evolve—including ongoing Section 232 investigations across key industrial sectors and proposed Section 301 duties affecting most U.S. trading partners—the Administration appears committed to pursuing tariffs and related import restrictions through all available authorities.

The EO reinforces this trajectory by strengthening the mechanisms through which CBP can collect and enforce those duties, while equipping the Trade Fraud Task Force with enhanced tools to target misclassification, undervaluation, and illegal transshipment.  If implemented as envisioned, the new framework would make importer eligibility and good standing critical prerequisites for market access, impose additional costs and operational burdens on foreign IORs, require more detailed supply-chain and ownership disclosures, and substantially limit the availability of post-assessment penalty mitigation.  More broadly, the new framework signals an expansion of customs enforcement beyond traditional duty collection and a heightened focus on customs brokers, freight forwarders, and other participants in the import ecosystem.

Companies should use the implementation period to assess their import structures, affiliate compliance history, bond arrangements, entry-data controls, and supply-chain documentation in anticipation of heightened CBP scrutiny.

Riddhi Suva, a law clerk in our Palo Alto office and Summer Associate Carlee M. Goldberg in the Washington, D.C. office contributed to the writing of this article.