Ever bought something online from overseas and it just magically arrived? Those days might be changing fast! The US just ended a long-standing rule that let many low-value imports skip tariffs. What does this mean for your next international purchase or even your favorite small business? Prepare for a significant shift in how goods enter the country.

A significant shift in United States trade policy has taken effect, profoundly altering the landscape for international shipments and online shoppers. Effective Friday, the longstanding “de minimis” rule, which previously allowed parcels valued at $800 or less to enter the U.S. duty-free, has been eliminated. This decisive action, rooted in former President Donald Trump’s ambitious agenda to rebalance global trade and reduce national dependency on foreign goods, marks a pivotal moment for **US tariffs** and **import duties** on low-value items.

The removal of this key exemption means that low-value imports, which once bypassed customs checks, will now be subject to rigorous vetting and the applicable tariff rates of their origin country. This change has been implemented nearly two years ahead of the original schedule set by Congress in the tax cuts and spending bill, underscoring the urgency behind the administration’s trade policy adjustments.

Initially, for the next six months, mail carriers have the option to apply a flat duty ranging from $80 to $200 to packages transiting through the global postal network. However, following this transitional period, both postal shipments and those handled by private courier services will uniformly be subject to the standard value-based tariff rates, adding a new layer of complexity and **online shopping costs**.

While a trade agreement in 2020 exempted most goods from Mexico and Canada from country-specific US tariffs, the broader withdrawal of the “de minimis” rule applies globally. For many consumers and especially **small business impact** across the nation, accustomed to seamless, duty-free international purchases, this will represent a considerable adjustment, likely leading to increased expenses and potential delays in receiving orders.

The Trump administration justified the termination of the “de minimis” rule by asserting that it had evolved into a loophole. This loophole, they argued, was routinely exploited by foreign businesses to circumvent tariffs and, disturbingly, by criminal organizations to facilitate the entry of illicit drugs, counterfeit products, and other contraband into the United States. Discussions around this issue also involved former President Joe Biden and members of Congress.

Historically, the “de minimis” exemption, Latin for “lacking significance,” originated in 1938 to spare the federal government the administrative burden of collecting duties on imported goods valued at $1 or less. Over the decades, lawmakers progressively increased this eligibility cutoff, raising it to $5 in 1990, $200 in 1993, and finally to $800 in 2015, as documented by the Congressional Research Service.

Since the $800 threshold was established, there has been an explosive growth in shipments claiming “de minimis” treatment. US Customs and Border Protection reported a staggering 1.36 billion packages, valued collectively at $64.6 billion, entered the U.S. last year, a dramatic increase from 134 million packages under the exemption in 2015. This surge fueled arguments from proponents, such as the National Council of Textile Organizations, who viewed it as a “backdoor pipeline for cheap, subsidized, and often illegal imports.”

Conversely, many smaller American companies relying on international trade for imported products and materials had significantly benefited from the exemption. Kristin Trainor, owner of Diesel and Lulu’s, a boutique in Avon, Connecticut, exemplifies this concern. Over 70% of her inventory comprises small batch fashion items from Europe, often falling below the $800 threshold. She faces the dilemma of absorbing higher import charges by raising prices, potentially alienating her clientele, or risking the viability of her business, highlighting the profound small business impact of this policy shift.