Summary: A June 2026 executive order pushes customs toward a risk-based eligibility model, raising the bar for foreign-owned importers. CBP is expected to demand stronger U.S. financial accountability, transparent ownership, and a clean compliance history from the importer of record. The companies that document their readiness now, before final rules land, can help avoid the high cost of unknowns at the border.
What is the Strengthening Customs Enforcement executive order?
On June 3, 2026, the White House issued an Executive Order, Strengthening Customs Enforcement, directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to overhaul core aspects of importer eligibility, bonding, disclosure, enforcement, and penalty mitigation. The order frames customs enforcement as a national security, economic security, and revenue-protection priority. It expressly targets gaps that allow importers to undervalue merchandise, obscure importer of record (IOR) accountability, withhold supply-chain information, or avoid duty collection.
For importers owned by foreign companies, the order is especially important because it signals a shift from a documentation-based entry model toward a more risk-based eligibility model. Importing into the United States (U.S.) may increasingly depend not only on whether entry paperwork is complete, but also on whether the IOR can demonstrate sufficient U.S.-based financial accountability, transparent ownership, reliable compliance history, and operational control over the imported goods.
Why are foreign-owned importers exposed?
Foreign-owned importers may face more exposure because their legal, financial, and operational structures often separate U.S. import activity from global ownership and supply-chain control. A U.S. subsidiary may serve as importer of record even though purchasing, product engineering, supplier selection, transfer pricing, customs valuation, and trade compliance decisions are controlled abroad.
Some multinational groups take the opposite approach, using a non-U.S. entity as IOR to centralize imports, support eCommerce fulfillment, or simplify cross-border sales. These models may remain viable in some form, but the order makes it clear that CBP wants greater assurance that the IOR has real accountability and financial capacity within the U.S.
The most immediate risk is that a company’s current IOR may not satisfy forthcoming asset, bond, disclosure, or good-standing requirements. A second risk is that related-party compliance history may carry more weight than before. If CBP evaluates the IOR alongside affiliates, a violation involving one business unit, product line, or related entity could affect the broader group’s ability to import.
A third risk is operational disruption. Shipments may be delayed if brokers cannot validate importer data, if bond amounts become insufficient, or if CBP questions whether the declared IOR is the proper accountable party. This is the high cost of unknowns at the border, and it can surface with little warning.
What questions does the order leave open?
Many of the provisions outlined in the Executive Order lack a clear statutory basis, and it remains uncertain whether the agencies have the authority to implement certain aspects of the proposed framework without congressional action.
The underlying customs statutes governing IOR requirements have not changed, nor have the corresponding regulations. As a result, there are significant legal and administrative questions regarding how far DHS and CBP can go through regulatory action alone. Congressional reaction and any subsequent legislative developments should be closely monitored.
The treatment of eCommerce and low-value shipments also remains unclear. While the Executive Order contemplates enhanced scrutiny of foreign-owned importers and other compliance measures, CBP may face substantial resource constraints in administering these requirements across the high volume of low-value shipments entering the U.S. each day. The practical enforcement mechanisms for these transactions have yet to be articulated.
Several additional issues remain unresolved, including:
- Whether the requirements will apply broadly to all foreign-owned importers, or whether exceptions will be provided based on country, product, industry, or importer profile.
- Whether existing importers will be grandfathered into the new framework or subject to immediate compliance obligations.
- The scope of any financial responsibility, asset maintenance, or bonding requirements.
- Whether CBP will establish phased implementation periods, safe harbors, or other mitigation measures to reduce compliance burdens.
- How the new rules will interact with existing customs laws governing IOR eligibility, customs bonds, and corporate registration requirements.
At this stage, no implementing regulations or formal guidance has been issued. Under the Executive Order, legislative and policy recommendations are due to the President within 45 days (approximately mid-July 2026).
The more significant structural reforms, including potential asset requirements, good-standing certifications, enhanced vetting procedures, and importer registry reforms, are scheduled for review and potential implementation within 180 days, with a target date of November 30, 2026. However, the exact scope and implementation mechanisms for these measures remain uncertain.
How should foreign-owned importers prepare for the new customs rules?
Companies do not need to wait for final regulations to get ahead of the shift. A few practical steps can help importers show, with documentation, that their IOR is transparent, accountable, and in control of customs compliance.
1. Identify all IOR structures
Map every entity acting as IOR for U.S. entries, including U.S. subsidiaries, foreign parents, eCommerce sellers, drop-shippers, distributors, and broker-assisted arrangements. Cover formal, informal, and de minimis-adjacent workflows.
2. Test bond sufficiency and U.S. asset support
Compare current bond levels against import value, duty exposure, AD/CVD risk, Section 301 or other tariff exposure, and potential penalties. Confirm whether the IOR has documented U.S. assets or needs added capitalization, guarantees, or bonding support.
3. Build a disclosure file before CBP asks
Prepare ownership and beneficial ownership charts, legal entity lists, affiliation summaries, year-organized information, import volume estimates, domestic asset support, and customs compliance contacts. Reconcile these against broker powers of attorney, bonds, entry data, and corporate registrations.
4. Review foreign IOR and informal entry use
Companies using a foreign IOR should identify affected products, brokers, marketplaces, and customers. If informal entry is used, consider shifting IOR responsibility to a qualified U.S. entity, using formal entry, changing fulfillment flows, or revising sales terms.
5. Audit high-risk customs areas
Prioritize classification, valuation, origin, marking, forced labor controls, AD/CVD exposure, Section 301 and other tariffs, related-party pricing, assists, royalties, and valuation programs. Remediate issues promptly and consider prior disclosure where appropriate.
6. Reconfirm broker governance
Confirm that brokers have current importer data, accurate powers of attorney, escalation procedures, and clear instructions on classification, valuation, origin, and admissibility. Where possible, work with brokers that hold Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) validation
7. Begin the CTPAT certification process now
For a newer entity with a limited operating history and few tangible domestic assets, CTPAT membership is one of the clearest ways to demonstrate good standing and reduce friction at the border. Certification takes time, so it is worth starting the application now rather than waiting for the rules to be finalized.
Final thoughts: Preparing for customs enforcement changes
The Executive Order gives foreign-owned importers a clear warning: CBP is moving toward a more demanding importer accountability framework. Companies should not wait for final regulations to assess whether their IOR structure, bond coverage, U.S. asset support, ownership disclosures, broker governance, and compliance history can withstand increased scrutiny.
The importers best positioned for the new environment will be those that can show, with documentation, that the party named as IOR is transparent, financially accountable, operationally knowledgeable, and in control of customs compliance.
