Vietnam tariffs in 2026: what changed, and the sourcing math

Vietnam tariffs went up on July 24, 2026 — not because of a Vietnam-specific action, but because the Section 122 surcharge that was expiring got replaced the same day by a broader Section 301 forced-labor duty that also covers Vietnam. If you buy power adapters, chargers, or cables, the headlines probably garbled the math: one called it a “12.5% China rate,” when that is a new layer, not China’s all-in rate. Here is what actually changed, why the China-versus-Vietnam decision still holds, and the five things to do about it this week. For the exact rates by HTS code — verified against the final USTR notice — see the duty stack; this guide is the what-to-do.

What actually changed

One temporary surcharge was replaced by a broader, structural duty. Section 122 was a balance-of-payments surcharge with a 150-day statutory cap; it hit that cap and expired on July 24. The same day, the US Trade Representative’s Section 301 forced-labor action imposed a new duty covering China, Vietnam, and dozens of other economies — with USMCA-compliant Mexico and Canada goods exempt — and, unlike the surcharge it replaced, it stacks on the existing China Section 301 rather than standing in for it.

This is the structure of the change, not the rates. The verified figures — base, existing China Section 301, and the new forced-labor layer, per HTS code — live on the duty-stack page and the Section 122 transition page, kept current there so there is one source of truth to cite.

Why the China→Vietnam case still holds

Because the new duty raises both origins by the same amount, it does not change the gap between them. The reason to source from Vietnam instead of China was never that Vietnam was duty-free — it was the China Section 301 layer that Vietnam does not carry. That layer is untouched, so the break-even premium you can pay a Vietnamese supplier and still come out ahead barely moved.

China

37.5%

Vietnam

12.5%

Mexico

no duty

0.0%

010203040

• MFN base
• Section 301 · China (25%)
• Section 301 forced-labor (12.5%)

25.0 points separate China from Vietnam — the entire China Section 301 layer, which Vietnam does not carry. The forced-labor duty lifts both origins by the same amount, so the gap between them is unchanged. Mexico enters duty-free under USMCA.

Effective rate by product category — China vs. Vietnam

Power adapters & chargers 8504.40.85

CN37.5%

VN12.5%

USB-C, HDMI, AV & Ethernet cable 8544.42.90

CN40.1%

VN15.1%

Coaxial cable 8544.20.00

CN42.8%

VN17.8%

Optical fiber 8544.70.00

CN37.5%

VN12.5%

The China vs Vietnam comparison holds the current landed-cost figures, and the break-even tool lets you run your own FOB and volume. What changed is the floor under both origins, not the distance between them.

One thing that is dead is the pre-July story that Vietnam would fall to zero when the surcharge sunset. It did not — the Section 301 replacement covers Vietnam. If a page, a broker, or a landed-cost spreadsheet still assumes Vietnam goes duty-free on July 24, it is now wrong, and a customs entry will prove it.

The five-step response

1. Re-verify your HTS codes. A rate change is the moment to confirm each product classifies where you think it does. The duty stack lists the codes the catalog touches, including the classification nuances — a telecom-grade connectorized cable can enter Free where a general one pays base. A wrong code moves your rate more than this tariff did.
2. Recompute landed cost on the new stack. Duty is ad valorem, so the increase scales with entered value — run your real FOB and volume through the landed-cost calculator rather than eyeballing it.
3. Pressure-test origin. The China–Vietnam delta only survives if the Vietnamese origin is genuine substantial transformation, not a Chinese cable with a connector molded on in Vietnam. Verify it before it becomes a transshipment problem at the port of entry.
4. Re-quote now, with a reprice clause. Ask suppliers to re-quote against the current stack, and put a tariff-reprice clause in the PO so the next change is a recalculation, not a reopened negotiation.
5. Watch the litigation. The action is being challenged in court; a stay or vacatur would move the rate again. Treat the number as current, not permanent, and re-verify before a large entry.

What not to do

Do not panic-reshore on a headline — the math barely moved, and a rushed supplier change costs far more than the small increase at stake. Do not accept a verbal rate: get the HTS code, the Chapter 99 heading, and the effective date in writing, because a rate quoted from memory is how a wrong number lands on a PO. And do not trust last quarter’s landed cost — two things changed this year, the surcharge and its replacement, so any cost model built in the spring is already stale.