U.S. Customs first tried to simplify and standardize country-of-origin determinations in 1991, refined its proposal in 1994 while implementing NAFTA’s rules of origin, then ultimately backed away from applying NAFTA’s more product-specific rules on a universal basis (except for textiles and apparel) in 1996.
Nearly 20 years ago, in 2008, Customs (now CBP) tried again. This time it proposed extending tariff shift-based rules to create a uniform origin standard for all imports unless a trade agreement required a different analysis. CBP argued that these rules would be more objective, transparent, and predictable than the existing case-by-case adjudication and would help importers exercise reasonable care. The agency also noted that it had been active in World Trade Organization and World Customs Organization efforts to develop standardized non-preferential origin rules. But the trading community was not having it, and CBP withdrew its proposal in 2011.
Fast forward to 2026 and a new White House paper on transshipment asserts that current origin standards are complex and cumbersome, especially for goods made from components manufactured in multiple countries. The paper also takes aim at the legal foundation for those standards, noting that they rest largely on customs case law rather than a precise statute. That, it argues, can lead to inconsistent application and create an easy mechanism for tariff evasion. In other words, imports may satisfy the letter of the law while missing what this White House views as the spirit of the law.
The paper calls on Congress to amend and codify these origin standards, which could make the old CBP proposal worth dusting off. It may offer a preview—or at least a starting point—for what could be coming next if lawmakers decide that origin rules need less case-by-case art and more statutory architecture.
(adapted from an episode of STR’s Two Minutes in Trade podcast)
Copyright © 2026 Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; WorldTrade Interactive, Inc. All rights reserved.