The Price of Expression: U.S. Tariff Policy and the International Art Market

July 17, 2025

Credit: Pat Whelan, red blue and yellow intermodal containers, 2020.

By Kaede Kusano

In early 2025, United States President Donald Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a 1977 statute designed for national-security sanctions — to impose tariffs on major U.S. trading partners, marking a remarkable expansion in executive trade authority. On February 1, he issued executive orders implementing a 25 % tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico (excluding certain Canadian energy products at a reduced rate) and a 10 % tariff on Chinese goods. These actions were justified under declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. ^{On April 2, via Executive Order 14257, Trump announced a new 10 % baseline tariff on nearly all imported goods, effective April 5, with country‑specific surcharges applied under IEEPA powers.}

A New Era of Tariff Expansion Under IEEPA

These actions culminated in the “Liberation Day” tariff regime, which imposed staggered duties on China (up to 145 %) and other trade‑surplus nations. ^{On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump that the IEEPA-based tariffs exceeded presidential authority and invalidated them. However, an immediate stay by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has maintained enforcement while appeals proceed.}

Art and the Informational Materials Exemption

Under the new tariff regime, art occupies a particularly nuanced and precarious space. Since its passage in 1977, the IEEPA has included a crucial carve‑out for “informational materials,” later expanded by the 1988 Berman Amendment. This legislative protection was rooted in Cold War-era concerns over preserving cultural and intellectual exchange, inscribing artworks — alongside publications, films, photographs, and posters — within a protected category exempt from sanctions.

Federal courts have affirmed that the exemption extends to original art, as it communicates meaning through its distinctive expressive form and thus falls within the ambit of First Amendment‑protected informational materials. In Cernuda v. Heavey, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida referenced several examples of artistic expression, including Pablo Picasso’s Guernica to illustrate that “[a]rt conveys information through its unique form of expression, often political expression,” ^{and emphasized that “[a]rtwork, like other forms of expression, is within the ambit of speech that receives First Amendment protection.” Given that the term “informational materials” possessed an “obvious First Amendment orientation,” the court concluded that artwork falls within the scope of protected informational materials. In practice, U.S. import rules under IEEPA have consistently exempted fine art — identified by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) chapters 9701‑9703 — from duties or prohibitions rooted in national emergency tariffs, reflecting longstanding policy to facilitate cultural exchange. However, agencies such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) have historically interpreted the exemption narrowly — often excluding emerging media or intangible digital art — creating uncertainty within the international art market.}

Impact on the International Art Market

The broad application of the new U.S. tariffs, which did not provide explicit exemptions for categories traditionally covered under the informational materials provision, has contributed to apprehension in the market. In the absence of clear guidance, artists, galleries, and collectors have expressed concern about the potential impact on the international movement of artworks. In an interview published on Art Basel’s digital platform, art shipper Fritz Dietl of Dietl International Services explained that “[t]he confusion put everything on pause. We all had to take a moment to figure out what is included and excluded from these tariffs.” ^{Additionally, questions about how the tariffs apply to non-traditional art media may impact cultural exchange and innovation, as stakeholders navigate compliance and regulatory considerations. Again, Dietl reminds prospective buyers that “[f]urniture, design, objects, antiques, and antiquities are not exempt.” These items are classified under separate HTS chapters and do not benefit from the same comparable First Amendment protections. Consequently, the contemporary art market is facing both economic challenges and legal complexities that may affect cross-border transactions and established practices related to artistic expression. At this stage, it appears that the interpretation of tariff classification is ultimately left to the discretion of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer reviewing the shipment.}

In this environment, importers and collection managers have encountered considerable operational strain due to the tariffs and the resulting regulatory uncertainty. Evolving interpretations of tariff applicability to composite or mixed-media objects, such as installations that combine metal, fabric, and digital elements, leave importers unsure of how to classify works accurately. The lack of definitive guidance from agencies like CBP and OFAC on the treatment of art-adjacent objects (e.g. decorative arts, design pieces, or limited-edition functional items) further muddles compliance. In response, customs brokers and logistics firms have seen rising demand for assistance, along with increased fees, as clients seek help navigating shifting HTS codes and regulatory classifications. ^{These added costs — which may range from $1 to $5 per HTS code — reflect the broader logistical challenges facing art dealers. For smaller galleries and dealers, such burdens are particularly discouraging and may deter participation in international trade. For institutions that manage collections and exhibitions, the new tariffs may also prompt a strategic reassessment. Gallery and museum registrars must now factor in potential duties, customs delays, and related expenses when planning international loans, residential exchanges, or acquisitions. This inflation of transaction costs risks curtailing the global exchange of works, limiting access to international art, and complicating the cultivation of diverse holdings.}

The ripple effects of these tariff policies extend beyond importers, collectors, and institutions and directly impact artists, particularly those based in the U.S. who depend on imported raw materials. According to The Art Newspaper, tariffs on Chinese imports and materials from Mexico and Canada have significantly affected artists who rely on foreign-sourced materials and overseas fabricators — artist Jennifer Ling Datchuk even paying duties on items deemed nearly valueless, such as broken porcelain for mold-making. ^{Moreover, heightened tariffs on steel and aluminum — essential to many artists’ practices — have led to price surges and logistical obstacles, with artist Stephanie Mercedes reporting that the cost of steel plates had tripled, changing project feasibility. Rising costs have forced artists to reassess scale and material choices, potentially limiting creative ambition and increasing production complexity. Trusts and estates attorney Matthew F. Erskine reinforces this picture, highlighting that imported rare pigments, sculpting metals, and other high-quality art materials have become more expensive, directly elevating production costs for creators dependent on such inputs.}

Taken together, these factors may produce a chilling effect on the global art trade. The convergence of regulatory ambiguity, heightened compliance costs, and application of tariff classifications has created an atmosphere of caution among galleries, collectors, and institutions engaged in cross-border transactions. Many are delaying acquisitions, limiting international loans, or redirecting purchases to domestic markets to mitigate risk. ^{These developments come at a time when the global art market is already under strain. According to Dr Clare McAndrew’s The Art Basel and UBS Art Market Report 2025, sales in the global art market declined by 12% in 2024 to an estimated $57.5 billion. The added burden of trade policy uncertainty threatens to deepen this slowdown, undermining the market’s global interconnectedness.}

Balancing Trade Policy and Cultural Exchange

In sum, the 2025 tariff regime introduced under the IEEPA has cast a wide net, producing ripple effects that extend well beyond conventional trade sectors into the cultural and creative economies. For artists, collectors, importers, and institutions alike, the combination of rising costs, regulatory ambiguity, and varying enforcement has created a challenging landscape for cross-border cultural exchange. As legal challenges continue and agencies refine their interpretations, the art market remains in a state of cautious adaptation. Ultimately, the tension between national trade policy and the global circulation of art underscores the need for clearer statutory guidance — balancing legitimate economic interests with longstanding commitments to artistic freedom and cultural dialogue.

About the Author:

Kaede Kusano is a rising 2L at Queen’s University’s Faculty of Law in Kingston, Ontario where she previously contributed to a pro bono project and report on artists’ legal rights in Canada. Her research interests center on strengthening anti-money laundering (AML) regulations in the North American art market and examining the impact of international trade policies on the global art economy.

References:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Tumblr
Email