Automakers, apparel and footwear brands, and consumer-staples companies face the biggest earnings risk from tariffs under Trump, based on the cost figures each sector has already disclosed. Semiconductor makers and importers also carry meaningful exposure, though a narrower one tied to a single 25% duty rather than a sweeping tariff regime. The risk picture shifted hard in February 2026, when the Supreme Court struck down the legal basis for most of the broadest tariffs, only for a new levy to take their place almost immediately. That back-and-forth is exactly why investors need sector-by-sector detail rather than a single headline number: some companies are getting refunds, others are still absorbing new costs, and a few are doing both at once.
Table of Contents
- What the Supreme Court actually changed
- Semiconductors and tech hardware
- Automakers
- Consumer staples and packaged food
- Apparel and footwear
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the Supreme Court actually changed
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not give the president authority to impose the "fentanyl" and "reciprocal" tariffs he had used against China, Mexico, and Canada. The ruling voided duties on most goods from those three countries but left Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs in place, since those rest on different legal authority.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection stopped collecting the IEEPA-based duties effective February 24, 2026, at 12:00am ET. Trump did not let the tariff revenue disappear: he replaced the voided levies with a new 10% global tariff issued under Section 122 of the Trade Act, a provision that lets the president impose temporary duties to address balance-of-payments problems, according to Thomson Reuters. For investors, the practical effect is that the overall tariff burden didn't fall nearly as much as the ruling's headline suggested — it was redirected. Section 301 (targeted at specific countries, mainly China, over trade practices) and Section 232 (national-security-based duties on specific products like steel, autos, and chips) both survived untouched. Those two categories are now the more durable tariff risk for earnings forecasting, since they didn't depend on the legal theory the Court rejected.
Semiconductors and tech hardware
A 25% Section 232 tariff on advanced computing chips — including products like Nvidia's H200 and AMD's MI325X — took effect January 15, 2026. The tariff exempts chips used domestically for data centers, repairs, R&D, and consumer devices, narrowing its immediate bite, according to a trade-compliance brief from GHY International. A broader second phase, paired with a tariff-offset program, is still pending.
That's the part worth watching: the carve-outs that currently protect data-center and consumer-device chips could narrow, which would widen the earnings impact for chipmakers and the hardware companies that rely on them. Until that phase takes shape, the tariff's effect on reported earnings has been limited mostly to products outside those exempted uses.
Automakers
Automakers remain among the most exposed earnings lines in the market. GM, Ford, and Stellantis each booked billions of dollars in tariff costs in Q2 2026, with results diverging company to company as expectations of IEEPA refunds partly offset ongoing Section 232 duties on auto parts, per reporting from Dealership Guy. Stellantis's first-half 2026 figures show the mechanics clearly: the company reported €300 million in net tariff costs, a number that already includes a €400 million refund tied to the IEEPA ruling.
Without that refund, the gross cost would have been far higher. Stellantis now projects a full-year net tariff headwind of €1 billion to €1.2 billion, according to the same Dealership Guy coverage of its interim results. The lesson for anyone modeling auto-sector earnings: refunds from the voided IEEPA tariffs are real money, but they're a one-time or partial offset, not a resolution. The Section 232 duties on auto parts keep accruing every quarter regardless of what happens with the IEEPA litigation.
Consumer staples and packaged food
Procter & Gamble's fiscal 2026 guidance includes roughly $1 billion in added pre-tax costs from tariffs, or about $800 million after tax, pressuring margins across its consumer-staples product lines, according to Yahoo Finance/Reuters. That's a cost absorbed directly against earnings, not a pass-through the company has fully priced into shelves yet. Packaged food shows the same pressure more sharply. Campbell's cut its fiscal 2026 adjusted EPS guidance by as much as 18%, down to a range of $2.40 to $2.55, citing tariff-driven cost increases stacked on top of already-weaker consumer demand, per Alcircle.
An 18% guidance cut is a large swing for a company whose input costs (cans, packaging, commodities) are especially tariff-sensitive. Consumer electronics retail is feeling a related but distinct version of the same pressure. Best Buy cut its fiscal 2026 revenue outlook to a range of $41.1 billion to $41.9 billion, down from its prior guidance, citing tariffs on Asian-sourced hardware, according to Fox Business. Unlike P&G or Campbell's, Best Buy's exposure runs through sourcing rather than manufacturing inputs, but the earnings effect lands the same way: lower guidance tied directly to import costs.
Apparel and footwear
Nike's North America business expects to recover $965 million in IEEPA tariff refunds, plus another $21 million through Converse, following the Supreme Court ruling. Despite that recovery, Nike still estimates $1.5 billion in annualized gross incremental tariff costs and has called tariffs "a dynamic cost headwind" going forward, according to Modern Retail. The refund is a cash-flow event; the $1.5 billion is the ongoing structural cost that keeps recurring.
Nike isn't alone in that exposure. Deckers, Crocs, On, Skechers, Lululemon, and VF Corp all face some of the highest reciprocal-tariff exposure among apparel and footwear companies, making the sector one of the most sensitive to any reinstated or renegotiated tariff schedule, per Zacks. Because footwear sourcing is concentrated in a small number of Asian manufacturing countries, any new tariff action aimed at those countries tends to hit this group of companies simultaneously rather than one at a time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court ruling eliminate tariffs on Chinese goods?
No. It voided the IEEPA-based "fentanyl" and "reciprocal" tariffs, but Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and the new 10% Section 122 global tariff both remain in effect.
Which companies are getting tariff refunds?
Nike expects $965 million in refunds (plus $21 million via Converse), and Stellantis booked a €400 million refund in its first-half 2026 results, both tied to the voided IEEPA tariffs.
Are semiconductor tariffs affecting all chip products equally?
No. The 25% Section 232 tariff on chips exempts U.S. data-center use, repairs, R&D, and consumer devices, so the earnings impact so far has been narrower than the headline rate suggests.