Preserve trade, not exploitation: Why de minimis reform is critical for global commerce

The Latin definition of de minimis derives from a phrase that says "the law does not concern itself with trifles." The trouble is that the US de minimis exemption, which allows imports of up to US$800 in retail value enter the country duty- and tax-free, is no longer a trifling matter.

The exemption is a crucial support for global trade and must remain, but not as a loophole for unchecked exploitation particularly for fentanyl trafficking and by Chinese e-commerce giants for aggregation of other goods. Immediate and decisive action is required by the US to safeguard fair trade, economic stability, and national security.

The de minimis exemption has been exploited as a conduit for smuggling illicit drugs into the United States. A Reuters investigation exposed how drug traffickers manipulate this streamlined entry system that allows the unchecked import of Chinese-manufactured fentanyl precursors. This has significantly contributed to the opioid crisis, which claims tens of thousands of lives across North America each year.

The risks now posed by de minimis is evident in the sheer scale of its application, which makes a cruel irony of its Latin moniker. According to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in fiscal year 2023, CBP processed more than one billion de minimis shipments, averaging nearly four million packages daily. Over the past decade, the volume of such shipments has skyrocketed from approximately 140 million annually to over one billion.

Recognizing these abuses, US Senators Tammy Baldwin and Mike Braun introduced the Ensure Accountability in the De Minimis Act last year. This bipartisan legislation aims to bolster oversight by enhancing data collection on de minimis imports, ultimately preventing the entry of controlled substances, counterfeit goods, and products made with forced labor.

The de minimis exemption, originally designed to enhance administrative efficiency and facilitate trade, is now being exploited on two critical fronts — both primarily driven by entities in China:

1. Illegal drug smuggling

Chinese traffickers exploit the de minimis loophole to funnel deadly fentanyl and precursor chemicals into the United States. The unchecked inflow of fentanyl fuels an opioid epidemic across the continent, creating a public health and national security crisis. This is no mere regulatory failure — it is an urgent threat to lives.

2. Regulatory manipulation by Chinese e-commerce aggregators

Shein and Temu have effectively hijacked the de minimis provision to flood the US market with low-cost, mass-produced goods while evading duties and inspections. This is not innovation; it is exploitation. Their abuse threatens the viability of global SMEs, distorts fair competition, and drives other independent businesses toward financial ruin. The economic consequences? The potential loss of thousands, if not millions, of jobs worldwide.

A necessary response

The solution is clear: China created this problem and China must face the consequences. The United States has taken steps to suspend all de minimis shipments originating from China, including those routed through third-party countries. Why should global SMEs suffer due to China's blatant exploitation?

Preserve de minimis for legitimate global commerce

As a firm advocate of trade over aid, I unequivocally support the preservation of de minimis regulations — but only as they were originally intended:

• To benefit consumers, not monopolistic aggregators and criminal enterprises
• To support small businesses, not facilitate their destruction
• To streamline customs processing for legitimate trade

The de minimis exemption must remain, but not as a loophole for unchecked exploitation. Immediate and decisive action is required to safeguard fair trade, economic stability, and national security.

© The Hinrich Foundation. See our website Terms and conditions for our copyright and reprint policy. All statements of fact and the views, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s).