Suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for imports $800 or less

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/24/2026-12...

Comments

Comment by kimos 23 hours ago

This is actually tragic.

I worked for an online pharmacy in Canada for many years, and it’s fraught and full of grey areas for sure. But so so many Americans count on importing generics to afford their medication. You’re talking several times the price difference for the same pills, life changing amounts of money for older people on fixed incomes with health problems. They will simply not be able to access their medication anymore.

Comment by bitshiftfaced 8 hours ago

You're claiming that generics tend to be cheaper in Canada than the US. What are you basing this belief on?

Comment by m-p-3 8 hours ago

Overall generic drugs in the US are indeed cheaper than in Canada, but that is not the case if you don't have insurance coverage. Without that, it might be cheaper for some to order the Canadian generic if they can't afford insurance.

The other factor is not price, but availability. Some generic are in limited supply or are outright not available in the US.

Comment by QuantumGood 4 hours ago

Generics need to be more carefully sourced if outside the U.S. I prefer brand names from reputable manufacturing areas (Singpore, Germany, etc.), and can get them for close to the price for generics, often starting research at PharmacyChecker.com

Comment by PunchyHamster 23 hours ago

I'd imagine even with duty added they'd still end up being multiple times cheaper

Comment by hexapus 23 hours ago

Yeah, it would...and yet, they covered that as well with another recent change: Packages from foreign and Canadian online pharmacies will be prohibited from entering the U.S. if the same medication is sold domestically or if the foreign pharmacy targets U.S. buyers.

Comment by kimos 22 hours ago

It is rarely enforced though. And the pharmacies will just replace it and ship it again.

Comment by xethos 19 hours ago

It was rarely enforced, prior to what GP explicitely called out as a recent change, that will come into effect October 22. We'll see what happens by end-of-year, though I wouldn't count on pharmacies replacing and re-shipping

Comment by jojobas 23 hours ago

Are we talking duties imposed on the generics, or generics imports outright banned?

Comment by 22 hours ago

Comment by 23 hours ago

Comment by 22 hours ago

Comment by bayarearefugee 1 day ago

goes into effect 12 days before a midterm election that is already starting to look like a blue tsunami.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

Comment by biglyburrito 1 day ago

Never interrupt your enemy when they are busy making a mistake.

Comment by tremon 23 hours ago

Never assume your enemy is making a mistake either, unless you possess the gift of perfect knowledge.

Comment by amanaplanacanal 21 hours ago

Hard to see how making things more expensive for consumers is not a mistake, but I could totally be missing something.

Comment by pseudohadamard 20 hours ago

It's not just making it more expensive, it's tying every single little thing that comes into the country up in an endlessly-growing loop of red tape that CBP has no way to handle. The de minimis exemption in most countries isn't motivated primarily by not hitting the little guy but by the fact that trying to enforce it for millions of low-value items would bring postal systems to a standstill.

Comment by tpm 12 hours ago

This was exploited from the other side by sending billions of low-value packages, so now the EU adds €3 per article category (so 2 shirts = €3, 1 shirt and 1 spoon = €6) to every package that's under other customs thresholds (€150 usually). With the view this will be eventually replaced by automating the tariff calculation for every package in a few years.

As a result, the number of imported packages dropped anywhere from 30% to 80%, we'll have to wait for the full numbers, but there is a reason to expect something similar will happen in the US.

Comment by tancop 14 hours ago

It's a strategic decision. Pharma companies promised campaign donations if Trump can make sure their profits go up.

Comment by oliculipolicula 20 hours ago

you'll soon find out that I'm _also_ the bond market

--Scott "The House" Bessent maybe?

Comment by sanp 23 hours ago

Assuming there is no chicanery

Comment by ModernMech 11 hours ago

They are not planning on winning any more elections from here on out, I don't know what other people saw on J6 to make them think that's not the strategy from now on, whenever they lose an election.

Comment by adastra22 23 hours ago

midterms are in November?

Comment by mmh0000 20 hours ago

People are downvoting you.

But I'm assuming this was a joke about the conspiracy that midterms will be canceled one way or another due to a "national emergency". Which, sadly, is much more probable than it should be.

Comment by jacobolus 23 hours ago

"The compliance date for 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v) and (vi) is on October 22, 2026"

Comment by parl_match 22 hours ago

wait until you find out what month is before november lol

Comment by cyanydeez 1 day ago

you're assuming media gives a lick about doing more than soundbites. The actual affect will be at best, 2 weeks after this is implemented, but probably 2 months while they actually figure out what legal means they can to infer which packages they can safely claim are foreign, along with actual foreign pharmacies giving 2 shits about todays shipping.

Comment by yieldcrv 23 hours ago

10 years of believing your color coded wave of choice is going to happen and still winding up with a 50-50 senate

the seats necessary to alter that aren't even open, how gullible do people have to be? well, not very, independents are the largest bloc now, but of the remaining partisans... hello? your algorithm is fake

Comment by gs17 23 hours ago

> the seats necessary to alter that aren't even open

Seems to be anyone's win right now: https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/senate/2026/toss-up (and RCP is considered to be conservative).

Comment by bryanlarsen 22 hours ago

Nate Silver now has it at a 66% chance that the Dems take the senate. (https://www.natesilver.net/p/expert-ratings-are-ignoring-sig...)

Granted, 66% chance is still essentially a toss up.

Comment by yieldcrv 22 hours ago

a 51% Senate gets to do agency appointments, judge appointments, and particularly SCOTUS

but it cant pass any laws. they’re still cooked by the filibuster (until they get bored of it)

Comment by stouset 20 hours ago

SCOTUS has an unassailable majority unless Democrats grow a spine and pack the court or multiple conservative members have serious and unforeseen health issues. Neither seems all that likely.

Comment by _DeadFred_ 21 hours ago

'Kamala is no different than Trump, and she didn't earn your vote, you should just stay home' vibes.

We have learned Kamala was in fact much, much different than Trump, and many peoples rights have been trampled because of this sort of nonsense fatalism.

Comment by yieldcrv 19 hours ago

the adults are talking about the Senate, one of the chambers of Congress. Has almost nothing to do with the President, especially not how they are elected.

Comment by 18 hours ago

Comment by Perenti 23 hours ago

The hoops you poor Americans have to jump through to get affordable health care is ridiculous in what is presented as a developed nation.

Comment by solfox 22 hours ago

The hoops are in place to ensure those at the top continue to get their take.

Comment by expedition32 15 hours ago

It is deliberate. Americans want the hoops because they hate poor people.

Comment by stvltvs 8 hours ago

And we don't realize that we are the poor just because we can point to poorer people.

Comment by bdangubic 22 hours ago

you said this as if we were developed nation :)

Comment by happyopossum 1 day ago

There's nothing in the CBP rule that prohibits importing prescriptions, although there will no longer be a duty exemption for them. The rule is about suspending the 'de minimis' exemption for shipments valued under $800...

Comment by hexapus 23 hours ago

Starting Oct 22, packages from foreign and Canadian online pharmacies will be prohibited from entering the U.S. if the same medication is sold domestically or if the foreign pharmacy targets U.S. buyers.

Comment by telotortium 22 hours ago

Source?

Comment by loeg 1 day ago

Wasn't that already suspended in, like, 2025?

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st 22 hours ago

SCOTUS ruled that the executive order that included it was illegal. So it went away, even though they never ruled on the specifics of the de minimis system. Now it is back, under a different EO.

Comment by yibg 23 hours ago

I believe it had a phased rollout, which impacts all parcels soon.

Comment by seemaze 23 hours ago

I was charged $46 of import fees on a $137 of art supplies from the Czech Republic this May.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by dashmeet 22 hours ago

Now is a good time to mention:

costplusdrugs.com

I have no affiliation. If anyone wants a domestic alternative to low cost pharmaceuticals this is a good one. Also sometimes GoodRx is worth checking out. Don’t hesitate to ask a pharmacist for a discount if you’re not using insurance. Sometimes that is the best price.

Comment by thelastgallon 19 hours ago

https://youtu.be/YvEH8zENOos?si=jROCWiVgT-YBeuI_

Comment by mikeweiss 22 hours ago

Canadian pharmacies are duct tape for Americas broken health care system. If we rip the tape off first without a fix we're gonna be in trouble.

Comment by xethos 18 hours ago

Or it means everyone has to deal with just how broken the system is, together, regardless of whether you knew the and could take advantage of the cheap way or not

Not that it'll play out like that, America still has a wealth inequality problem that will insulate some that would otherwise push for a less-broken system. But I'm optimistic by default, and the bright side is more people complaining, loudly, at how broken America's health care system is, and pushing for a fix.

Comment by jacobgold 22 hours ago

I know very little about this topic, but maybe this ultimately helps force a real solution to our prescription drug cost problem?

Comment by thayne 21 hours ago

There are so many problems with American healthcare that should have forced a real solution. But nothing much has happened.

Comment by amanaplanacanal 21 hours ago

I suspect the only thing that would make people demand a better solution is if we got rid of employer paid health care. If everyone had to buy from the exchange, people would freak out.

Comment by thayne 19 hours ago

The fact your health insurance is tied to your employer is the source of many of the problems.

Comment by mikeweiss 22 hours ago

But how long would the real solution take if it ever comes and what would the collateral damage be while we wait?

Comment by downrightmike 1 day ago

What does this actually mean?

Comment by trashface 1 day ago

Various pharmacies in Canada will accept a US prescription and send you the medication via mail, usually at far cheaper than what you would pay for the same in the US.

This prevents it.

Comment by CubsFan1060 23 hours ago

Interesting. Got some examples of the pharmacies?

Comment by burnt-resistor 17 hours ago

https://northwestpharmacy.com

Comment by k12sosse 23 hours ago

Okay Kash, you almost got him this time.

Comment by jmspring 23 hours ago

It’ll likely be a rep hit but - I’d argue livestock imports and booze imports over pharma would be Kash’s interest.

Comment by motionlessveloc 1 day ago

Means you can no longer legally^W practically buy far cheaper prescription medicines from Canada, Mexico, India, China etc and ship them to the US.

Their own primer on the topic: https://www.personalimportation.org/understand-the-issue

Comment by dawnerd 1 day ago

That’s not what it says. It’s still legal. You just have to pay duties. It’s also not just on medication. They shared these rules a while ago too.

Comment by BHSPitMonkey 23 hours ago

Well... the legal route is no longer "far cheaper" than domestic supply.

Comment by matthewdgreen 1 day ago

Canadian pharmacies already pay tariffs. What does this actually change?

Comment by reddozen 23 hours ago

Your comment is nonsense.

Canadian pharmacies pay Canadian tariffs. Americans pay American tariffs. American importers are no longer exempted from paying American tariffs applied by the US government for goods de minimis goods they import from Canada.

This post is about American importers no longer having exemption on tariffs they would have otherwise paid to the US government.

At no point has Canadian pharmacies ever paid American tariffs. This is fiction you invented.

Comment by matthewdgreen 23 hours ago

I don’t know what you’re saying, but for those confused. Starting in 2025, the de minimis exception was removed. This added delays to purchases of drugs from Canada to the US, and required consumers to pay new duties. These duties were collected by the pharmacies at order time, or at least my experience was that the pharmacies would charge your card for them. This is the common sense understanding of what I said above.

These duties were annoying but bearable. However these new changes will effectively shut down all consumer orders of drugs from Canada starting on Oct 22. So if you need these drugs to stay alive, order them right now.

PS This new rule is going to put my family’s health at risk and I’m deeply pissed about it. Having some HNer pick this moment for pedantry is incredibly on brand.

Comment by reddozen 11 hours ago

> I don’t know what you’re saying

And that's the problem. It doesn't get much more simple than "Canadians pay Canadian import taxes" and "Americans pay American import taxes". Can you at least recognize that reality? For any country, its own people pay its tariffs.

> required consumers to pay new duties.

Required American consumers to pay new American levied duties.

Comment by matthewdgreen 9 hours ago

This is an article about new rules for US consumers purchasing drugs for mail delivery from Canadian pharmacies. I understand that you want to make some point about the situation for Canadian consumers, and I appreciate that. But I think you should post that to the other thread, the one that deals with that topic.

Comment by LastTrain 23 hours ago

Nobody is being a pedant. How you phrased it is wrong and, more importantly, politically charged.

Comment by tremon 23 hours ago

> This is the common sense understanding of what I said above.

It's very dangerous to assume common understanding here when Trump has been loudly claiming the opposite, i.e. that the tariffs would be paid by the sender rather than the importer. It would have been more accurate to state that "Canadian pharmacies have already been including the tarrifs in the total order cost".

Comment by CosmicShadow 21 hours ago

As a Canadian that sells products to the US I can say that we absolutely pay tariffs to the US government in place of our customers who should be paying it, depending on what shipping provider you use. USPS doesn't have the infrastructure or care to collect tariffs, so they won't, meaning the shipper has to just pay them up front and either jack the shipping cost by an arm-and-a-leg or just eat the cost. Canada Post even requires you as the shipper to pay them. If I ship UPS I can have the buyer pay upon delivery. It's 100% bullshit. I'm luckily under CUSMA, but the first month of tariffs when no one knew what was going on I paid out the ass on shipping and never got any refunds for it like Americans supposedly did, I just got fucked. In Canada and most other places it's normal to pay tariffs and duties when you order anything international (upon delivery) and all carriers know how to collect at delivery (or collect ahead of time online), but the US does not and it's alien to them (as seen by many customers screaming bloody murder over a $4 duty fee that anyone else in the world would kill to only have to pay).

Comment by actionfromafar 1 day ago

The people in charge betting they only need to count the "red" ballots this time?

Comment by Blackthorn 23 hours ago

Hasn't it effectively been suspended for over a year now?

Comment by pants2 23 hours ago

Yes, and it has driven the decline of Temu and Shein

Comment by expedition32 15 hours ago

It has fuelled Chinese exports to Europe. The enormous industrial capacity of China hasn't gone down they've simply rerouted the cargo ships.

Comment by gigel82 23 hours ago

This was the case for at least a year. I used to use AliExpress for affordable small electronics, and when this came into effect, it killed the whole thing (and my hobby, because no way I'm paying the Amazon or eBay tax).

Comment by MadrasTh0rn 23 hours ago

Trump is trying to trade the petro dollar and opec for Venezuelan oil that will tank the dollar and make debt unpayable (every advisor has said this), how he's trying to make medicine unaffordable before alternatives are ready. Sheesh.

Every use case for tarrifs include got subsidy and small trade barriers so it can grow with market share.

Comment by mcmcmc 1 day ago

It truly boggles the mind how Trump managed to sell tariffs as anything other than a tax on American consumers

Comment by jacobolus 23 hours ago

> managed to sell tariffs

He didn't manage to sell them. Everyone hates the tariffs, which are widely understood to have contributed to high prices and economic stagnation.

What he did manage to do is bully the abjectly servile GOP leaders of Congress into not doing anything about the tariffs, even though setting trade policy is expressly assigned to Congress by Article I of the Constitution, and Trump has repeatedly exceeded any legal authority.

Comment by mvdtnz 22 hours ago

He campaigned and won on tariffs. A plurality of Americans favor them, evidently.

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st 22 hours ago

We are a country of laws, and the SCOTUS ruled that his first attempt at tariffs was illegal. Whether or not a plurality or majority of Americans favor them is largely irrelevant.

Comment by mvdtnz 21 hours ago

Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant to the comment I was responding to, which incorrectly claimed "He didn't manage to sell them. Everyone hates the tariffs".

He campaigned and won with tarrifs as one of his main policy points. Voters favour them. Americans get tarrifs because Americans want tarrifs. Deal with it.

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st 10 hours ago

That's not how a country governed by the rule of law is supposed to work.

We have laws that limit what presidents (and Congress) can do. By extension that limits what voters can get by voting. Americans got/get tariffs because we currently have an administration that is willing to break the law.

In addition, to focus on the point you claim that voters favored them. I've never seen any convincing evidence that this is true, and what evidence I have seen always seems predicated on the claim that the foreign suppliers pay tariffs, which is generally completely false. So, if they were in favor of what they understood, they did not in fact support tariffs in the real world. Further, I did see some polls suggesting that voters favored highly selected tariffs for specific products from specific origins. Again, that's not what the administration has sought to impose.

Even so, I never saw polling that indicated even a plurality of voters were in favor of them one way or another.

Comment by EgregiousCube 22 hours ago

Nope, Congress has authorized the executive to impose tariffs multiple times for multiple different reasons. Tariff Act of '30, Trade Expansion Act of '62, Trade Act of '74, etc.

Comment by jacobolus 19 hours ago

Past congressional actions were premised on an executive acting in good faith, upholding their oath of office, and following Congress's explicit intentions described in the laws you mention.

A situation where a corrupt and incompetent president is explicitly trying to blow up the US economy using not-really-relevant laws as a pretext was not ever anticipated, and he will hopefully be strongly rebuked (e.g. impeached) by the next Congress.

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st 22 hours ago

SCOTUS ruled that his initial attempts at tariffs were illegal. He's used an entirely different part of the US code to try again (whether it stands is currently unclear; of course, the question of precisely who received the refunds for his previous illegal effort has received astoundingly little attention).

Your comment begins "Nope, Congress has authorized ..." which just supports the point of the GP that it is Congress that controls the setting of tariffs, even if that may sometimes mean delegating it to the executive branch.

Comment by porkshoe 1 day ago

He gets away with it because a lot of right-wing elites _love_ the idea of taxing consumption rather than income (or, heaven forbid, wealth).

Additionally, Trump, Hassett, etc are still blaming Biden for inflation caused by the tariffs... and a lot of their base would rather believe that than admit that they got suckered by an obvious scam.

Comment by pstuart 23 hours ago

A lot of his base believe his lie that the other countries are paying the tariffs.

His followers are literally beyond reason and will accept anything he says. It's so very depressing.

Comment by technothrasher 1 day ago

> Trump, Hassett, etc are still blaming Biden for inflation caused by the tariffs

I'm starting to see this backfire with a lot of "personal responsibility" type old-school republicans to whom I talk. They're getting fed up with the administration just blanket blaming anything bad on Biden. Whether that will translate to actual political change, I do not know. But I found it interesting that I'm hearing the frustration more lately.

Comment by jeremyjh 1 day ago

Narrator: It did NOT translate to actual political change.

Comment by TheOtherHobbes 23 hours ago

It doesn't need to translate to actual political change. It needs to translate to them staying at home instead of enthusiastically voting for more sadistic traitorous insanity.

Which is looking quite likely.

Although it does assume there are no peculiar and unexpected anomalies with the vote counting.

Comment by LastTrain 23 hours ago

It will not because there are still immigrants and trans people to hate.

Comment by 11 hours ago

Comment by ch4s3 23 hours ago

Populists of all stripes love tariffs and the illusory promise of autarky. We didn’t see Biden remove any of Trump 1’s tariffs and not a single Democrat in congress has committed to repealing the tariffs.

Comment by porkshoe 22 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by matteoraso 23 hours ago

If that were true, the Republicans would implement a VAT. Trump is legitimately just a moron with a cult of personality.

Comment by loeg 1 day ago

He doesn't actually "get away" with it. A lot of people, left and right, are unhappy about tariffs. But for now, he controls the executive, so it is what it is.

Comment by mcmcmc 23 hours ago

The problem is it was never an executive power to begin with. The unitary executive theory pushed by the Heritage Foundation is counter to everything the US was founded on. Decisions from the current SCOTUS are questionable given the conflicts of interest with certain spouses and the endless improper gifts.

Comment by LastTrain 23 hours ago

This is entirely in the “rights” control right now, any of them “unhappy” with it are outliers.

Comment by loeg 17 hours ago

The right doesn't like, control the executive by democratic vote. Trump single-handedly does.

Comment by fragmede 23 hours ago

We'll have to wait and see how many of those outliers end up voting, and how.

Comment by Forgeties79 23 hours ago

His core base (a solid 25-50% of the party) would rather die than vote for a democrat and all this DSA scare mongering is only entrenching them further/pulling the more moderate among them back into the fold.

The blue wave will likely be a result of blue turnout and some small number of red sitting at home. And sadly the senate is still a toss up

Comment by loeg 17 hours ago

Ok but losing 50-75% of 2024 Trump voters would in fact cede control of more or less every democratically elected position.

Comment by Forgeties79 11 hours ago

25-50% have intensely strong feelings on the matter. I’m not saying 50-75% will vote blue or sit at home.

Comment by LastTrain 21 hours ago

As I like to say to my fellow blue friends who don’t seem to understand this “what would Joe Biden have to have done for you to vote for Trump”

Comment by Forgeties79 18 hours ago

A very fair question!

Comment by porkshoe 23 hours ago

It's silly to claim that a lot of people on the right are unhappy about tariffs.

When Obama put a tariff on Chinese tires, right-wingers (correctly) argued that it was a bad idea that caused American consumers to pay almost a million dollars per "job saved" in the tire industry.

Today the right is in control of the executive, the legislative, the judicial, and and far more news media and... basically just crickets.

As for "he controls the executive". Bullshit. When a Democrat is in office, right-wingers remember that the President is not a king.

Please don't "both sides" this extremely one-sided attack on the American worker.

Comment by toomuchtodo 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by hungryhobbit 1 day ago

> Takes a 12th grade reading level to understand jury instructions.

Source?

Comment by toomuchtodo 1 day ago

Keyword search: “reading level jury instructions”

https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-liter... (“54% of U.S. adults read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level”)

Assessing the Readability of Capital Pattern Jury Instructions - https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&contex... (2013)

"Plain English" Jury Instructions: Why They’re Still Needed And What The Appellate Community Can Do To Help - https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/plain-eng... (2004)

> The average reading level of American parents of young children is 7th or 8th grade.

> About one in every four Americans (25 percent) is a high school dropout.

> About half (45 percent) have gone to college for some period of time, but fewer than one in six (15 percent) have a college degree.

> Nearly 50 percent of the Americans surveyed cannot read well enough to find a single piece of information in a short publication, nor can they make low-level inferences based on what they read.

Comment by underlipton 1 day ago

Oh, FFS. You're conflating capability with inclination. Trump supporters are not unintelligent; they have made a choice (conscious or not) to indulge their fears and hubris over making an informed decision. "They believe whatever they feel is truth and vote their vibes accordingly," is correct, but they act this way not because they're incapable of thinking critically, but because they allow a milieu of entitlement, fear, righteous indignation, and misplaced hope to drive them towards easy answers. "Why?" is complex, but it's still unacceptable, regardless.

I have a problem with "Trump voters are idiots" because it lets them off the hook. They need to be held accountable, helped where their grievances are real, and pushed to reconcile their feelings with the facts.

Comment by dgellow 1 day ago

You basically wrote „Trump supporters are not unintelligent; they‘ve made a choice to behave like a complete idiot“?

Comment by 11 hours ago

Comment by toomuchtodo 1 day ago

> but they act this way not because they're incapable of thinking critically, but because they allow a milieu of entitlement, fear, righteous indignation, and misplaced hope to drive them towards easy answers

My brother in Christ, re read the sentence you wrote. That is quite literally the inability to critically think.

Comment by csoups14 1 day ago

An inability to think critically is not the same thing as a lack of critical thinking in a specific context. Would you agree that you think critically in some contexts and make emotion-driven decisions in others? I know I do, as much as I try to apply critical thinking universally.

Comment by toomuchtodo 1 day ago

No. I make almost every decision from a place of hyper rational logic and reason, partly from my professional experience in risk management, and partly because I take pharmaceuticals that have a side effect of quelling any emotional response. I cannot make an emotional decision because I don’t feel emotion driven. It’s delightful if I’m being honest.

Certainly, I understand why the emotion drive humans do emotion driven things. I do not.

Comment by pirates 10 hours ago

you might think you do this, that you have 100% control over your logic and feelings, but everyone knows that it isn’t true.

Comment by tygon 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by RGS1811 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by JohnMakin 1 day ago

weird title change.

Comment by ChrisArchitect 21 hours ago

U.S. Small Biz Can't Ship to the EU Anymore

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49791246

Comment by techmunky 1 day ago

Is this even in CBP's wheelhouse or is this another egregious overreach?

Comment by adbachman 1 day ago

this is their thing, yeah.

the C in CBP, "Customs", is specifically this kind of stuff.

Comment by cjkaminski 1 day ago

If only it were so simple. Many of CBP's policies are clearly defined by U.S. Congress (most recent example, which actually establishes CBP: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/644/...). That said, Congress appears to have ceded their oversight role by allowing these rules to change without comment.

Comment by WarOnPrivacy 23 hours ago

> Congress appears to have ceded their oversight role

If there is one most-bipartisan-thing-ever, ceding oversight is it. ex:FastTrack Trade

Comment by Someone1234 1 day ago

I flagged this and wanted to explain my reasoning.

At the time of writing, the article states something that its own link doesn't support (i.e. it is inaccurate). CBP hasn't "suspended all personal prescription importation." What they've done is removed De Minimis Exemption (i.e. duty free below $800), and that's it. Meaning you can still important personal medication before and after Oct 22nd, what has changed is that now it is subject to normal duty.

Do I think this is bad for people importing personal medication? Absolutely I do, and I oppose it. However, I don't think misstating the argument is constructive nor warranted. You could make the argument using the facts on the ground, and then re-state that in the thread title.

So the story is worthy of discussion, and interesting (even the personal medication POV). But this link and this title aren't "it." Hopefully we can get a higher quality source and title on this topic.

Comment by TheOtherHobbes 23 hours ago

It's not as simple as "You will now pay duty." Senders will be required to pay bond, and there will be a crushing load of new paperwork. Combined with extra duty, that will have the same effect as an outright ban.

This will be financially catastrophic for many Americans who may suddenly have to find hundreds of dollars a month.

Comment by EgregiousCube 22 hours ago

That's standard operating procedure for any non-de-minimis importer. The $800 limit was only imposed in 2016, historically it was a lot lower than that.

Comment by dawnerd 1 day ago

Better link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/24/2026-12...

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by fn-mote 22 hours ago

VERY difficult to read. It seems almost everything important is hidden in the details somewhere.

I read a lot of it - enjoy reading the butt-covering “legal justifications” written in explaining why there was no public comment period, etc.

Comment by Arodex 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by readthenotes1 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by gustavus 1 day ago

What do you hope to accomplish by that statement?

Do you think this will motivate people who may have voted for trump but been ok the fence by calling them stupid?

Is it to help give a better alternative or actionable advice? Does it contribute anything to the discussion?

It seems it primarily exist to give you a hit of self righteous dopamine while attempting to create further rifts between individuals.

Comment by anonymars 1 day ago

Far more useful would be to wonder for a moment why people voted that way, especially since I would wager no small part of the reason is because people are living in different realities stemming from hyper-targeted curated clickbait slop

Comment by dgellow 1 day ago

And racism

Comment by anonymars 1 day ago

Oh, did racism in the US suddenly increase? More than the days of, say, Jim Crow or the Ku Klux Klan, or Operation Wetback, or..?

Comment by dgellow 1 day ago

Are you denying Trump is openly racist? I thought that was now accepted by the right, and that the new strategy was to instead explain how being racist isn’t actually that bad. Why would you have such a knee jerk reaction?

Comment by anonymars 23 hours ago

Because it's a facile non-explanation to say people voted for Trump simply because of racism. If we're providing simplistic one-word reasons I'd proffer "inequality"

Comment by dgellow 10 hours ago

It’s not simply because they and trump are racist. It’s because they are racist and other reasons. But racism is definitely one of the major factor. The idea that racism is a simplification is absurd, trump supporters are very openly racist and in support of white nationalism ideals. It’s not subtle, it’s not hidden.

I see that you didn’t answer my questions though

Comment by anonymars 9 hours ago

"Is Trump racist?" and "do racists vote for Trump?" are different questions from "did Trump get elected because of racism?"

I don't think the amount of racism in the US suddenly increased from its baseline*, and thus I think that writing off his electoral victory as "because racism" and nothing more than that is an uninteresting feel-better exercise

*Even one inch deeper of an analysis would be more interesting, like if someone countered with "Well, I think the election of Obama was a bridge too far for racists that had previously been quietly holding their noses" or something. On the other hand, both Obama and Trump were the "change" candidate against the "status quo" candidate.

Comment by Arodex 9 hours ago

Except Obama was the "change" choice to move things forward, while Trump is the "change" choice to move things backwards - you could even say that it is the "info change" candidate.

And what is changing things backwards? Yes, it is getting back to good old racism and putting white people above anything colored.

Comment by anonymars 8 hours ago

Riddle me this: why did people with immigrant spouses/families vote for Trump and then end up surprised to find them on the chopping block? Over and over you hear "but Trump said he was going to go after the criminals" (also "no new wars"). You may have known better but that doesn't mean the general population is particularly effective at lie detection. Which goes back to my original statement: "people are living in different realities" because they are being fed completely different news and media. Target this post code and tell them Trump is better (or Harris is worse) for Palestine. Target that post code and tell them Trump is better (or Harris is worse) for Israel. And so on.

Comment by Arodex 1 day ago

Between "Kavanaugh stops" (aka police harassment of brown-skinned people) and racial gerrymandering being brought back (and Mississippi GOP immediately celebrating it in the old capitol associated with Jim Crow), what do you think?

Comment by anonymars 22 hours ago

Given that those things existed in the past, I don't think they are sufficient to explain the more unique situation of the present, and thus also don't offer a compelling avenue to counteract it

Comment by Arodex 13 hours ago

Coddling the southern segregationist isn't what led to equal civil rights. It was a fight and it wasn't all nonviolent.

Comment by anonymars 9 hours ago

If that fight were to happen again, but the surrounding media environment setup didn't much change, do you think the resulting changes would be long-lasting?

Comment by Arodex 1 day ago

>why people voted that way

"Fuck your feelings"

Comment by add-sub-mul-div 1 day ago

At some point the emperor should be made aware that he's naked, even if it hurts his feelings to find out.

Comment by 0cf8612b2e1e 1 day ago

He just kicked out those meanies from the press room for saying hurtful things.

Comment by stonogo 1 day ago

we need an irony hall of fame for this forum

Comment by SpicyLemonZest 1 day ago

> Do you think this will motivate people who may have voted for trump but been ok the fence by calling them stupid?

Yes. That's been a surprising and important lesson of the Trump movement's success; we've learned that insulting your political opponents can help convince fence-sitters, and doesn't automatically repel them. I wish it weren't so, but in the modern political climate, abandoning insults seems as strategically unwise as abandoning fundraising.