New Year, New Tariffs?

Tariffs & Business Aviation: Where We Stand Heading Into 2026

As we head into 2026, tariffs remain one of the most important—and least forgiving—variables in a cross-border aircraft transaction. In a market where timelines are compressed and decisions are often made quickly, even a small misunderstanding around import status, documentation, or country of manufacture can produce a surprise cost large enough to change the entire economics of a deal. What was once rarely mentioned has become part of the “new normal” in business aviation, and it is increasingly something buyers and sellers must evaluate early, not at the finish line.

Much of the past year has been defined by shifting policy, evolving exemptions, and growing scrutiny around global supply chains. Throughout 2025, our industry has relied heavily on experienced guidance from individuals working at the center of aircraft import and export compliance, including Tobias Kleitman, President of TVPX, who has helped shape many of the conversations around how to navigate tariffs responsibly. The core lesson has been consistent: tariff exposure is no longer theoretical, and it is not rare. It is now a real and recurring transaction risk that must be accounted for from the first stages of a deal.

One of the reasons the environment has been so dynamic is that tariffs in aviation are not being managed in isolation, they are being shaped by broader geopolitical and economic priorities, as well as growing attention to national security and domestic manufacturing capacity. In response, the United States has negotiated “zero-for-zero” tariffs on civil aerospace products for certain key partners, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Switzerland. While these agreements have helped provide stability in many scenarios, they have not eliminated complexity. The details still matter, and the risk still changes depending on the aircraft, its history, and what exactly is happening at the border.

Canada is a perfect example of why broad assumptions can be dangerous. Under USMCA, Canadian manufactured products are generally exempt if they meet certain requirements. However, one of the most significant areas of concern we are seeing involves Bombardier pre-owned aircraft that were exported after delivery and are now seeking re-import to the United States for closing. In those cases, the transaction may be exposed to tariffs of a minimum of 35%, and any party involved should proceed with extreme caution. In addition, even when an aircraft is Canadian manufactured, the USMCA qualification can be disrupted if it was “transshipped”  meaning the aircraft has been outside of the customs control of the USMCA territory (US, MEX, CAN) in a way that removes it from qualifying status. The challenge is that it is not clear exactly what “outside of the customs control” actually means. It is not yet entirely clear if that definition is based on where the aircraft has been based, where it has been operated, or another interpretation entirely. The safest assumption is to plan for tariff exposure and then try to prove otherwise by consulting with qualified US Customs counsel.

Brazil remains another important consideration for buyers importing aircraft into the U.S. Aerospace products from Brazil are currently subject to a 10% tariff, which can affect early Embraer Phenoms and all Praetor products that would need to be imported to the U.S. At the same time, Embraer aircraft manufactured in the U.S. may not carry this risk, making it essential to confirm manufacturing origin rather than relying solely on model type or general assumptions. 

For some manufacturers, the path is currently more straightforward. Dassault products are generally in a favorable position under current frameworks, as are Pilatus, Socata/TBM, Leonardo, Airbus, Textron, and U.S.-manufactured Gulfstream aircraft. However, even within a single manufacturer, risk can vary. Gulfstream aircraft manufactured in Israel may be subject to a 15% tariff, and Canadian manufactured Bell helicopters may face a 35% tariff exposure. Bombardier, as noted, is an area requiring particularly careful review: new aircraft are generally USMCA-compliant, while used aircraft can carry significant risk depending on export history, location, and whether it is considered to have been transshipped.

An important theme across all of this is that tariff risk is not limited to full aircraft movements. Parts from China remain impacted by tariffs, which is increasingly noticeable in the cost structure of major maintenance events. Engine overhauls and other MRO work can be affected by tariff-related increases in parts costs, and even if an aircraft itself is not impacted at import, the downstream operational costs may still rise due to continued tariff pressure within the supply chain.

For buyers and sellers trying to evaluate exposure, the process begins with a very simple question: are we crossing a border? That sounds straightforward, but it includes more scenarios than many clients expect. Even if an aircraft is coming into the U.S. for a pre-buy inspection, a border crossing has occurred and deserves attention. From there, the next question is whether the movement constitutes an import or an export. Imports require the most direct scrutiny, because this is where tariff liability is typically triggered. When a tariff applies, parties need to determine whether any exemptions exist and whether documentation supports the position being taken. Exports, meanwhile, demand a different type of caution, particularly for sellers who need to ensure that buyers are properly exporting the aircraft and that the appropriate filings and records are completed. And if an engine comes off the airplane, the same set of questions should be asked again, because engines moving across borders for maintenance can create a separate import/export event with its own tariff implications.

As Tobias Kleitman emphasized in our recent conversation, waiting to address these issues late in the process can have serious consequences. “The pace of change in tariff policy has been extraordinary,” he noted. “The biggest mistake we see is waiting until the end of a transaction to ask whether tariffs apply—because by then, your options may be limited. In today’s environment, expert guidance early in the process isn’t optional; it’s a key part of protecting your timeline and your economics.”

One additional area that can meaningfully affect outcomes is whether an aircraft was properly exported in the first place. When an aircraft has been exported with the appropriate customs filings—such as having an ITN number—within three years of the now-current import, and there have been no major improvements or enhancements, it may be eligible to re-import with no tariff. This can be a meaningful planning tool, but it also requires documentation discipline. It’s also important to distinguish between a customs export and de-registration (obtaining an export COA), as those are not the same thing and often confused with one another. A customs export is a formal process supported by specific filings and records, and it must be handled correctly to preserve future options.

Beyond today’s manufacturer-specific considerations, one of the most important factors shaping the longer-term landscape is the active Section 232 investigation. The 232 study seeks to determine whether the United States is too reliant on foreign supplies and, if so, whether that reliance presents a national security risk. If the investigation concludes that reliance is too high, one potential result could be pressure or policy designed to reshore manufacturing. This is particularly relevant for engine OEMs and key suppliers, where manufacturing concentration and supply chain dependencies are a central part of the conversation.

Kleitman has become increasingly focused on the significance of the 232 study and what it could mean for aviation transactions in the months ahead. “The 232 investigation is a bit of a wild card,” he said, “because it isn’t just about completed aircraft. It’s also about engines, parts, and the deeper supplier ecosystem our industry depends on. If outcomes shift policy in a meaningful way, it could impact deal planning and long-term cost structures across the board and we have no idea what the result of this 232 investigation is going to be”. 

There are also major legal questions still unresolved. A Supreme Court ruling on the legality of tariffs is expected any day. If the Court were to determine the tariffs are illegal, it is unlikely that the practical effects would be immediate. US Customs systems and processes would likely take several weeks to reprogram and reset, and such a window could give the Administration time to consider a “Plan B.” For parties seeking to recoup previously paid tariffs, there has been discussion of a possible process, but it may require claims through the courts and coordination with a customs attorney. In other words, even if the legal landscape shifts, the operational reality for transactions could remain complicated for some time.

Finally, as we look ahead, we’re monitoring fast-moving headlines that could eventually intersect with aviation-specific agreements. President Trump recently signaled his intent to impose 10% tariffs on countries opposing his efforts to annex Greenland. Although the proposal was later walked back, the broader message is hard to ignore: tariffs remain an active tool of negotiation, and business aviation must stay alert as policy continues to evolve.

The most important takeaway heading into 2026 is that tariff planning is no longer a small, specialized part of a transaction, it is now a central part of risk management. Buyers and sellers who treat tariffs as a late-stage compliance check may find themselves making decisions under pressure, with limited time and limited options. But those who evaluate cross-border exposure early, confirm export history and import structure, and engage expert guidance from the beginning can significantly reduce both cost risk and closing risk. jetAVIVA will continue monitoring developments closely and working alongside experienced partners like TVPX to help clients navigate this landscape with clarity and confidence.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is current as of the date of publication and is subject to change without notice. This article is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, tax, or customs advice. We recommend consulting qualified experts for guidance on any import, export, or tariff-related matters.