Customs Brokers Weigh In on the New Enforcement Order: What NCBFAA Told CBP, and What It Means for Importers

On July 27, 2026, NCBFAA President Karen Damon sent a letter to CBP responding to Executive Order 14411, "Strengthening Customs Enforcement," the order President Trump signed June 3. The letter, drafted by NCBFAA's Customs Committee on behalf of the association's customs broker membership, walks through five sections of the E.O. and offers specific questions and recommendations on each.

This post covers what the E.O. actually requires, what NCBFAA asked CBP to consider, and what all of it means for importers watching the implementation timeline.

The order itself

EO 14411 directs DHS and CBP to revise the rules governing who can act as an Importer of Record and how the import ecosystem, brokers, freight forwarders, bonded warehouse custodians, is regulated. It has been described by trade counsel as the most comprehensive customs enforcement directive in recent history. Within 180 days of signing, which lands around November 30, 2026, CBP must have new importer eligibility regulations in place.

The order covers five areas: IOR eligibility requirements, a new "good standing" standard, an updated IOR registry, enhanced vetting procedures for anyone touching an import transaction, and tighter enforcement and penalty rules.

NCBFAA's overall position

The letter opens by making clear that brokers are not opposing the order. Damon wrote that the brokerage community understands CBP's enhanced role in supply chain enforcement and offers its comments to support the initiative in a way that deters illicit cargo while promoting lawful trade. NCBFAA describes the customs broker as having a critical role in supporting the E.O.

That framing matters for anyone assessing how likely these changes are to happen as written. When the industry group most affected by new broker obligations is asking for implementation guidance rather than reconsideration, the direction of the policy is not in serious question. The open questions are about mechanics.

Importer of Record eligibility

Section 2 of the E.O. directs CBP to revise IOR eligibility to include minimum levels of tangible domestic assets or bonding, expanded reporting and identification requirements, a prohibition on foreign IORs filing informal entries, and a requirement that foreign IORs use continuous bonds and either be CTPAT validated themselves or work through a CTPAT validated broker.

NCBFAA states it is prepared to support these requirements. Its specific asks are about clarity. The letter requests that CBP clearly define the customs broker's role in the ACE Portal process, in setting minimum bond amounts, and in what "restricting in-bond utilization" actually means in practice. NCBFAA also suggests CBP work directly with IORs, including Non-Resident Importers currently in good standing, to instruct them clearly on how to maintain their status and, where relevant, how to pursue CTPAT membership.

The "good standing" requirement

Section 2(d) requires all IORs to maintain good standing with CBP. An IOR found not to be in good standing cannot import into the United States at all, a categorical exclusion rather than a fine or delay. Per the PwC Canada analysis of the order, this requirement must be established and enforced within 180 days, placing the deadline around November 30, 2026.

NCBFAA recognizes the compliance benefit this can create across the supply chain but is asking for a transparent and reasonable standard. Specifically, the letter suggests the good standing determination should generally apply only to importers with direct culpability for more serious violations, not sweep in importers for minor or technical issues. NCBFAA is also asking for a uniform, consistently applied process for making these determinations, rather than one that varies by port or officer.

This is worth attention because the stakes of a wrong or overly broad determination are high. Losing good standing does not mean a higher bond or extra scrutiny. It means being unable to import at all, including through a broker acting on your behalf.

The IOR registry

Section 2(e) directs CBP to build an updated IOR registry that removes inactive importers, confirms active importers are compliant, and creates risk-based tiers based on compliance history, enforcement actions, and audit results.

NCBFAA supports the concept, noting it can promote compliance throughout the supply chain, but again emphasizes that the registry needs a transparent, reasonable process for how importers move between tiers and how the underlying data gets maintained and updated.

Vetting procedures

Section 2(f) requires enhanced, recurring vetting for everyone connected to an import transaction: foreign IORs, IOR affiliates, customs brokers, bonded merchandise custodians, and freight forwarders.

This is where NCBFAA raised its most practical concern. Brokers do not have access to the government databases and tools CBP uses to vet parties thoroughly. Brokers already collect and verify corporate and officer information as part of normal practice, but genuine vetting, the kind the E.O. calls for, can only happen in partnership with CBP. NCBFAA's suggested fix is a registration system where IORs and their officers register through login.gov or a comparable platform, similar in concept to existing systems like ONE CBP or TSA PreCheck. That would put the vetting infrastructure where the data actually lives, with the government, rather than asking brokers to replicate law enforcement-level screening they are not equipped to do.

Disclosure and certification requirements

Section 3 directs CBP to establish heightened import disclosure and certification requirements, tied to compliance with critical supply chain requirements, with criminal and civil penalties for noncompliance.

NCBFAA supports the compliance value of stronger disclosure but is asking CBP to implement it transparently and in a way that targets unlawful trade rather than adding friction to normal business practices across the board.

Enforcement and penalties

Section 4 directs CBP to bolster enforcement broadly, including enforcing liquidated damages claims against bonds, restricting in-bond utilization, increasing audits, and imposing maximum penalties on brokers who fail to conduct due diligence, repeatedly represent noncompliant clients, or do not cooperate with CBP information requests. It also sets a minimum penalty floor of 50% of the assessed penalty, a minimum liquidated damages floor, and removes mitigation for repeat offenders.

NCBFAA supports the level playing field this creates for compliant businesses but cautions CBP to build in due process guardrails so that law-abiding importers and brokers are not swept into enforcement actions intended for bad actors. The letter also encourages CBP to keep promoting informed compliance, giving industry clear guidance and the chance to correct course, before moving to enforced compliance.

A parallel voice: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

NCBFAA is not the only industry voice CBP is hearing from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent its own letter on EO 14411, describing it as the most comprehensive customs enforcement directive in recent history and broadly supporting the goal of stopping counterfeiters and bad actors. The Chamber's core request mirrors NCBFAA's: give equal weight to facilitating legal trade alongside stronger enforcement, and pursue comprehensive customs reform legislation with Congress rather than enforcement changes alone.

Two of the most directly affected industry groups making similar asks in the same window is a meaningful signal about where the practical tension in implementation actually sits.

What this means for importers

The direction of this policy is not in question. Bond and asset requirements are going up. Data and disclosure obligations are expanding. A formal good standing requirement is coming, with real consequences for losing it. Foreign IOR structures are getting materially harder to use for informal entries. None of the industry feedback submitted so far is asking CBP to walk any of this back.

What is genuinely uncertain, and what these letters are trying to influence, is how the rules get applied in practice. Whether the good standing standard catches only serious, culpable violations or sweeps more broadly. Whether vetting responsibility sits with CBP's systems or gets pushed onto brokers without the tools to do it. Whether enforcement guardrails protect compliant businesses from being caught in actions meant for bad actors.

CBP has until roughly November 30 to finalize the IOR eligibility rules. Between now and then is when industry input actually has a chance to shape the outcome. After the rules are final, the questions shift from what they should say to how to comply with what they do say.

What to do now

Review your IOR structure, including whether it relies on foreign entities that will face new restrictions. Check your current bonding levels against what higher minimums might require. If you use Non-Resident Importer structures, start thinking now about the CTPAT validation path, since that is likely to become a practical necessity rather than an option. And if you have any history of compliance issues, however minor, this is the window to address them before a formal good standing standard is measuring against your record.

We are tracking the CBP implementation guidance as it develops and can help assess how your IOR structure and compliance posture line up with what is coming. Reach out to your ShipTech account manager to review your specific setup.