Even with the ability to take excellent photos with our phones and instantly share them across the world, there’s something magical about the old-school instant camera. With just a click of a button, you can capture a moment in a photo that you can see and touch almost immediately. Images captured by an instant camera aren’t as pristine or perfect as those produced by modern digital cameras, but their soft images and imperfections are often a big part of the allure.
Business
The best instant cameras you can buy right now

Yet not all instant cameras are the same, and some of them are better suited for different needs and budgets. That’s why we tested some of the most popular instant cameras on the market from brands like Fujifilm, Polaroid, Leica, Canon, and Kodak.
All of the models featured in our instant camera buying guide are enjoyable to use, but each offers a different set of features at a different price point. As a result, some are more appropriate for a child or budding photographer, while others are more advanced and provide added creative control (for a price). When it comes down to it, though, we consider print quality, ease of use, and affordability to be the hallmarks of a quality shooter. That’s why we picked Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 as the best instant camera for most people, as it ticks all three boxes wonderfully.
If you’re looking for more creative control or features like filters, however, the Instax Mini Evo is our choice, one that boasts great image quality and allows you to choose which photos you’d like to print. Other instant cameras, like the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus and Kodak’s Mini Retro 3, also offer a variety of advanced creative modes for those who desire more.
Take a look at this list of our instant camera recommendations to find the best fit for you.
The best instant camera for most people
$79
Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 is the best instant camera for most people. While it lacks more advanced features, the simple instant camera takes good-quality shots quickly and easily and offers a built-in selfie mode. It’s sold in a variety of fun colors that’ll especially appeal to kids and tweens.
Film type: Fujifilm Instax Mini film (sold separately) / Film size: 2 x 3-inches / Weight: 306 grams / Charging method: AA batteries / Companion app: None / Other features: Built-in selfie mirror, film counter
If all you’re looking to do is just click a button and get a decent print for a reasonable price, we recommend Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12. It’s a basic instant camera that’s similar to our former pick, the Instax Mini 11, but with some minor updates. It still takes less than five minutes to start shooting, but the setup process is easier since all you need to do is twist the lens to either “on” or “off.” Such ease of use, combined with the camera’s thinner build, makes it particularly well suited for those new to photography and kids.
For an instant camera, image quality is also better than most of the other cameras I tested, producing relatively true-to-life photos. Most of the cameras I tested struggled to capture low-light conditions well, and this one is no exception, but the built-in flash does help. Fujifilm claims the Mini 12 optimizes image quality in both dark and bright environments better than its predecessor, but I didn’t notice much of a difference. The flash — which you can’t disable — is also still overpowering in some instances, resulting in a few overexposed images. If anything, the photos actually seemed a little darker and less vivid than before.
However, at least the Instax Mini 12 captured my features and skin color more accurately when I used the included selfie feature — which is really just a small mirror mounted on the front of the camera.
You can also now zoom in a little easier thanks to a new lens structure, which you can twist to enter the Close-Up Mode in lieu of pressing a button. When in this mode, you can take advantage of the camera’s new “Parallax Correction” feature, which is supposed to result in a more aligned photo. The lens was fun to play with and reminded me of a traditional point-and-shoot, but actually using it to take quality photos takes some time to figure out. As with the Mini 11, it’s still somewhat tricky to center your subject in the frame using this mode, even with the updated lens. Thankfully, it became easier to properly align photos after a couple of attempts (as well as some composition guidance from the manual).
The Mini 12 also offers a number of other niceties. I appreciated the larger-than-average viewfinder and the fact that the camera comes with a small counter that displays the remaining number of shots, which is a feature many of the other instant cameras I tested lacked. It’s easy to lose track of how many photos you’ve taken, especially when out for drinks or while sightseeing on vacation. Yet given each print costs about $1, it’s important to be mindful of how many shots you’ve got left.
All in all, the Instax Mini 12 is a basic camera that caters to all ages and experience levels and gets the job done — and done relatively well. It doesn’t feature Bluetooth or pair with a companion app that allows you to edit photos (only scan them), and it also doesn’t offer advanced features like filters, lens options, or portrait modes. But if you’re looking for an instant camera that offers a great traditional analog experience, this is it.
Best premium instant camera
Film type: Fujifilm Instax Mini film (sold separately) / Film size: 2 x 3-inches / Weight: 285 grams / Charging method: USB-C (on newer models) / Companion app: Yes / Other features: LCD screen, smartphone printing
One of Fujifilm’s newest instant cameras, the Instax Mini Evo, is my colleague Becca Farcase’s favorite — and it’s mine as well. A hybrid camera that bears a resemblance to Fujifilm’s more expensive Fujifilm X100 line of cameras, it looks good and boasts vintage dials and buttons so stylish that they even caught the attention of passersby as I walked around Los Angeles taking photos. I tested the black camera, but Fujifilm also sells a brown version and is also offering limited edition models in silver and gold.
It’s easy to balk at its $199 price tag, but this camera offers a level of flexibility that could save you money in the long run if you use it a lot. That’s because the Instax Mini Evo includes a full-color three-inch LCD screen that lets you preview and select which images you want to print, which can help you avoid wasting film on unwanted shots. The added flexibility gave me more room for creative experimentation, too, as I wasn’t worried about running out of film. I also loved using the Instax Mini Evo app to print photos from my smartphone. Plus, unlike the Instax Mini 12, the Evo now uses a USB-C port (though older black models still use the Micro USB port) for charging so you don’t need to keep buying new batteries.
Unlike Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12, the Mini Evo comes with a few extra features that can help you capture better photos. For example, you can actually turn off the flash on the Mini Evo and use the three-inch LCD screen as a viewfinder. You can also use the menu to adjust how bright you want the film to look when it’s printed out, which was helpful given neither the Evo nor the Mini 12 are particularly great at capturing dark environments.
Additionally, there are dials you can use to apply various lens options and filters, ranging from retro to monochrome shades, as well as a mirror lens, vignette, soft focus, and more. You can take app-based remote shots, too, which adds an extra element of photographic control that can help you take better selfie shots than the selfie mirror in the front.
Of course, it’s not a perfect device, and there are some downsides to consider outside the price. For instance, although you can add some filters and make a few edits using Fujifilm’s companion app, it just isn’t as feature-rich as some of the apps available for the other digital and hybrid instant cameras I tested. The Evo’s extensive menu system also wasn’t particularly easy to navigate, and it took me some time to figure out how to turn the flash on and off. Plus, if you rely on internal storage solely, you can only take 45 images before the device is full. Still, all of these are minor issues, and I was very happy overall with how portable the stylish camera is, as well as how easy it is to take good photos quickly.
The best instant camera for social occasions
Film type: Kodak Instant Print 3 x 3-inch cartridge (included) / Film size: 3 x 3-inch square prints / Weight: 467 grams / Charging method: Micro USB / Companion app: Yes / Other features: LCD screen, smartphone printing
Whereas the Instax Mini Evo’s companion app is more functional, Kodak’s hybrid Mini Shot 3 Retro is all about fun. The camera’s accompanying mobile app allows you to apply frames, stickers, filters, and a plethora of customization options to photos, making the camera great for scrapbooking. There’s even a beauty feature within the app to conceal blemishes, as well as a set of Snapchat-like filters you can use to add, say, dog ears, making this a fun instant camera to use as a mini photo booth of sorts at parties.
Like the Instax Mini Evo, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro comes with an LCD screen (albeit a much smaller one) you can use to decide whether or not you want to print a shot. It also supports Bluetooth, and you can use the Kodak Photo Printer app to upload photos to social media or print decent, relatively crisp photos from your smartphone. Unlike the Mini Evo, however, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro retails for around $150 and includes a pack of a film (it’s also often on sale for a lot less). It also uses cheaper film; you can currently pick up a 60-sheet cartridge for about $17.99, which equates to roughly $0.33 a shot. The fact that the film is cheaper arguably encourages play and creative experimentation, even if the large 3 x 3-inch square prints feel lower in quality and more flimsy than both Fujifilm’s and Polaroid’s.
However, there are notable drawbacks to the Kodak Mini Shot 3. My biggest issue is that the resulting prints of photos taken with the camera aren’t nearly as crisp or clear as those taken with a smartphone. Photo quality wasn’t consistently as good as the Mini Evo’s or Mini 12’s nor, for the most part, as clear and sharp. The photos also sometimes had an excessive pink tint that can interfere with quality. It doesn’t store images the way the Mini Evo does, either, which means you can’t decide whether you’d like to print them later. It’s also noticeably heavier than the Mini Evo and, frankly, nowhere near as stylish.
Nonetheless, if you don’t mind compromising on photo quality and want a relatively affordable hybrid camera with fun app features, the Kodak Mini Shot 3 Retro is a good choice.
The best instant camera for retro fans
Film type: Polaroid i-Type Color Film (sold separately) / Film size: 4.2 x 3.5-inch prints / Weight: 451.5 grams / Charging method: USB-C / Companion app: Yes / Other features: Lens filter kit, film counter
If you’re looking for an instant camera that offers the most old-fashioned, instant-film experience, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is the camera for you. Compared to the other instant cameras on this list, it most closely resembles vintage instant cameras like the Polaroid 600 with its classic, retro-inspired design. Meanwhile, its square I-Type film prints and iconic Polaroid-style frame give photos a more authentically vintage look.
Yet, at the same time, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus also comes with the convenience and usefulness of more modern features, including support for USB-C charging. It also offers Bluetooth support and a companion app boasting several creative modes that allow for greater photographic control. These include a remote shutter, a self-timer, and a “Polaroid Lab” where you can adjust the exposure and various color settings. The app also features a handful of shooting modes — including a manual option and one for capturing multiple exposures — while the camera includes a set of five colored lenses you can snap onto the front. These were enjoyable to play with and allowed for more artistic expression.
If there’s one thing the Polaroid Now Plus isn’t known for, it’s portability. Given how heavy, large, and awkwardly sized it is, it’s not the kind of instant camera you can easily slip into your purse or carry around. Plus, it takes up to 15 minutes for prints to develop, and you have to make sure it’s not exposed to light while developing. That’s quite an inconvenience if you’re out with friends, say, at the beach on a sunny day.
If you’re looking for an instant camera that can easily print a good, clear photo without much effort on your part, this is not the camera for you. Of all the cameras on this list, the latest Polaroid Now Plus struggles with low-light environments the most. I could barely see images I took indoors, and I was only able to get the clearest shots when the light was directly behind me during the day — more specifically, in the morning. Even these images weren’t as clear in comparison to Instax film, and both contrast and color saturation levels tend to be quite low.
Admittedly, this gave my pictures more of a dreamy vintage look that felt artistic, and you can use the Polaroid Lab to slightly adjust saturation and exposure settings. However, doing so is time-consuming. Given all these issues, I found it was easy to quickly waste film, which proved expensive. After all, you only get eight I-Type sheets for $16.99, and that’s in addition to forking out $149.99 for the camera.
Truth be told, however, you could argue that many of these shortcomings are typical of a retro Polaroid-inspired instant camera and, thus, part of the experience. If that’s what you’re looking for, and you don’t mind the price, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is the perfect camera for you.
The best instant camera for portability
Film type: Polaroid i-Type Color Film (sold separately) / Film size: 2.6 x 2.1-inch prints / Weight: 239 grams / Charging method: USB-C / Companion app: No / Other features: Self-timer, selfie mirror, film counter
Whereas the Polaroid Now Plus is huge, the second-gen Polaroid Go is tiny. It easily fits into the palm of my hand — which is saying a lot, given I’m petite and a little over five feet tall — making it easily the most portable instant camera on our list. It also produces the smallest prints of all the instant cameras I tested, which could be nice if you’re trying to save some space and want something even more compact than Instax Mini prints.
Weighing just over a pound, the latest Polaroid Go is also the lightest instant camera I’ve ever held, and you can easily use it with one hand. That’s actually pretty convenient, given I sometimes struggled to take pictures with the heavier Polaroid Now Plus and, to a lesser extent, some of the other instant cameras I tested. In fact, if the images produced looked more true-to-life and didn’t require you to hide them from light for about 15 minutes while developing, I’d be tempted to call this the best instant camera for travel or small children.
At $79.99, the latest Polaroid Go is the most affordable Polaroid camera on the market, with film that costs just a little more than Fujifilm’s Instax Mini shots (or about $19.99 for a 16-sheet pack). It also sports a small number of upgrades over the last-gen model despite retailing for $20 less. The most significant is USB-C support, which allows for faster charging and prevents you from having to spend money on AA batteries.
Polaroid also claims the camera produces clearer stills than its predecessor, but truthfully, I didn’t see a significant difference from one generation to the next. The photos are a little brighter, but if anything, the original Polaroid Go — like the Now Plus — produced warmer pictures that I preferred and thought were truer to life. Still, the photos are charming in the way only a Polaroid photo can be. Contrast and color saturation levels are still low but in a way that exudes the vintage, almost dreamy look of the photos taken with the Now Plus.
Unlike the Now Plus, however, the Go lacks creative modes and more advanced features, although it does offer a helpful self-timer and a larger selfie mirror. There’s also no Bluetooth support and, thus, no fancy app that will allow you to add extra effects. Instead, it’s just a simple point-and-shoot camera, just like the Instax Mini 12, which makes it a little easier to use. In addition, as mentioned, the prints are even smaller than the Instax Mini, which could be a drawback for those who prefer larger, more traditional Polaroid photos. While it produces similar vintage-style shots, design-wise, it doesn’t look anything like old-school Polaroid cameras, which could also take away from the retro experience some desire.
That said, none of the older Polaroid cameras came with an app, either. All in all, the Go’s simplicity makes it a suitable candidate for those seeking an easy-to-use camera that provides a more traditional instant film experience — one they can take advantage of just about anywhere for half the price of the Polaroid Now Plus.
Other instant cameras we’re considering
Fujifilm recently released the $149.95 Instax Wide 400, the upgraded version of the Wide 300. It’s the company’s first wide-format instant camera in nearly a decade, and like its predecessor, it prints photos that are twice as wide as the Instax Mini 12’s. It features a new self-timer and a rounded body for better grip, though it’s currently only available in a sage green hue. I’ve just got my hands on the camera and have started testing it to see how it stacks up to Fujifilm’s other models, along with other wide-format instant cameras.
Earlier this year, Kodak released the Kodak Smile Plus, another hybrid instant camera you can use to print smartphone photos. It’s cheaper than Kodak’s Mini Retro 3 at $99.99, but it lacks an LCD screen, so you can’t pick and choose images before you print them, which could result in more wasted shots. That said, it does offer a microSD card slot, so you can store and view photos elsewhere. It also prints on Zinc paper, allowing your photos to double as stickers, and comes with a physical filter-changing lens. I’ll be testing the instant camera once I get my hands on it to see how it stacks up, so stay tuned.
A few more good instant cameras (and one to avoid)
From photo quality to the lever you pull to print photos, Leica’s Sofort 2 is a terrific camera that’s remarkably similar to the Instax Mini Evo. In all of my tests, the photos I took with both looked identical. The two hybrid cameras also print smartphone photos via Instax Mini film and offer 10 film and lens effects, along with a macro mode for those who want more creative control. The Sofort 2’s minimalistic look is stylish, too, even if it’s not as charming as the retro-inspired Evo.
The drawback to the Sofort 2 is that it’s twice the price of the Evo. It’s hard to recommend at $389 since most people would likely consider the differences between the two cameras relatively minor. The user interface is easier to navigate on the Leica, though, and I appreciate the included lens cap and extended two-year warranty. I also like that it lets you print photos taken with other Leica cameras via the companion app — a nice perk for Leica fans. Nonetheless, I don’t think those perks are enough to justify spending nearly $200 more.
If you’re looking for an analog instant camera that’s more advanced, Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 99 is one to consider. At around $200, Fujifilm’s latest instant camera is not as affordable as the Instax Mini 12, but it’s certainly a step up from the one-button point-and-click camera given it has multiple brightness settings, focus zones, color effects, and even two shutter buttons for greater creative control. The camera even comes with a tripod socket and an aluminum extension column, as well as a Sports Mode designed to further reduce blur while capturing fast-moving subjects.
Thanks to the added level of customization, I was able to capture higher-quality photos that looked truer to life than those from the Instax Mini 12 and Mini Evo. Granted, the Mini 99 is an analog camera and not a hybrid like the $199.99 Mini Evo, meaning you shouldn’t buy it if you also want to print smartphone photos. The new model also isn’t as simple to use as the Mini 12, so I wouldn’t recommend it for young children. Still, for an advanced analog instant camera, it’s relatively easy to set up and use, rendering it as much of a fun option for budding photographers as it is for the experienced alike.
While it didn’t make the cut, the Instaxf Square SQ1 is also worth a brief mention. Like the Mini 12, the Instax Square SQ1 produces good-quality shots, is easy to set up and use, and comes with a built-in selfie mirror. The reason we didn’t include it above, however, is that it costs nearly twice as much as the Mini 12 at $119.95, though we do sometimes see it on sale for $100.
That said, it might be worth a look if you prefer large 2.4 x 2.4-inch square prints and relatively true-to-life photos over vintage-looking stills. After all, the SQ1 is still cheaper than the Polaroid Now Plus and produces higher-quality images than the Kodak Mini Shot 3 Square Retro, which also prints similarly sized square shots.
Fujifilm also sells the newer Instax Square SQ40. It’s similar to the Instax Square SQ1 but with a vintage look that’s more visually striking, yet it’s also more expensive at $149. Given it produces similarly good-quality photos and is not likely to go on sale anytime soon, I’d recommend the Instax Square SQ1 or the more capable Instax Mini Evo for $50 more.
Avoid the Kodak Printomatic
We also tested a few instant cameras that we would advise people to steer clear of. The Kodak Printomatic is chief among those, and we specifically mention it because it’s often one of the bestselling instant cameras on Amazon. We suspect that’s because it’s routinely on sale for $49.99 ($30 off) with a pack of film — specifically, a 10-pack of Zink photo prints with adhesive backings so you can use the images as stickers. However, if you’re simply looking for a budget-friendly instant camera, it’s not worth purchasing over Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12.
As is common with Zink photos, the Printomatic’s resulting photo quality isn’t clear and tends to be oversaturated. In fact, many photos were so bad that I barely recognized the subject in the frame. The camera is also slow to print and wasn’t always responsive when I pressed the shutter button, which meant I occasionally had to press it a few times to take a shot. All in all, it was a frustrating camera to use that’s not worth the $30 you may save by picking it over Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12. Besides, you’ll probably be using the money saved to buy extra film given how many prints you’ll waste.
Update, November 14th: Updated links and adjusted pricing.
Business
Trump Says US Banks Can’t Do Business in Canada. It’s Not That Simple.

Hours after imposing steep tariffs on Canada, President Trump raised an issue that even the American lenders whose cause he’s championing find perplexing: the access, or lack thereof, of U.S. banks to the Canadian market.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, “Canada doesn’t allow American Banks to do business in Canada, but their banks flood the American Market.” He added sarcastically, “Oh, that seems fair to me, doesn’t it?”
While this issue doesn’t often come up in conversations with prominent American bank executives, it appears to be increasingly on the president’s mind.
Mr. Trump mentioned the Canada banking issue early last month as part of a broader criticism against what he views as the unequal economic balance between the United States and its northern neighbor. Writing on Truth Social, Mr. Trump said Canada “doesn’t even allow U.S. Banks to open or do business.”
Here is the actual state of play for U.S. banks in Canada:
Can U.S. banks operate in Canada?
Canada’s banking sector is dominated by the “Big Six,” the half-dozen institutions including the Royal Bank of Canada and TD Bank. They are permitted to take deposits, extend mortgages and advise corporate clients — all the core activities for banks. And Canadian customers disproportionately still prefer to do their banking in person, as opposed to online, meaning it would require a major physical presence for any entrant to attempt to enter the market.
Additionally, U.S. banks are restricted in what they can do in Canada.
Foreign banks, including American ones, must either work with a Canadian middleman, establish a Canadian subsidiary or receive special government permission to do business. Unless they agree to follow Canada’s stringent banking rules that include holding a hefty sum of cash-like assets in reserve at all times, they cannot operate retail branches that take deposits under around $100,000.
Given how dominant Canada’s homegrown banks are, any international bank that tries to compete faces “an additional regulatory burden for what would begin as a small prize,” said James R. Thompson, associate professor of finance at the University of Waterloo.
The upshot is that U.S. banks have minimal operations in Canada. The largest American lender, JPMorgan Chase, says it has roughly 600 employees in Canada, out of more than 300,000 worldwide. Many international banks limit themselves to areas that don’t involve lending, such as offering investment advice to wealthy Canadians or local companies.
So Mr. Trump is incorrect in asserting that American banks cannot do any business in Canada, but it is true that they are hamstrung in their activities.
Why is Canada so restrictive?
While there are more than 4,000 banks in the United States, Canada has just a few dozen, and more than three-quarters of deposits are held by the Big Six.
For decades, Canadian political leaders have crowed about that restrictive financial regulatory model. They argue that fending off foreign entrants in the country’s mortgage market helped the country largely avoid the 2008 collapse south of its border.
In light of Mr. Trump’s criticism, Maggie Cheung, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Bankers Association, was quick to point out on Tuesday that foreign banks were an integral part of the banking landscape. She said 16 U.S. banks were operating to some degree in Canada, with a cumulative of nearly $79 billion in assets — a statistic that the nation’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, also cited on Tuesday.
“American banks are alive and well and prospering in Canada,” Mr. Trudeau said.
But in relative terms, their successes are small. U.S. bank assets represent 1 to 2 percent of the $6.5 trillion held by banks operating in Canada writ large.
“The major impediment faced by U.S. banks,” said Laurence Booth, professor of finance at the University of Toronto, “is simply they can’t compete with the Canadian banks as they don’t have the scale, while they can’t take any of them over as there are restrictions on foreign ownership.”
Do Canadian banks ‘flood’ the U.S.?
International banks — including Canadian ones — are largely free to establish U.S. arms. The United States is a more attractive target for international banks than Canada, both because it is a hub for world finance and because its market permits more exotic, higher-profit lending activities like 30-year mortgages. (The most common mortgage in Canada carries a five-year term.)
The largest Canadian bank in America, TD Bank, operates more than 1,000 U.S. branches through a Delaware subsidiary. That size puts it in line with well-known regional lenders like Citizens and Fifth Third.
The Canadian Bankers Association said the six largest Canadian lenders held less than 3.5 percent of U.S. bank assets.
Is this even an issue for Wall Street?
Big U.S. banks had plenty of hopes that Mr. Trump would decrease regulations, encourage merger activity and slash taxes. Expanding their presence in Canada was not on the list.
A U.S. banking industry trade group, the Bank Policy Institute, said Tuesday that it had released no statements on the matter, and no bank chief executive has taken up the rallying cry.
More pressing for the global banking industry are Mr. Trump’s tariffs, which have helped push the industry’s stocks down 8 percent over the past month, according to the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index.
Business
Trump’s New Tariffs Could Strain Collection of Customs Fees

The sweeping tariffs on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese products that President Trump imposed on Tuesday could strain the system that collects import duties and the government agencies that enforce those fees, trade and legal experts said.
Collecting import duties is usually a routine task, but the new tariffs are being imposed on Mexican and Canadian goods, many of which have been imported into the United States duty-free for many years. Adding to the challenge is the sheer volume of goods subject to the new tariffs — U.S. imports from China, Mexico and Canada totaled over $1.3 trillion last year, or about two-fifths of all imports.
The tariffs apply a 25 percent duty on goods from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10 percent on imports from China.
Importers typically employ customs brokers to calculate and pay tariffs to the government agency that collects them, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Adam Lewis, a co-founder and the president of Clearit, a customs broker, said that it would not be hard to tweak software to collect the new tariffs, but that a crucial part of the tariffs payment system might need significant adjustments. Importers must buy a “customs bond,” a type of insurance that guarantees the duties will be paid. Mr. Lewis said some customers might have to increase the size of their bonds to cover the extra tariff payments.
“Many of their products were coming in duty-free, and all of a sudden there’s going to be a 25 percent increase,” he said. “It’s quite large.”
In addition, policing importers for tariff evasion will now become a much bigger task for Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Justice. Some importers may try to avoid tariffs by understating the cost of goods in customs declarations or by falsely claiming they were imported from countries not subject to tariffs.
“The greater the breadth and severity of these new tariffs, the greater the likelihood that at least some potential importers may want to misrepresent the value or the origin of their goods,” said Kirti Vaidya Reddy, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at the law firm Quarles.
If the government finds that an importer has not paid duties, customs officials are likely to demand that the importer pay what is owed and a penalty that can double or even triple the amount due.
In a statement, a customs agency spokeswoman said: “The dynamic nature of our mission, along with evolving threats and challenges, requires C.B.P. to remain flexible and adapt quickly while ensuring seamless operations and mission resilience. These tariffs will help maintain America’s global competitiveness and protect American industries from unfair trade practices.”
Some evasion cases have become the subject of criminal prosecutions. Last year, a Miami importer pleaded guilty to participating in an import scheme involving Chinese truck tires that the Justice Department said had cost the United States more than $1.9 million in forgone tariff revenue.
But stepping up enforcement efforts is likely to require that the Justice Department devote significantly more staff to pursuing tariff evasion cases, which, lawyers said, can take time to build.
“The Department of Justice has the personnel and infrastructure to do it, but these cases are complex, transnational and document-heavy,” said Artie McConnell, a former federal prosecutor who is a partner at the law firm BakerHostetler. “You can’t rush it, and prosecutions likely won’t come quickly.”
Business
China Retaliates Against Trump, Imposing Tariffs and Blacklisting U.S. Companies

Minutes after President Trump’s latest tariffs took effect, the Chinese government said on Tuesday that it was imposing its own broad tariffs on food imported from the United States and would essentially halt sales to 15 American companies.
China’s Ministry of Finance put tariffs of 15 percent on imports of American chicken, wheat, corn and cotton and 10 percent tariffs on other foods, ranging from soybeans to dairy products. In addition, the Ministry of Commerce said 15 U.S. companies would no longer be allowed to buy products from China except with special permission, including Skydio, which is the largest American maker of drones and a supplier to the U.S. military and emergency services.
Lou Qinjian, a spokesman for China’s National People’s Congress, chastised the United States for violating the World Trade Organization’s free trade rules. “By imposing unilateral tariffs, the U.S. has violated W.T.O. rules and disrupted the security and stability of the global industrial and supply chains,” he said.
President Trump has contended his tariffs are essential to stopping the flow into the United States of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths through overdoses.
But the U.S. imposition of tariffs “will deal a heavy blow to counternarcotics dialogue and cooperation,” Lin Jian, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a news briefing.
Mr. Trump has now tagged almost all goods from China with an extra 20 percent in tariffs since taking office in January. He announced 10 percent tariffs on Feb. 4 and another round on Tuesday. Mr. Trump also moved ahead on 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada on Tuesday, after a monthlong delay.
China had responded to the February tariffs by immediately announcing that it would start collecting, six days later, additional tariffs on liquefied natural gas, coal and farm machinery from the United States. But those tariffs combined hit only about a tenth of American exports to China, making them much narrower than Mr. Trump’s comprehensive tariffs.
China’s action on Tuesday was much broader. China is the top overseas market for American farmers, wielding considerable influence over prices and demand in the commodities markets of the Midwest.
By targeting imports of food, Beijing repeated its response to tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed during his first term. China put tariffs on American soybeans in 2018 and shifted much of its purchasing to Brazil.
But the strategy backfired then: Mr. Trump responded by placing more tariffs on Chinese goods. Because China sells much more to the United States than it buys, it quickly ran out of American goods to impose tariffs on. And American farmers had some success in finding other markets for their crops.
China’s tariffs in 2018 also had less of a political impact in the United States than Beijing’s leaders had hoped. In 2018 Senate elections in three of the top soybean-exporting states, voters gave little evidence they held the Chinese action against Mr. Trump or the Republican Party. All three states saw Democratic senators replaced with Republicans that year, as social issues proved more compelling for many voters than trade disputes.
Yet China has potential trade weapons that go beyond tariffs on food. In early February, Beijing implemented restrictions on exports to the United States of certain critical minerals, which are used in the production of some semiconductors and other technology products.
Blocking key materials from reaching the United States, a tactic known as supply chain warfare, carries considerable risks for China. Beijing is struggling to attract foreign investment. China’s leaders have also stated that attempting to bolster the country’s domestic economy, weighed down by the fallout of a devastating real estate slowdown, is a priority.
Beijing could make it even harder for American companies to do business in China, but that could also hurt foreign investment. In addition to effectively preventing 15 companies from buying Chinese goods, China’s Ministry of Commerce added another 10 American companies on Tuesday to what it calls an “unreliable entities list,” preventing them from doing any business in China.
Many of the companies that China penalized on Tuesday are military contractors. But the Ministry of Commerce also blocked imports from the biotech firm Illumina. It accused Illumina, which is based in San Diego, of violating market transaction rules and discriminating against Chinese companies.
Chinese market regulators said in early February, after Mr. Trump imposed tariffs, that they had launched an antimonopoly investigation into Google. Google has been blocked from China’s internet for more than a decade, but the move could disrupt the company’s dealings with Chinese companies.
Mr. Lou, the National People’s Congress spokesman, signaled his country’s emerging strategy in dealing with Mr. Trump’s tariffs by calling for closer trade relations with Europe.
“China and Europe can complement each other’s strengths and achieve mutual benefit in many areas of cooperation,” he said at a news conference ahead of the opening on Wednesday of the annual weeklong session of China’s legislature.
But Europe has its own trade disputes with China, notably over electric vehicles. European politicians and business leaders have voiced concern about how to cope with an expected further flood of exports this year from China, which has embarked on a far-reaching factory construction program.
China’s rapid rise since 2000 to global pre-eminence in manufacturing, with a third of the world’s output, has come to a considerable extent at the expense of the American share of global industrial production, according to United Nations data. European nations have been wary of closing factories and relying on low-cost imports from China.
Mr. Trump has moved much faster on China tariffs during his second term than he did in his first. In 2018 and 2019, he imposed tariffs of up to 25 percent, in stages, on imports worth about $300 billion a year. He then concluded a trade agreement with China in January 2020, leaving in place 25 percent tariffs on many industrial goods while cutting 15 percent tariffs on some consumer products to 7.5 percent and canceling a few other tariffs.
By contrast, Mr. Trump has now imposed 20 percent tariffs on all goods that the United States imports from China, worth about $440 billion a year. That includes some products, like smartphones, that he omitted during his first term.
Mr. Trump’s actions this year have raised average tariffs on the affected Chinese imports to 39 percent — compared with just 3 percent before he took office in 2017. Apart from China, Canada and Mexico, the United States imposes tariffs averaging about 3 percent on most trading partners.
China’s average tariffs on goods from most of the world are twice as high, and much higher on imports from the United States.
In Mr. Trump’s first term, the Chinese government reduced taxes that it charges the country’s exporters. That gave them room to cut prices and offset at least part of the tariffs for their customers, which include many small American businesses as well as big retailers like Walmart, Amazon and Home Depot.
As another way around tariffs, some Chinese exporters shifted the final assembly of their products to countries like Vietnam, Thailand or Mexico, while keeping the production of core components in China. Mr. Trump is now trying to stop some of the trade through Mexico, which critics of Chinese exports see as a backdoor into the U.S. market.
Many Chinese exporters resorted to using the so-called de minimis exception to tariffs: dividing shipments into many packages, each with a value of less than $800. Each shipment is then exempt from tariffs and customs processing fees and mostly omitted from customs inspections and American imports data.
At least $1 of every $6 worth of American imports from China is now arriving through these de minimis shipments.
In early February, Mr. Trump issued an order briefly halting the de minimis tariff exemption for goods from China, Mexico and Canada. After packages quickly accumulated at American airports, he delayed the order for shipments from China until procedures could be developed to handle them, and postponed for a month his order for de minimis imports from Canada and Mexico. On Sunday, he again delayed action on those imports from Canada and Mexico.
Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, said that by retaliating now, “China sends a strong signal to the Trump administration that a unilateral tariff doesn’t work — you have to sit down to talk to us and to negotiate with us.”
Alexandra Stevenson contributed reporting from Beijing, and Chris Buckley and Amy Chang Chien from Taipei. Li You contributed research.