The Trump administration slapped double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countries this month, affecting 99% of U.S. imports under the banner of fighting forced labor. But critics say the move has little to do with protecting workers abroad and everything to do with sidestepping Congress after the Supreme Court struck down worldwide tariffs five months ago.
The new tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, took effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired. They're levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 against countries the U.S. claims don't have or don't effectively enforce forced-labor import bans. Nations with vastly different human rights records received identical tariff rates, and the administration provided few details on how it arrived at those numbers despite a four-month investigation.
A Pattern of Workarounds
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School's Center for International Law, cut through the administration's rhetoric. "The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute," he said. "That's what all of this is about. The president doesn't want to knock on the front door of Congress, so he's trying every side door and every unlatched window to get in."
During Trump's first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports. The U.S. is also using those powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry. The expired tariffs were themselves a temporary replacement for worldwide tariffs the Supreme Court invalidated in February.
Countries Push Back Hard
Brazil, facing a 12.5% tariff, called the U.S. move "arbitrary and unjustified." The country said in a statement that the U.S. "chose to manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices."
Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff. Trade Minister Don Farrell said in Adelaide, "We believe that amongst all of the countries in the world, Australia does take the issue of slavery, modern slavery, seriously, and will continue to do that."
Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, pointed to the tariffs' lack of credibility. "There's not a lot of hard evidence there," he said. "It's pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren't doing enough to police forced labor."
No Clear Path to Relief
The office of the United States Trade Representative said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation, held two rounds of public hearings, elicited more than 2,100 public comments, and had "engagement" with trading partners about combating forced labor. It didn't detail its talks with countries, saying those were confidential. Experts said it's fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban, but difficult to determine the government's exact rationale for each country's failure to enforce import bans.
Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official, said that even if countries enact and enforce the forced-labor import bans the U.S. wants, they'd still need to prove they're enforcing them to Washington's satisfaction before the tariffs would be removed. "This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available," he said.
Domestic Industries Caught in Crossfire
The National Council of Textile Organizations protested a mechanism that exempts the Section 301 tariffs for textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia based on those countries' imports of U.S. cotton and textiles. Kim Glas, the group's chief executive, said, "No other industry has been more disadvantaged by forced labor than the U.S. textile industry, which employs 453,000 workers and has lost 41 plants over the past two plus years." She added, "We remain strongly concerned that USTR's textile mechanism will harm the very domestic manufacturers the administration seeks to help."
The Actual State of Forced Labor Enforcement
The U.S. has two major pieces of legislation related to forced-labor import bans. The Tariff Act of 1930 gave Customs and Border Protection the authority to seize shipments where forced labor was suspected, but it had a big carve-out: If there was "consumptive demand," imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect ten years ago eliminated that loophole.
Five years ago, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed. It blocks imports from China's Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove the items were made without forced labor. But goods made with forced labor can still make it into the U.S. An Associated Press investigation eleven years ago found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia, and the seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S. An Associated Press investigation six years ago into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among an invisible workforce consisting of millions of men, women and children in Asia, and the fruit they harvested made its way into the supply chains of major companies, including Unilever, L'Oreal, Nestle and Procter & Gamble.
During hearings on the tariffs this month, National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, representing the business coalition the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group, said that in order for import bans to work, they'd have to be much more extensive. He said there need to be "clear, measurable benchmarks" tied to tariffs for countries to hit, and that the U.S. should help countries build enforcement programs. Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, said an effective ban needs a "comprehensive approach" that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.
Why This Matters:
When trade policy becomes a shell game to avoid democratic oversight, workers everywhere lose. The administration's use of forced labor as justification rings hollow when countries with strong human rights records face the same penalties as those without, when no clear enforcement criteria exist, and when the real pattern is finding legal workarounds after courts strike down executive overreach. Genuine efforts to combat forced labor require international cooperation, transparent standards, and resources to help trading partners build enforcement capacity—not arbitrary tariffs that treat Switzerland the same as countries with documented abuses. Meanwhile, investigations have shown that forced labor continues to infiltrate U.S. supply chains in industries from seafood to palm oil, affecting millions of exploited workers whose plight becomes a convenient political talking point rather than a call for the comprehensive, multilateral action that might actually protect them. The gap between rhetoric and reality undermines both trade relationships and the cause of human rights.