The Trump administration imposed double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countries this month, using a decades-old trade law that lets the president levy import taxes without congressional approval. The tariffs take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired, replacing levies the Supreme Court struck down five months ago in February.
The administration justified the new tariffs by claiming affected countries either don't have or don't effectively enforce forced-labor import bans. Those countries account for 99% of U.S. imports. They were quick to protest, calling the claims unfounded and arbitrary. Nations with vastly different records on forced labor received identical tariff rates of either 10% or 12.5%.
The Legal Mechanism
The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the president to impose sanctions against countries engaged in "unjustifiable," "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" trade practices. During his first term, President Donald Trump cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid a dispute over Beijing's tactics to challenge America's technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School's Center for International Law, said the approach serves a clear purpose. "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."
The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates. 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 their efforts to combat forced labor. It didn't detail its talks with the countries, saying those were confidential.
Skepticism From Trade Experts
Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, questioned the evidence. "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."
Experts said it's fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban or not, but it's 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 do enact and enforce forced-labor import bans, 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.
International Pushback
Brazil, which faces a 12.5% forced-labor tariff, called the U.S. move "arbitrary and unjustified." 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," it said in a statement.
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."
Domestic Industry Concerns
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."
Existing Legal Framework
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 and to block further imports. But it had a big carve-out: If there was "consumptive demand," meaning there wasn't sufficient supply to meet domestic demand, imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect 10 years ago in 2016 eliminated that loophole.
Five years ago in 2021, 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. Eleven years ago in 2015, an Associated Press investigation 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 in 2020 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 the 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:
The administration's use of Section 301 represents another attempt to impose permanent tariffs without congressional authorization, following the Supreme Court's rejection of worldwide tariffs five months ago. The pattern reveals an executive branch determined to reshape trade policy unilaterally, raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the constitutional role of Congress in regulating commerce. The tariffs affect 99% of U.S. imports, creating significant costs for American businesses and consumers while offering unclear enforcement standards that make compliance nearly impossible. Even allies like Australia and European nations face levies despite robust labor enforcement records, suggesting the forced-labor justification may be secondary to revenue generation. The exemptions for certain textile imports from Southeast Asian nations further undermine the stated humanitarian rationale, while domestic manufacturers warn the carve-outs will harm American workers. Without clear benchmarks and transparent enforcement criteria, these tariffs function less as human rights policy and more as an end-run around legislative authority.