The Trump administration has imposed double-digit tariffs on over 60 countries, using a legal justification critics say is less about combating forced labor and more about replacing recently expired temporary worldwide tariffs. These new import taxes, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, target nations the U.S. claims fail to enforce forced-labor import bans.
The affected countries, which collectively account for 99% of U.S. imports, swiftly protested the move, labeling the administration's claims as unfounded and arbitrary. Nations with vastly different records on labor practices received identical tariff levels, raising questions about the U.S. government's stated rationale.
These tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a mechanism previously cited by President Donald Trump during his first term to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports. That earlier action aimed to counter what the U.S. called Beijing's “sharp-elbowed tactics” challenging “America’s technological dominance.”
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, noted that Section 301 allows for “permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute.” He added, “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.”
Who Profits
While the administration frames these actions around labor, the reality of global capital's reliance on exploited labor remains largely unaddressed. An Associated Press investigation 11 years ago exposed slave labor in Southeast Asia's fishing industry, with seafood reaching U.S. supermarkets and pet food providers.
Another Associated Press investigation 6 years ago uncovered labor abuses among millions of men, women, and children in Asia's $65 billion palm oil industry. The fruit harvested by this invisible workforce entered the supply chains of major corporations, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Nestle, and Procter & Gamble.
Domestically, the National Council of Textile Organizations, representing the American textile industry, protested a mechanism that exempts textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia from the Section 301 tariffs. Kim Glas, the group's chief executive, stated that “No other industry has been more disadvantaged by forced labor than the U.S. textile industry,” citing the loss of 41 plants and 453,000 workers over the past two plus years.
The State's Pretext
The office of the United States Trade Representative claimed it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation, held two rounds of public hearings, and received over 2,100 public comments. However, it provided few details on how it arrived at the specific tariff rates or the exact rationale for each country's alleged failure to enforce import bans, citing confidentiality.
Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, questioned the evidence, stating, “There’s not a lot of hard evidence there.” He found it “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.”
Brazil, facing a 12.5% tariff, condemned the U.S. move as “arbitrary and unjustified.” Its statement accused the U.S. of choosing “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's Trade Minister Don Farrell also questioned the justification for his country's 12.5% tariff.
Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official, indicated that even if countries enact and enforce the desired bans, they would still need to satisfy Washington's enforcement standards for tariff removal. “This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available,” he said.
Liberal Solutions Fail to Address Roots
Existing U.S. legislation on forced labor includes the Tariff Act of 1930, which allowed imports if “consumptive demand” existed, regardless of production methods. This loophole was eliminated 10 years ago by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, passed 5 years ago, blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless businesses prove items were made without forced labor.
During recent hearings, Jonathan Gold, vice president for the National Retail Federation, representing the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group, argued that import bans need to be more extensive. He called for “clear, measurable benchmarks” tied to tariffs and for the U.S. to help countries build enforcement programs.
Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, echoed this, suggesting an effective ban requires a “comprehensive approach” with transparency in investigations and aid programs for enforcement. These proposals, however, focus on managing the symptoms of global capital's exploitation rather than challenging the systemic drive for cheap labor that underpins it.