The Trump administration slapped double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countries last week, claiming they've failed to ban or enforce prohibitions on goods made with forced labor. But the affected nations—which account for 99% of U.S. imports—are calling the move unfounded and arbitrary, pointing out that countries with vastly different labor rights records received identical tariff rates.
The new levies, either 10% or 12.5%, took effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired. Those earlier tariffs were themselves a replacement for worldwide duties the Supreme Court struck down in February. Critics argue the forced-labor justification is less about protecting workers than finding a legal workaround to keep taxing imports. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates.
Countries Push Back
Brazil, facing a 12.5% tariff, called the U.S. move "arbitrary and unjustified." In a statement, Brazil said 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." Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva went further in a Washington Post op-ed, calling the tariffs unfair and a strategic mistake. He wrote that "Brazil's destiny is determined only by Brazilians without external interference, without subservience." Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff.
The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the same authority Trump used during his first term to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports. The office of the United States Trade Representative said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation, held two rounds of public hearings, received more than 2,100 public comments, and had "engagement" with trading partners about their forced labor enforcement. It didn't detail those talks, calling them 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 prohibitions.
Who Bears the Cost
The National Council of Textile Organizations protested a mechanism that exempts 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, chief executive of the organization, 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 U.S. has two major pieces of legislation related to forced-labor import bans. The Tariff Act of 1930 gave Customs and Border Protection authority to seize shipments where forced labor was suspected, but it had a big carve-out: if there was "consumptive demand"—meaning insufficient supply to meet domestic needs—imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect 10 years ago eliminated that loophole. Five years ago, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act passed, blocking imports from China's Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove items were made without forced labor.
Enforcement Gaps Remain
But goods made with forced labor still make it into the U.S. An Associated Press investigation 11 years ago found slave labor in Southeast Asia's fishing industry, with seafood reaching U.S. supermarkets and pet food providers. An AP investigation 6 years ago into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among millions of men, women and children in Asia. The fruit they harvested made its way into 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 Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group, said import bans would have to be much more extensive to work. 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 investigations, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.
Why This Matters:
The tariffs expose a fundamental tension in U.S. trade policy: the gap between stated commitments to workers' rights and enforcement mechanisms that experts say won't actually protect vulnerable laborers. Without clear benchmarks, transparency about investigations, or support for countries trying to build enforcement capacity, the levies risk becoming revenue generators rather than tools for accountability. The fact that goods made with forced labor continue reaching U.S. consumers—documented in multiple investigations over the past decade—suggests tariffs alone won't address supply chain abuses that exploit millions of workers. Meanwhile, affected countries and domestic manufacturers alike are questioning who actually benefits from tariffs that appear arbitrary in application and undercut the multilateral cooperation needed to combat forced labor effectively.