The Trump administration has slapped double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countries, affecting 99% of U.S. imports, using a legal provision that permits the president to levy import taxes against nations found to engage in "unjustifiable," "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" trade practices. The new tariffs take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired, replacing levies the Supreme Court struck down earlier this year.
The administration justified the tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting countries that allegedly don't have or don't effectively enforce forced-labor import bans. Critics argue the tariffs are less about cracking down on forced labor than they are a mechanism to maintain revenue after the court ruling. Countries with vastly different records on forced labor received identical tariff rates of either 10% or 12.5%, prompting immediate protests from affected nations.
The Legal Framework
During President Donald Trump's first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid disputes over Beijing's tactics to challenge America's technological dominance. The provision allows action against countries that have failed "to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor." The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.
The office of the United States Trade Representative said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation and 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. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the specific tariff rates.
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.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wrote a Washington Post op-ed calling new U.S. tariffs unfair and a strategic mistake. In the op-ed, he wrote that "Brazil's destiny is determined only by Brazilians without external interference, without subservience."
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, chief executive of the National Council of Textile Organizations, 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 Enforcement Challenge
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 eliminated that loophole.
5 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 11 years ago found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia. The seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S. An AP investigation 6 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. 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 the 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 what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.
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.
Why This Matters:
The administration's use of Section 301 tariffs represents a significant assertion of executive authority over trade policy, particularly after the Supreme Court struck down worldwide tariffs earlier this year. The lack of detailed justification for individual country ratings raises questions about due process and the rule of law in trade enforcement. For American businesses, the tariffs create immediate cost pressures that will likely be passed to consumers, while exemptions for certain countries undermine the stated goal of combating forced labor. The textile industry's concerns highlight how government intervention can create unintended consequences, disadvantaging domestic manufacturers even when protection is the stated aim. Brazil's forceful response signals growing resistance among major trading partners to what they view as arbitrary American trade policy, potentially complicating future negotiations and market access for U.S. exporters. The gap between legislative intent and enforcement capability—demonstrated by investigative reporting showing forced-labor products still entering U.S. supply chains—suggests tariffs alone won't solve the problem without clear benchmarks and cooperative enforcement mechanisms.