The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on more than 60 countries, citing their alleged failure to prohibit or effectively enforce bans on goods produced with forced labor. These new duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were announced recently and take effect as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired. Critics argue that the tariffs are less about combating forced labor and more about replacing the expired duties, which themselves replaced earlier tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court.
The tariffs are authorized under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision previously used by the administration to impose broad tariffs on Chinese imports. This legal framework allows the president to levy import taxes and sanctions against countries deemed to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” trade practices.
"The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute," said Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law. "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 Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) stated it consulted with the 60 economies under investigation, held public hearings, and received over 2,100 public comments. The USTR also indicated engagement with trading partners regarding their efforts to combat forced labor imports. However, details of these discussions remain confidential.
Experts express skepticism about the administration's justification. Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, called the rationale "laughable on its face," questioning the assertion that countries like those in Europe, Norway, or Switzerland are not doing enough to police forced labor. He added that there is "not a lot of hard evidence there."
Legal experts also note that even if countries implement the desired bans, demonstrating compliance to Washington's satisfaction for tariff removal could be a prolonged process. "This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available," said Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and former U.S. trade official.
Several affected nations have pushed back against the U.S. findings. Brazil, facing a 12.5% tariff, described the move as "arbitrary and unjustified" and accused the U.S. of manipulating human rights issues. Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell stated that Australia takes the issue of modern slavery seriously and questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff.
Specific industries have also voiced concerns. The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) protested a carve-out mechanism that exempts certain textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia based on their imports of U.S. cotton and textiles. The NCTO argues this exemption could harm domestic manufacturers, particularly in an industry already impacted by forced labor.
Historically, U.S. legislation has addressed forced labor imports. The Tariff Act of 1930 allowed Customs and Border Protection to seize suspected shipments, but included a "consumptive demand" loophole allowing imports if domestic supply was insufficient. This loophole was eliminated by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2016. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, passed in 2021, blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless companies can prove they were made without forced labor.
Despite these measures, goods made with forced labor have entered the U.S. past investigations by The Associated Press have uncovered slave labor in the Southeast Asian fishing industry and labor abuses in Asia's palm oil industry, with products reaching U.S. supply chains.