Trump Switches to Section 301 Tariffs on 60 Countries Over Forced Labor

The Shift to Section 301 Tariffs: A New Trade Tool Against Forced Labor

President Donald Trump has imposed new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries, using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to replace temporary worldwide levies that expire on July 24. The move targets nations that the administration says have failed to adequately enforce bans on goods made with forced labor. Together, the affected countries account for 99% of U.S. imports, making this one of the broadest tariff actions in U.S. history.

The tariffs come after the Supreme Court struck down earlier, broader tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In response, Trump had imposed 10% global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act, but that authority limited the duties to 150 days—a deadline that arrived. The new Section 301 tariffs are legally more durable; the same law was used in Trump’s first term to impose long-lasting tariffs on China. The administration says some countries have already responded by tightening forced labor enforcement: India, for example, saw its tariff rate reduced from an initial 12.5% to 10% after it amended its foreign trade policy to include a forced labor import ban.

Certain products are exempt, including oil and gas and fertilizer. Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade Representative is investigating 16 other countries—representing 70% of U.S. imports—for overproduction, which could lead to additional Section 301 tariffs. Human rights advocates have expressed cautious support for the tariffs as a tool against forced labor, but they warn that without robust enforcement and transparency, the import bans could be “thin slips of paper with no enforcement,” as Martina Vandenberg of The Human Trafficking Legal Center put it.

Inside the Tariff Pivot: Section 301’s Legal Backbone, Forced Labor Arguments, and Political Timing

Why Section 301 Replaces the Expiring Levies

The legal pivot is central. The Trump administration’s original worldwide tariffs under IEEPA were struck down by the Supreme Court, forcing it to rely on a temporary 150-day window under Section 122. That window closed July 24. Section 301, by contrast, was the basis for the China tariffs that survived court challenges in Trump’s first term. By moving to Section 301, the White House is locking in tariffs on 60 countries with a statute that gives the president broad discretion to counter “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” trade practices—and that courts have been reluctant to second-guess. This legal durability allows the administration to make the tariffs a lasting feature of trade policy, not just a stopgap.

The Forced Labor Justification: Genuine Policy or Political Convenience?

The White House frames the tariffs as a crackdown on goods produced by forced labor. Rights groups, including The Human Trafficking Legal Center and NYU Stern Center for Human Rights, agree that import bans can be a meaningful tool. The International Labour Organization estimates 27.6 million people were in forced labor worldwide on any given day in 2021. However, the abrupt rollout—without the phased approach advocates recommended—has drawn skepticism. “I’m very cautious in my enthusiasm,” said Kenya Davis of Boies Schiller Flexner, noting the lack of transparency around the investigations and the absence of aid to help countries enforce bans. The tariffs may spur compliance, as India’s policy change suggests, but the danger is that countries issue symbolic bans with no real enforcement, leaving forced labor untouched while raising costs for U.S. importers.

The Price Tag for Businesses and Consumers

Tariffs are paid by U.S. importers, and those costs are typically passed on to consumers through higher prices. With inflation already a political vulnerability, the administration is taking a calculated risk ahead of the November midterm elections. Importers of finished goods, components, and raw materials from the 60 targeted nations will face immediate cost increases of 10% or 12.5%. While oil, gas, and fertilizer are exempt, a vast array of consumer and industrial products—from electronics to apparel—will be affected. The tariff differentials, like India’s reduced 10% rate, create competitive shifts that will force supply chain managers to reassess sourcing. The ripple through prices could test voters’ patience, even if the forced labor label offers political cover.

Global Compliance Race and the Enforcement Gap

The tariff threat has already prompted some nations to act. India amended its foreign trade policy to ban forced labor imports, a direct response to the Section 301 pressure. The European Union’s own forced labor regulations, set to take effect next year, are adding to the momentum. Yet rights experts stress that enforcement is everything. Without transparent criteria and mechanisms to verify that banned goods are actually kept out of supply chains, the tariffs could become a punitive tax without a corresponding reduction in forced labor. The administration’s parallel probe into overproduction in 16 countries signals that more tariff action is coming, potentially extending the compliance burden and raising the stakes for global trade partners.

What Importers, Policymakers, and Human Rights Advocates Should Do Now

For U.S. Importers and Manufacturers:

• Calculate the landed-cost increase immediately for goods from the 60 targeted countries, focusing on the 12.5% rate applied to most nations. Note that India now faces a 10% rate, which may make it a more cost-effective supplier compared to others, though verification of forced labor-free supply chains remains critical.
• Identify whether any imported products qualify for exemptions (oil, gas, fertilizer) or could be rerouted through compliant sources. Prepare contingency plans for the 16-country overproduction investigation—an additional tariff shock could follow.
• Model the potential impact of the November midterm elections. A shift in congressional control could lead to new trade legislation or pressure to modify the tariff regime, creating further uncertainty for long-term contracts.

For Human Rights and Labor Advocates:

• Press the administration to release the criteria and evidence used to determine each country’s tariff rate. Without transparency, the legitimacy of the forced labor claim erodes.
• Advocate for the phased implementation recommended by The Human Trafficking Legal Center, which would allow countries time to build enforceable import ban mechanisms and avoid the risk that tariffs become a hollow gesture.
• Leverage the EU’s forthcoming forced labor regulations as a benchmark for enforcement standards, and push for mutual recognition of compliant supply chains to reduce duplication.

For Policymakers:

• Weigh the risk that blanket tariffs without rigorous enforcement will fail to reduce forced labor while raising consumer costs and straining trade relationships. Consider how the USTR’s overproduction probe could be used to fine-tune tariffs rather than apply them indiscriminately.
• Monitor the response of trading partners for signs of retaliation that could escalate into a broader trade conflict, particularly as the Section 301 investigations expand.