rbtfl.
USTR proposes forced-labor tariffs on 60 economies — Trump's post-IEEPA tariff vehicle

USTR proposes forced-labor tariffs on 60 economies — Trump's post-IEEPA tariff vehicle

After the Supreme Court voided IEEPA tariffs, Section 301 becomes the new, uncapped lever against China, India, the EU and dozens more

Leaders·Trade· pending-decision Dinheiro de quem·A mudança silenciosa ·12 takes ·atualizado 24 de jun. de 2026

Summary

On 2 June 2026 the Ustr concluded 60 Section 301 investigations and proposed tariffs of 10% (14 economies with partial or unenforced forced-labor bans) to 12.5% (46 economies) for failing to bar goods made with forced labor. The 12.5% list includes China, India, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and Russia; the 10% list covers Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Indonesia, Pakistan and Britain. The move is Donald Trump's principal tariff vehicle after the Supreme Court ruled in February that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs — Section 301 carries no statutory cap on rate or duration. Comments run to 6 July; a hearing is set for 7 July. It runs alongside the Trump reshapes steel, aluminum and copper tariffs with US-content carve-outs and the unresolved Trump declines to renew USMCA, triggering a decade of annual reviews dispute.

By the numbers

  • 60 — economies investigated (covering ~99.4% of US imports).
  • 46 at 12.5% / 14 at 10% — proposed tariff bands.
  • 12 March — investigations opened; findings 2 June.
  • 6 July comment deadline / 7 July hearing.

Why it matters

Section 301 restores broad tariff power the courts denied Trump under IEEPA, repackaged as human-rights enforcement. With no cap on level or duration and allies like Canada and the EU swept in, it gives the United States a durable, litigation-resistant tool to reshape trade by fiat — and a fresh front in the tariff fights with Brasília and Brussels.

What to watch

  • Whether final rates land at the proposed bands after the 7 July hearing.
  • Retaliation threats from China, the EU and other 12.5% targets.
  • Fresh court challenges testing Section 301's reach.