Trump’s New Tariffs: Forced Labor Crackdown or Power Grab?

President Donald Trump has imposed double-digit tariffs on 60 U.S. trading partners under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing their failure to ban imports produced with forced labor. The tariffs, announced July 23 and effective July 24, 2026, cover 99.4% of U.S. imports and have ignited a fierce debate over whether they represent a genuine human rights enforcement effort or an executive end-run around Congress.

Background: A Pattern of Trade War Escalation

The new tariffs replace temporary 10% worldwide duties imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act, which themselves served as a stopgap after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2026. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in that ruling that “the Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,” a warning the administration appears to have circumvented with its latest legal strategy.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initiated 60 investigations on March 12, 2026, at President Trump’s direction, completing the process in approximately 4.5 months — significantly faster than typical Section 301 investigations. The probe included two rounds of public hearings, more than 2,100 public comments, and consultations with over 45 governments, according to a USTR press release.

The Tariff Structure

Duties of 10% apply to 17 economies that have partial or prospective forced labor import bans, including Canada, Mexico, India, and the United Kingdom. A higher rate of 12.5% applies to 43 other economies. The European Union, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Switzerland face rates of 10% or 12.5% on certain products, applied on top of Most-Favored-Nation rates. Exemptions cover raw materials, products causing economy-wide disruptions, goods not producible domestically, and items intended to incentivize compliance.

The Administration’s Position

Ambassador Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative, defended the action as a necessary step to combat forced labor in global supply chains. “President Trump recognizes that decades of moral suasion have not eradicated forced labor from global supply chains,” Greer said. “The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.”

The administration points to broad support from domestic industry groups, including the United Steelworkers and the National Council of Textile Organizations, as well as from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), who said the administration is “fighting for American families, farmers and small businesses — as well as American values.”

Critics: A Pretext for Tariffs

Legal scholars and trade experts have sharply criticized the action, arguing the forced labor justification is a pretext for resurrecting tariffs the courts struck down. According to AP News, the rushed 4.5-month investigation provided few details on how individual country determinations were made.

“There’s not a lot of hard evidence there,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute. “It’s pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren’t doing enough to police forced labor.”

Writing in Fortune, Lincicome described the action as “a clear abuse of the law and a serious departure from past U.S. government practice — even under President Trump.” He warned that if unchallenged, Section 301 could become a “broad tariff generator” allowing any administration to tariff “any country, at any rate, and for any reason and duration, as long as it checks the law’s minor procedural boxes.”

Constitutional and Legal Concerns

Barry Appleton, a law professor at New York Law School, offered a blunt assessment: “The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute. That’s what all of this is about. 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.”

Legal experts argue the tariffs likely violate the major questions doctrine, which requires matters of major economic and political significance to be settled by Congress. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, noted in Reason that “there is no meaningful floor or ceiling under the administration’s approach to Section 301” and that the power claimed “massively affects the ‘entire national economy.’”

Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official, noted that even if countries enact forced labor import bans, they would still need to prove enforcement to Washington’s satisfaction, suggesting “no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available.”

International Pushback and Domestic Criticism

Brazil called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified,” accusing Washington of manipulating human rights for trade purposes. Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff, with Trade Minister Don Farrell insisting the country takes modern slavery seriously.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a coalition of 22 Democratic attorneys general, signaled potential legal action. “After his first two attempts to impose tariffs were declared illegal by the courts, including the US Supreme Court, the President is back at it again,” Bonta said. “Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot shoulder extra costs.”

What’s Next

Legal challenges to the Section 301 tariffs are widely anticipated, though court battles could take months or years to resolve. In the meantime, the estimated $100 billion annual cost of the tariffs will fall on American businesses and consumers. Oxford Economics estimates the effective U.S. tariff rate will rise to 9.2% from 8.6%, climbing further when new pharmaceutical tariffs take effect.

The deeper question remains whether Congress will reassert its constitutional tariff authority or allow the executive branch to continue reshaping American trade policy through increasingly creative legal interpretations.