Trump tries again. US proposes 10% tariffs on 60 nations, forced-labour Section 301 probe

The US proposed tariffs of at least 10% on imports from around 60 countries under a Section 301 forced-labour probe, with higher 12.5% levies targeting China, India, Japan and others.

Summary:
Source: Office of the US Trade Representative; reporting by financial newswires

• The USTR has recommended tariffs of at least 10% on imports from approximately 60 countries including Canada, Mexico, the EU, Taiwan and the UK, following a Section 301 investigation into forced-labour practices
• China, India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and Switzerland face a higher proposed rate of 12.5%
• The levies are not immediate; written public comments are due by July 6 and Section 301 panel hearings begin July 7, with implementation to follow review
• The move is Trump’s primary vehicle for reconstructing the country-by-country tariff regime struck down by the Supreme Court in February, which had been imposed using emergency powers
• A separate 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 expires in July; USTR Greer has said the goal is to have new Section 301 tariffs in place before that expiry
• USTR Greer framed the action as a response to trading partners’ failure to address imports made with forced labour, calling the resulting competitive imbalance for American workers unacceptable

The United States has proposed tariffs of at least 10% on imports from around 60 trading partners, using a Section 301 forced-labour investigation to reconstruct the sweeping tariff architecture that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year.

The recommended duties, published by the Office of the US Trade Representative, would apply a 10% levy on imports from Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among others. A higher rate of 12.5% is proposed for China, India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and Switzerland. The tiered structure deliberately echoes the country-by-country framework of Trump’s original tariff agenda, which courts struck down in February after ruling it exceeded the emergency powers the president had invoked.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the USTR broad authority to act against foreign trade practices deemed unfair or harmful to US interests, and is widely regarded as legally more robust than the emergency powers previously deployed. The tradeoff is procedural: the mechanism requires a public comment and hearing process before tariffs can take effect. Written submissions are due by July 6, with a Section 301 panel convening public hearings from July 7.

The timeline is not incidental. A separate 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the trade law expires in July, and USTR Jamieson Greer has said publicly that completing the Section 301 investigations in time to replace those expiring measures is an explicit objective. The new proposed tariffs are designed to fill that gap with duties on firmer legal footing.

Greer framed the action in direct terms, arguing that trading partners’ failure to address goods produced with forced labour creates an unlevel playing field for American workers that Washington would no longer accept.

For US trading partners that have so far avoided retaliation and opted instead to negotiate bilateral arrangements, the new proposals raise the stakes considerably. Canada’s trade minister LeBlanc noted just this week that his country has been preparing for precisely this type of Section 301 investigation. The comment period gives governments a formal channel to push back, but the legal architecture behind these tariffs is more durable than anything that has come before.

US Trade RepGreer

—

The Section 301 route is legally more durable than the emergency powers the Supreme Court struck down in February, which means these tariffs, if implemented after the comment period, are more likely to stick. The tiered structure, 10% for most partners and 12.5% for China, India, Japan, South Korea and others, reintroduces the country-by-country architecture of Trump’s original tariff agenda in a form that courts are less likely to invalidate. The July expiry of the existing 10% global Section 122 levy creates a hard deadline that USTR Greer is explicitly working to beat, adding urgency to the comment and hearing timeline. Markets that have been trading on the assumption that the tariff wall was dismantled will need to reprice that risk.

This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.