US Section 301 Tariffs 2026: 60 Countries Face 12.5% Duties on Forced Labour Goods

Having lost its most powerful tariff tool in the Supreme Court, the Trump administration has found a new one — and it comes with a moral argument attached.

On June 2, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative concluded 60 simultaneous Section 301 investigations, finding that each of the targeted economies had failed to impose or effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour. The proposed remedy: additional tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on all imports from those economies, covering 99.4% of total US imports by origin. The scope is unprecedented. It sweeps in China, the European Union, Japan, India, Vietnam, Australia, South Korea, and 52 other trading partners in a single action.

The Legal Architecture Post-Supreme Court

The context matters. In February 2026, the US Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump’s “Liberation Day” emergency tariffs, ruling that they exceeded the executive’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That decision dismantled the headline tariff architecture the administration had built over 2025. Rather than abandon the strategy, the Trump administration pivoted to legal frameworks with stronger statutory grounding. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorises the president to impose levies to counter foreign trade practices that are “unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce” — a standard that the USTR has now applied to forced labour enforcement failures.

The investigations were formally initiated on March 12, 2026, with public hearings drawing testimony from nearly 60 witnesses and 500 written comments over April and May. The USTR’s findings drew a direct causal link between inadequate forced labour enforcement and competitive harm to US companies and workers.

The Rate Architecture

The proposed tariff structure creates two tiers. Economies that have adopted full or partial forced labour import prohibitions — notably Canada, Mexico, and a handful of others — would face 10% additional duties. The remaining 45 economies, including China, India, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand, would face 12.5% additional duties. A separate textile mechanism would allow a capped volume of apparel and textile imports from certain economies at a reduced rate. Electronics and AI-related products are widely expected to carry significant exemptions, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The public comment period closes July 6, 2026, with hearings beginning July 7. The duties are not yet in effect — but for companies sourcing from any of the 60 targeted economies, the window to map exposure and file comments is rapidly closing.

Trading Partners Push Back

Responses from affected governments were swift and uniformly dismissive of the USTR’s reasoning. Beijing‘s commerce ministry spokesperson stated flatly that “there is no so-called forced labor in China,” and that Washington and Beijing should “meet each other halfway.” China’s foreign ministry called the accusations politically motivated.

The European Union is in a particularly complex position. Brussels signed a broad bilateral trade agreement with Washington in 2025, which the European Parliament ratified. The proposed new tariffs — which the EU called “unjustified” — would come on top of the existing 15% tariff framework from that deal. The USTR’s own report acknowledged that the EU’s anti-forced-labour regulation only entered into force in December 2027 and lacks certain enforcement elements — giving the administration its statutory foothold. The chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee described the determination as “utterly absurd” given the 2024 EU forced labour import ban law.

France‘s government questioned whether the investigation reflected genuine concerns, with officials suggesting a tariff measure was “sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found.”

The Supply Chain Reality for Multinationals

For global supply chain managers, the practical implications are immediate regardless of the final duty levels. The Clark Hill law firm’s trade practice advised clients to map exposure against the 60 targeted economies by HTS code, model the 10% and 12.5% rate scenarios, and test exclusion eligibility before assuming coverage — noting that even partial exposure in electronics supply chains could run to billions in added costs at scale.

Nick Marro of the Economist Intelligence Unit told CNBC that he expects the Trump administration to “unleash further investigations and tariff announcements in preparation for renewed rounds of trade talks,” characterising the Section 301 action as part of a broader pattern of building leverage ahead of bilateral negotiations. The July 24 expiration of the separate 10% baseline tariff imposed under Section 122 adds another inflection point to the calendar.

For the global trading system, the implication is clear: the US high-tariff era is not over; it has simply found a new statutory vehicle.