New U.S. tariffs on 60 countries that replace temporary tariffs that replaced a Trump-imposed tariff regime that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court are ostensibly designed to encourage opposition to forced labor. Countries with laws that seek to combat the use of forced labor in the production of internationally traded goods will be charged a lower tariff than countries with no such laws.
10 or 12.5 percent
But the difference between the lowest and highest of the new tariff rates is not great (The Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2026).
The new duties, announced by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s office on Thursday, are meant to replace Trump’s temporary 10% global tariff, which expires early Friday. Trump put that temporary tariff in place in February, after the Supreme Court struck down most of his global tariffs.
The new levies target 60 countries that Greer’s office says represent about 99% of U.S. trade. Countries that have laws on the books to combat forced labor were given a 10% tariff, while those without such statutes were given a 12.5% tariff.
The new levies will go into place at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on Friday [July 24], the same time the temporary tariffs are set to expire. Goods covered by separate national security tariffs like steel, aluminum, automobiles and parts, won’t be subject to the new tariffs, and certain food and agricultural imports, fertilizers and energy products will also be exempt.
The new levies are based on a frequently used section of trade law—Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—that is considered more legally durable than the basis for the tariffs the Supreme Court struck down. Once in place, the levies can remain indefinitely and be unilaterally altered by the president.
The problem of forced labor did not seem to motivate anything about the tariff regimes that the president imposed prior to the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling. And under the just-started regime, the failure to date of a trading partner to try by law to deter the use of slave labor is being only marginally penalized.
So maybe the function of combating slave labor is more a selling point than a basic motive for this latest slate of tariffs. Even so, the difference between 10 percent and 12.5 percent may prod some hitherto inert national governments to take more seriously the problem of imports produced in whole or in part by slave labor.
Excess capacity
Greer’s office is also looking into the alleged problem of countries’ “excess manufacturing capacity”—which cannot be a serious persistent problem in an unhampered market—as a reason to impose tariffs under Section 301. The People’s Republic of China may rank high on the “excess capacity” agenda. But this separate inquiry is not yet complete.
Also see:
Congress.gov: “Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974”
“In 2026, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating tariffs imposed by the second Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), USTR initiated two investigations under Section 301 into the practices of dozens of countries related to excess industrial capacity and action on forced labor on an ‘accelerated timeframe.’ USTR could potentially utilize the findings of these investigations to impose a regime of country-specific tariffs similar in scope to the global tariffs imposed under IEEPA in 2025.”
StoptheCCP.org: “Forced Labor and How to Fight It”
