President Donald Trump has introduced new global tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting 60 U.S. trading partners for allegedly failing to enforce bans on imports made with forced labor. These tariffs impose a 10% duty on partners that have adopted or committed to import prohibitions and a 12.5% duty on those that have not. This measure replaces a temporary 10% global tariff set to expire on July 24 and aims to provide a more legally durable basis for tariffs after the Supreme Court invalidated previous emergency-powers tariffs.

Many countries, including Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, and New Zealand, have criticized the forced labor justification for the tariffs, calling the measure unjustified and inconsistent with trade agreements. Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell contested the U.S. claim, citing Australia’s strong anti-forced labor policies. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva described the tariffs as arbitrary and left open the possibility of exploring other markets if ongoing negotiations with the U.S. fail. Chile also opposed the measure, noting it does not acknowledge any forced labor exports from its territory.

The tariffs affect major economies such as China, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, and others, with U.S. imports from these countries facing the added duties. However, experts like Tianchen Xu from the Economist Intelligence Unit suggest the economic impact on Asia will be limited because many electronic products, including chips and consumer devices, remain exempt from tariffs. Canada received the mildest treatment, with a 10% tariff but exemptions for goods compliant with the USMCA trade pact.

Analysts suggest the forced labor probe is less about labor standards and more about pressuring countries to align with the U.S. ban on Chinese forced labor goods while rebuilding the tariff framework that the Supreme Court undermined. No major trade partners have yet announced retaliatory measures, and many appear inclined to continue negotiations rather than escalate trade tensions. The Peterson Institute for International Economics described this move as a strategic mechanism by the U.S. to maintain import restrictions while avoiding direct legal challenges.