The Trump administration imposed a fresh wave of double-digit tariffs on imports from 60 trading partners Friday, citing inadequate enforcement of bans on goods produced through forced labor, in a move timed precisely to replace temporary levies that expired at midnight after the Supreme Court struck down the president’s previous tariff authority earlier this year.

The new tariffs, covering roughly 99 percent of all U.S. imports, were imposed under a 1974 trade law that legal experts say is far more durable than the emergency powers statute the Supreme Court invalidated in February.

What We Know So Far

The tariffs took effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday at rates of 10 percent for countries that have enacted adequate anti-forced labor legislation and 12.5 percent for those whose enforcement was found to be insufficient. Goods already in transit were exempted until July 28, Reuters confirmed.

The timing was deliberate. Trump’s temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court ruling, were legally limited to 150 days and expired at the exact moment the new tariffs kicked in. The new levies were imposed under Section 301 of the same 1974 law, which grants the president authority to impose tariffs and other trade sanctions against countries engaging in unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory trade practices and carries no similar time limit. Trump used Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on China during his first term, and those charges survived court challenges, the Independent confirmed.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed the characterization that the forced labor tariffs were a direct replacement for the expiring levies despite the identical timing, similar rates, and near-identical import coverage. The official said the United States enforces import bans on forced labor goods more rigorously than any other country, giving trading partners an unfair competitive advantage.

Several products were excluded from the new tariffs. Oil, natural gas, fertilizer, certain foodstuffs, and goods already subject to Section 232 national security tariffs covering autos, steel, aluminum, and copper were all exempted. Products complying with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement were also excluded due to the highly integrated nature of North American supply chains and the high level of U.S. content in those goods, Reuters confirmed.

India was among the countries that adjusted their position between the tariffs’ announcement and their implementation. Initially set for the higher 12.5 percent rate, India tightened its forced labor enforcement and qualified for the lower 10 percent rate, a senior official told reporters, the Associated Press confirmed.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer framed the measures in human rights terms. “The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century and rigorously enforces it. It is well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer said. “Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and a distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere.”

What Authorities And Experts Are Saying

The administration’s invocation of forced labor as the legal and moral foundation for the tariffs drew a mixed response from trade analysts and human rights advocates who broadly support the goal while questioning the method.

Martina Vandenberg, founder and president of the Human Trafficking Legal Center, acknowledged that import bans had driven measurable responses from foreign governments even as she maintained deep skepticism about tariffs as a policy instrument. “We’ve gone on record for years advocating for import bans, not as a magic bullet, but as a potentially effective tool in combating forced labor across the globe,” Vandenberg said. “It’s possible to be extremely critical of tariffs and yet I think it’s undeniable that there is a significant response in terms of the adoption of import bans.” She urged a phased implementation approach to give countries time to build meaningful enforcement mechanisms rather than what she feared would be thin slips of paper with no follow-through.

Kenya Davis, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, pointed to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act of 2021, which banned imports from China’s Xinjiang region, as the most significant prior U.S. action on forced labor. Davis said the effectiveness of such bans was debatable but that at minimum they had raised global awareness of the issue. She cautioned that without a comprehensive approach providing transparency about the investigations and aid to help countries build enforcement capacity, the new tariffs risked being more symbolic than substantive.

Isabelle Glimcher, senior research scientist for global labor at the NYU Stern Center for Human Rights, identified a structural flaw in the tariff design, noting that the levies targeted countries based on goods they import rather than goods they manufacture domestically. She said the threat of tariffs had nonetheless already spurred several countries to amend their trade policies, and that European Union forced labor regulations due to take effect next year were adding further institutional momentum. “Countries are responding and starting to take all of this seriously,” Glimcher said.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress have separately called for eliminating forced labor from global supply chains, a bipartisan alignment that the administration cited as political support for its approach.

Why This Matters

Friday’s tariffs represent the latest chapter in one of the most consequential shifts in American trade policy in decades, and they carry implications that go well beyond the stated forced labor rationale.

Trump entered his second term by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose double-digit tariffs on imports from virtually every country on earth, declaring America’s longstanding trade deficit a national emergency. The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February, ruling that the emergency powers law did not authorize that use. The decision forced the administration to refund importers who had already paid the levies and sent the White House scrambling for alternative legal authority.

Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act is that authority, and it is substantially more legally durable. The provision allows the president to impose tariffs against countries engaging in unfair trade practices without the time limits attached to Section 122 and without the national emergency declaration requirement that the Supreme Court found legally insufficient. Trump’s first-term China tariffs, imposed under Section 301, were litigated extensively and survived, establishing a legal track record the administration is now explicitly relying upon.

The practical economic impact falls heavily on American consumers. Tariffs are paid by American importing companies, which typically pass those costs along in the form of higher retail prices. With the annual inflation rate already elevated by the Iran war’s effect on oil prices and by previous rounds of tariffs, the new levies arrive at a moment when American household budgets are already under significant strain. The administration is rolling them out just weeks before November’s midterm elections, a timing that carries obvious political risk.

The United States Trade Representative’s office has also launched a separate investigation into whether 16 countries accounting for 70 percent of U.S. imports have overproduced goods in ways that suppress prices and disadvantage American companies in global markets. Additional Section 301 tariffs based on that investigation are considered likely once it concludes, signaling that Friday’s announcement is a step in a broader tariff agenda rather than its conclusion.

What Happens Next

The 60-country tariff takes full effect on imported goods that were not already in transit as of midnight Friday, with the transit exemption running until July 28.

Countries that improve their forced labor enforcement after Friday’s implementation can potentially qualify for rate reductions, as India demonstrated by moving from the 12.5 percent rate to the 10 percent rate between the tariffs’ announcement and their implementation. That creates an ongoing diplomatic mechanism through which trading partners can respond to the tariffs without formal negotiations.

Canada, which is already subject to separate 50 percent tariffs imposed earlier this week over automotive, alcohol, and dairy disputes, faces a compounding tariff burden that industry groups in both countries have described as damaging to the deeply integrated North American supply chain, even though USMCA-compliant goods are exempt from Friday’s forced labor tariffs.

The investigation into alleged overproduction by 16 major trading partners will likely produce the next wave of Section 301 tariffs, potentially covering 70 percent of U.S. imports under a different legal justification but producing similar economic effects. Whether that investigation concludes before or after November’s midterm elections will shape the political environment in which the next round of tariff announcements lands.

Sources: AP; Reuters; The Independent