US hits 60 trading partners with forced labour tariffs

The Trump administration has ramped up its tariff offensive, imposing duties ranging from 10% to 12.5% on 60 trading partners accounting for 99.4% of US imports. The move, announced Thursday by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, targets major economic players including the UK, China, the European Union, Canada, Japan and India over claims they haven’t adequately tackled forced labour in their supply chains.

The new levies mark the latest chapter in an escalating global trade war. They arrive after February’s Supreme Court ruling struck down many of Trump’s previous tariffs, which had been enacted under emergency powers that courts deemed illegal. This forced the White House to find alternative legal justifications, and forced labour enforcement proved the avenue they needed.

The Forced Labour Framework

Countries that have committed to banning forced labour imports face the lower 10% rate, while those that haven’t accepted such restrictions face 12.5% tariffs. The administration claims 10 partners have already agreed to implement bans, with others responding to recent investigations.

Greer framed the action as correcting “a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice,” invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Yet critics argue the timing and scope suggest protectionism dressed up in humanitarian clothing.

Trade experts remain sceptical about the enforcement mechanism. Deborah Elms from the Hinrich Foundation told the BBC it’s unlikely most countries will be able to prove sufficient measures against forced labour imports. The bar appears deliberately high, creating a news situation where compliance becomes nearly impossible.

Winners and Losers

The UK finds itself in an awkward position. The British Chambers of Commerce highlighted a competitive disadvantage: the EU secured a 10% all-inclusive deal on tariffs, while Britain faces 10% universal tariffs plus individual duties on specific goods. William Bain, the BCC head, warned this could force UK businesses to reassess their position relative to European competitors.

Brazil responded swiftly, calling the tariffs “unjustified” and “arbitrary.” Its government accused Washington of manipulating workers’ rights concerns to pursue protectionist goals. Brazil, hit with a 12.5% rate, has signalled it will invoke its own reciprocity law and explore alternative trading partners.

Japan expressed regret, insisting its trade follows international rules. Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell branded the levies “completely unjustified.” Meanwhile, China denied forced labour allegations entirely, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning calling it a pretext for political manipulation. International human rights groups, however, have documented forced labour concerns in Chinese manufacturing, particularly involving Uyghur minorities in Xinjiang.

The Broader Strategy

This week alone, the administration has deployed multiple tariff mechanisms. Earlier, it invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose 50% duties on Canadian products. The administration is clearly determined to establish that tariffs, regardless of legal justification, remain a viable policy tool.

Economic security expert Wendy Cutler from the Asia Society Policy Institute warned that rising costs for businesses and consumers are inevitable, though exemptions on certain goods might soften the immediate impact. More significantly, she predicted trading partners will increasingly prioritise reducing dependence on American markets through bilateral and regional deals.

The administration isn’t finished. It’s currently investigating 16 countries over alleged manufacturing overcapacity, suggesting more tariffs could follow. The forced labour angle appears designed to address legal vulnerabilities exposed by the Supreme Court, providing cover for what remains fundamentally a news protectionist agenda.

Trump has long claimed tariffs protect American workers and boost the economy. The Supreme Court’s February ruling challenged that logic, forcing the White House to get creative with justifications. Whether trading partners will accept this framework or escalate retaliatory measures remains the crucial question ahead.

Source: BBC

The real test isn’t whether countries comply, but whether the global trading system can survive being consistently rewritten by unilateral executive action.