US imposes global tariffs citing forced labour failures
Critics and trade partners condemn the move as a legal workaround for protectionism, while the European Union and Australia reject the rationale as absurd and unjustified.
The Trump administration has imposed new tariffs on 60 economies, including the European Union, citing failures to prohibit imports made with forced labour. Effective from 24 July, these measures replace a temporary 10% global tariff that was due to expire. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) stated that investigations found major trading partners failed to effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods made through modern slavery.
Rates vary depending on the country and product. A 10% tariff applies to countries such as Argentina, India, Pakistan and the UK, which have adopted or committed to forced-labour import restrictions. The EU, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland face rates of either 10% or 12.5%, while 12.5% applies to 38 other countries, including China, Australia, New Zealand and Russia. Exemptions include steel, aluminium, automobiles, civilian aircraft, rare earth minerals and goods covered by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
The move is widely viewed as a legal workaround following the US Supreme Court’s February ruling that struck down previous emergency tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The new tariffs were introduced under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a more established trade law that analysts believe will be harder for courts to overturn. The administration is simultaneously using Section 301 for another investigation into excess manufacturing capacity in 16 major trading partners, which trade experts expect could lead to additional tariffs.
Existing national-security tariffs on steel, aluminium, automobiles and other products under Section 232 have been restored, expanded and increased during Trump’s second term. The administration maintains that foreign producers gain an unfair price advantage from forced labour, arguing that US workers cannot compete with such wages. However, critics argue the tariffs serve as a pretext for broad protectionism rather than addressing genuine human rights concerns.
Trade partners have condemned the measures. Australia labelled the tariffs absurd, while Brazil called them unjustified. EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas responded by comparing EU labour laws to those of the United States, noting that EU workers have paid vacations and better working conditions. Some analysts, including former WTO deputy director-general Alan Wolff, argued the tariffs represent presidential overreach and divert attention from the need to reduce reliance on Chinese goods.
