The administration of Donald Trump has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from around 60 economies, following an assessment that those countries had not taken sufficient action to curb trade in goods allegedly linked to forced labour.
The proposal, issued late on Tuesday by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, is based on a Section 301 investigation into unfair trade practices. The investigation mechanism allows the United States to impose trade restrictions in response to practices it considers harmful to its domestic industries.
According to the USTR, the measures are intended to reinforce earlier emergency tariffs introduced by the Trump administration, which were struck down following a US Supreme Court ruling in February. The new proposal represents an effort to re-establish a legal and policy basis for targeted tariff actions while addressing concerns over supply chains involving forced labour.
The administration of Donald Trump has proposed a new round of tariffs targeting imports from dozens of countries, following what it describes as failures to adequately address forced labour in global supply chains.
The proposal, issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, suggests additional duties of 10 percent on imports from a group of countries including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, India, China, and several nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. A separate tier of 12.5 percent tariffs would apply to the remaining countries identified in the investigation, including major trading partners such as Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand.
The USTR said the measures are the result of a Section 301 investigation into unfair trade practices linked to forced labour in global supply chains. Officials argued that several countries have only partial or planned frameworks in place to address the issue, which they say is insufficient to meet US standards.
Jamieson Greer said the presence of goods made with forced labour in international supply chains is unacceptable, arguing that it places American workers at a competitive disadvantage by forcing them to compete in an uneven global market.
The proposal has drawn criticism abroad, with some European officials rejecting the US assessment and calling it “utterly absurd.” Business groups have also warned that the move could increase uncertainty for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, given the wide range of affected trading partners.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative said it will accept public comments on the proposed tariff measures and related remedies until 6 July, with a public hearing scheduled for 7 July.
The proposal comes ahead of the planned expiration on 24 July of a temporary 10 percent tariff introduced by the Trump administration on 20 February. That earlier tariff was imposed after the US Supreme Court struck down actions taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which had been used as the legal basis for emergency trade restrictions.
Following that ruling, the administration of Donald Trump sought alternative legal mechanisms to maintain broad-based tariffs, introducing a separate 10 percent global levy. However, those temporary measures are also set to expire later in July.
A specialised US trade court has since ruled that the replacement tariffs were also unlawful, although the government has been permitted to continue collecting them while the case proceeds through the appeals process. The developments highlight ongoing legal challenges to the administration’s efforts to maintain a wide-ranging tariff regime on global imports.
Unjustified tariffs
The European Commission said the newly proposed tariffs were unjustified and reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the trade arrangement it concluded with Washington last year.
The Commission’s response comes amid growing tensions over the United States’ trade policy moves, as the administration of Donald Trump advances a series of tariff proposals targeting multiple trading partners. European officials have rejected the US assessment underpinning the measures and have stressed their intention to preserve stability in transatlantic trade relations.
The statement signals continued EU support for the existing trade framework with the United States, even as broader disputes over tariffs and supply chain policies continue to develop.
Bernd Lange, who leads the European Parliament’s trade committee, said the new US tariff proposal was expected but criticised the underlying findings of the investigation, calling them “utterly absurd” in light of existing European legislation targeting forced labour imports.
He argued that it appears tariffs are being pursued first, with legal justification constructed afterwards. However, he said the key issue for the European Union is whether any additional US tariffs would exceed those already agreed under the existing trade arrangement.
The European Commission and the United States agreed last July on a framework that includes a 15 percent tariff on a broad range of EU exports. In its report, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said EU forced labour rules would not take full effect until 2027 and were missing key enforcement elements.
It remains unclear whether the newly proposed US tariffs would be added on top of existing bilateral tariff arrangements or whether they would replace or be absorbed into current rates.
Other trading partners also responded to the proposal. The United Kingdom said it is continuing discussions with Washington and is taking steps to address forced labour concerns, while noting that existing preferential market access arrangements remain in place. Mexico said goods compliant with the USMCA would be exempt from the proposed tariffs. Taiwan expressed confidence that the final outcome would reflect prior agreements and maintain relatively favourable treatment.
China, which faces proposed 12.5 percent tariffs under the new US measure, said it opposes all forms of unilateral tariff actions and rejected the underlying premise of the US investigation, stating that there is no forced labour in the country.
India, also subject to the proposed 12.5 percent tariff rate, said it is engaged with Washington through the Section 301 process and emphasised that the measures are not yet final, indicating that discussions are still ongoing.
Business groups have raised broader concerns about the implications of the US approach. Andrew Wilson warned that the policy could become a global benchmark for trade enforcement, potentially reshaping how forced labour claims are handled internationally.
He cautioned that the proposed framework could place a heavy burden on companies, arguing that it may allow shipments to be detained based on allegations, leaving firms responsible for proving that no forced labour exists anywhere in their supply chains. Wilson said this could create significant uncertainty for global trade and compliance systems.
Certain exemptions
The Office of the United States Trade Representative said the proposed tariff regime would include a wide range of exemptions for key goods, including energy products, rare earth elements, selected metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, and aircraft parts.
The proposal also outlines a potential textile mechanism that would allow a set volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the United States at a reduced tariff rate, although detailed implementation rules have not yet been disclosed.
The extensive exemption list—reportedly spanning more than 76 pages—has prompted scrutiny from international business groups. Andrew Wilson said the breadth of the carve-outs suggests concerns about the potential impact of the tariffs on consumer prices, particularly for essential goods that are also associated with higher risks of forced labour in global supply chains.
Wilson questioned the internal consistency of the policy, arguing that the scale of exemptions appears at odds with the stated objective of strengthening enforcement against modern slavery in international trade. He said this raises doubts about whether the measures will effectively improve oversight of supply chains or simply add complexity to global trade rules.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment