The United States moved to open a sweeping new front in its trade agenda this week, with the U.S. Trade Representative determining that 60 economies together accounting for the overwhelming majority of America’s imports have failed to ban and enforce prohibitions on goods made with forced labor, and proposing additional tariffs of up to 12.5% in response.
The determination, announced by USTR and made under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, names nearly every major U.S. trading partner, including China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, India and Vietnam. USTR called the failures “unreasonable” and said they “burden or restrict U.S. commerce” by forcing American workers to compete on what Ambassador Jamieson Greer described as “an unlevel playing field.”
“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable,” Greer said in a statement. “We will no longer tolerate this disparity.”
What is being proposed
The action is, for now, a proposal open to public comment rather than a tariff that takes effect immediately. USTR has proposed additional duties on essentially all products from the investigated economies, structured in two tiers:
- 10% for economies that already impose a forced-labor import prohibition, have committed to do so through an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, or maintain a partial regime that blocks at least some forced-labor goods.
- 12.5% for all other economies those judged to have done the least.
USTR also floated a “textile mechanism” that would let a defined volume of apparel and textile imports from certain economies enter at a reduced Section 301 rate, a carve-out aimed at softening the blow to one of the most exposed and labor-intensive supply chains.
Crucially, the agency found that all 60 economies failed on both counts to impose a prohibition and to enforce one. It split them into two groups. Fifty-four economies, including China, Japan, the U.K., South Korea, Brazil, India, Switzerland, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia and Vietnam, were found to have failed to impose and enforce a ban. Six others Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan were found to have a prohibition on the books but to have failed to effectively enforce it.
Why Section 301
The legal vehicle matters. Section 301 lets USTR investigate and respond to foreign government acts, policies or practices it deems unjustifiable, unreasonable or discriminatory the same statute the first Trump administration used to impose tariffs on roughly $370 billion of Chinese goods beginning in 2018. The agency self-initiated these 60 investigations on March 12, 2026, gathered testimony from nearly 60 witnesses and reviewed some 500 comments before reaching this week’s findings.
The choice of Section 301 is also a hedge. In February 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), wiping out the “reciprocal” and emergency duties that had pushed the U.S. trade-weighted average tariff to a peak of roughly 19.5% in May 2025. The administration replaced them with a temporary 10% surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act a measure that is itself capped at 150 days and set to expire on July 24, 2026. Section 301, by contrast, has survived repeated legal challenge and offers a more durable foundation for tariffs the administration wants to keep.
Where tariffs stand now
As of today, the U.S. trade-weighted average tariff sits at about 8.1%, according to Global Trade Alert’s US Tariff Estimates well below the May 2025 peak but still more than four times the roughly 1.8% level at the start of the current administration. That 8.1% is now carried largely by Section 232 duties on steel, aluminum, copper and their derivatives (about 7.5 points on a weighted basis), the temporary Section 122 surcharge (about 5 points) and longstanding Section 301 duties on China (about 1.1 points).
Layering a 10%-to-12.5% forced-labor tariff on top of that baseline across virtually all trading partners would represent one of the broadest single tariff actions of the period, potentially returning the average rate toward the mid-teens if adopted as proposed. Because the proposed duties apply to “all products” rather than narrow product lists, the affected trade volume dwarfs that of a typical Section 301 case.
The fine print on timing
For all the breadth of the announcement, importers have a window. USTR has set the following schedule:
- June 22, 2026 deadline to request to appear at the public hearing and submit a summary of testimony.
- July 6, 2026 deadline for written comments on the proposed actions.
- July 7, 2026 public hearings on the proposed tariffs.
Only after that process will USTR issue final determinations and decide whether and at what rate the duties take effect. The structure leaves room for negotiation: the explicit reference to Agreements on Reciprocal Trade signals that partners willing to make enforceable forced-labor commitments could land in the lower 10% tier or avoid the tariffs on specific goods altogether. India, among others, has already signaled it intends to address the issue through ongoing trade talks.
What it means for importers
For companies sourcing from the named economies which is to say, most importers of record the practical takeaways are immediate even though the tariffs are not. Supply chains heavy in apparel, footwear, electronics, agricultural goods and other labor-intensive categories face the most exposure, and the proposed textile mechanism suggests USTR itself expects apparel to be a pressure point.
The comment period is a genuine opportunity to shape product exclusions, the textile volume mechanism and tier placement, and businesses with material exposure should weigh participating before the July 6 deadline. Companies should also begin mapping which of their sourcing countries fall in the 12.5% versus 10% tier, model the cost impact against the existing 8.1% baseline, and watch the July 24 expiration of the Section 122 surcharge, which could shift the overall tariff math just as these duties are being finalized.
What is clear is the direction of travel. With IEEPA tariffs struck down and the Section 122 surcharge on a statutory clock, the administration is rebuilding its tariff architecture on firmer legal footing and forced labor, an issue with bipartisan support in Congress, gives it a politically resilient rationale to do so.
So how hard would a 10% to 12.5% tariff hit your bottom line?
That depends entirely on where you source, which tier you land in, and how the July hearings shake out. The window to act and to shape the outcome closes fast.
Want to know exactly how this affects your business? Reach out to Peacock Tariff Consulting for a tailored exposure assessment before the comment period closes.
Email kyle.peacock@peacocktariffconsulting.com
Peacock Tariff Consulting · peacocktariffconsulting.com