Trump Slaps New Tariffs on 60 Countries — Allies Call the “Forced Labor” Excuse a Sham

The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on 60 trading partners, covering 99.4% of U.S. imports, as a temporary global 10% tariff enacted under a different legal authority expired [1, 2]. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, arguing the tariffs are needed because the affected countries have failed to adopt or enforce bans on goods made with forced labor; countries that have adopted such bans face the lower 10% rate, while those that have not face 12.5% [2]. The new duties replace a stopgap tariff imposed under Section 122 after the Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump’s earlier emergency-powers tariffs were unlawful [1].

Several trading partners rejected the forced-labor justification. Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell called the tariffs “unjustified” and inconsistent with the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement, Brazil labeled the duties “arbitrary,” and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the accusation was not grounded given the bloc’s labor standards. Japan’s government called the action “regrettable” [3]. Most affected governments signaled they would keep negotiating with Washington rather than retaliate immediately [3].

Why It Sucks:

Republicans and Trump Administration Officials

• A new legal footing after the Supreme Court setback. With emergency-powers tariffs struck down in February, the administration argues Section 301’s forced-labor rationale gives it durable legal ground to keep pressuring trading partners [1, 2].
• Near-total coverage sends a message. Hitting 99.4% of U.S. imports shows the administration is serious about rebuilding a comprehensive trade agenda rather than picking off a handful of countries [1].
• Leverage to level the playing field. Supporters argue tying tariff rates to labor-standard enforcement rewards countries that comply and pressures those that don’t compete unfairly against American manufacturers [2].

Democrats and Free-Trade Critics

• Consumers foot the bill again. Economists note importers typically pass added costs on to shoppers rather than switching to domestic alternatives, meaning the tariffs function as a tax on American households [2].
• The legal workaround looks shaky. Critics argue leaning on a forced-labor pretext for tariffs this broad is an attempt to route around the same authority the Supreme Court already rejected [1].
• Businesses whipsawed by another sudden shift. A stopgap tariff regime just expired only to be replaced by a new 60-country structure, leaving companies little time to adjust supply chains [1, 2].

Foreign Trading Partners

• Governments call the rationale a pretext. Australia called the tariffs “unjustified” and incompatible with its free trade agreement, Brazil called them “arbitrary,” and the EU said the forced-labor claim isn’t “grounded” given its labor standards [3].
• Nearly every major exporter gets hit at once. Covering 99.4% of U.S. trade means allies and rivals alike absorb new costs simultaneously, with little individual leverage to negotiate exemptions [1, 3].
• Forced to keep talking instead of retaliating. Despite public objections, most governments are choosing continued negotiation over immediate countermeasures, wary of triggering a deeper trade fight [3].

Sources & Citations:

[1] Bloomberg: Here’s the Full List of Trump’s New Tariffs on 60 Economies
[2] NBC News: U.S. sets new tariffs at 10% to 12.5% on 60 trade partners
[3] CNBC: Trump’s new global tariff draws rebukes from trade partners over forced-labor justification