n July 24, 2026, United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer announced one of the most large–scale trade actions in recent memory. At the direction of President Trump, USTR imposed additional tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on virtually all goods from 60 trading partners. The measure covers roughly 99.4% of U.S. imports under the premise that economies have failed to impose and effectively enforce bans on goods made with forced labor.
This is not a narrow, product–specific measure. It is an economywide response designed to change behavior at its source. Understanding its importance requires looking beyond the tariff percentages to the forced labor problem it addresses, the leverage it creates, and the precedent it sets.
Today, forced labor remains deeply embedded in global supply chains despite decades of diplomacy, international agreements, corporate reporting requirements, and technical assistance. Governments and employers have spent hundreds of millions on strategies, with no meaningful elimination of forced labor. The ILO Global Estimates of Modern Slavery indicate 27.6 million people are submitted to forced labor on any given day. Despite the significant size and scale of global technical assistance over the past years, the measurement of individuals found in forced labor increased by 2.7 million people, showing that strategies to address forced labor are not working effectively.
The U.S. has prohibited imports made with forced labor since 1930 under Section 307 of the Tariff Act, but few other major economies have matched America’s combination of a clear legal ban and serious enforcement.
The result is a global market that still rewards exploitation. When countries freely admit goods made through coercion, those products continue to find buyers. Producers that exploit workers retain an artificial cost advantage, while companies operating under higher standards are forced to compete on an uneven playing field.
USTR’s Section 301 investigations found that 54 economies lacked an effective forced–labor import prohibition. Six others, including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Indonesia, and Pakistan, had laws or partial restrictions but failed to enforce them meaningfully.
The final action creates two tariff tiers. Economies that have adopted a forced–labor import ban, committed to adopting one through a reciprocal trade agreement or established at least a partial prohibition will generally face an additional 10% tariff. Economies that have taken none of those steps will face a 12.5% tariff. This distinction will reward countries that have begun acting while imposing greater costs on those that continue to do little or nothing.
A particularly innovative provision involves temporary three–year tariff–rate quotas for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Once implemented, the quotas will allow limited volumes of textiles and apparel from those countries to enter without the additional Section 301 duty. The size of each quota will be tied to purchases of American cotton and yarn. The more those countries buy from U.S. producers, the greater preferential access they can receive for finished goods. This is most likely an appeal to workers in cotton producing states in the U.S. like Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi by creating a system that incentivizes pushing out more U.S. apparel inputs to the world and eliminates procuring cotton from forced labor bad actors like China.
From the U.S. perspective, the principle is straightforward. Goods made with forced labor should not have unrestricted access to the world’s largest consumer market, and governments that tolerate their production or sale should face economic consequences.
For years, producers around the globe who play by the rules have been undercut by artificially cheap goods. Whether for tariff action or not, we’ve seen unprecedented action over the past few months since the U.S. Section 301 trade investigation was announced of governments adopting and enforcing stronger import rules. In theory, this could level the playing field for countries that play by the rules.
The action will also have immediate consequences for businesses around the globe. Importers will face higher costs from covered economies unless their goods qualify for an exemption or future tariff–rate quota. This should encourage companies to diversify sourcing, strengthen due diligence, and examine labor practices deeper in their supply chains.
Critics of the Section 301 action contend that it functions more as a broad tariff mechanism, especially in the wake of earlier trade tools being constrained by the U.S. courts, rather than a precisely calibrated response to forced labor. They cite thin country–specific evidence of actual burdens on U.S. commerce, the application of similar rates to economies with vastly different labor records, and the likelihood of higher costs for American importers and consumers.
However, when it comes to action against forced labor, the Section 301 action mirrors the trade actions that have been taken in the past year on forced labor. The international response to forced labor has long emphasized awareness, reporting, and voluntary commitments — with limited progress. The new strategy takes a page from the innovative enforcement angle found in the USMCA and replicated in the new Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs). The USMCA was the first comprehensive trade agreement to require parties to prohibit imports of goods made with forced labor, while earlier FTA’s only obligated partners to adopt and enforce domestic laws reflecting ILO core standards on eliminating forced labor.
The Section 301 investigation now introduces a unilateral investigative tool applied across 60 economies, imposing tariffs for the failure to maintain or enforce such a ban while rewarding countries that have already made ART–style commitments with the lower rate. In practice, it functions as a broad enforcement backstop that builds on and extends the ART standard globally, rather than merely amplifying bilateral deals themselves. As the U.S. now appears to be moving from condemnation to consequences, there is an opportunity to turn skepticism into exactly what critics are calling for: tangible wins for workers, support for companies that play by the rules, and an end to modern-day slavery. Historically, Abraham Lincoln understood slavery as both a moral evil and an economic system that forced free labor to compete against coerced labor. Today’s global challenges are different, but the underlying principle remains the same: Laborers should be free, and those who exploit workers should not receive an unfair commercial advantage.
The U.S. Section 301 action seems to be giving countries a clear choice: confront forced labor or pay the price.
a global affairs media network
From condemnation to consequences on forced labor
Image via Adobe Stock.
July 29, 2026
The world is talking about new tariffs levied by the U.S. on 60 trading partners. While much of that talk is critical, these tariffs represent a meaningful shift from rhetorical condemnation to potentially behavior–changing consequences, writes Martha E. Newton.
O
n July 24, 2026, United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer announced one of the most large–scale trade actions in recent memory. At the direction of President Trump, USTR imposed additional tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on virtually all goods from 60 trading partners. The measure covers roughly 99.4% of U.S. imports under the premise that economies have failed to impose and effectively enforce bans on goods made with forced labor.
This is not a narrow, product–specific measure. It is an economywide response designed to change behavior at its source. Understanding its importance requires looking beyond the tariff percentages to the forced labor problem it addresses, the leverage it creates, and the precedent it sets.
Today, forced labor remains deeply embedded in global supply chains despite decades of diplomacy, international agreements, corporate reporting requirements, and technical assistance. Governments and employers have spent hundreds of millions on strategies, with no meaningful elimination of forced labor. The ILO Global Estimates of Modern Slavery indicate 27.6 million people are submitted to forced labor on any given day. Despite the significant size and scale of global technical assistance over the past years, the measurement of individuals found in forced labor increased by 2.7 million people, showing that strategies to address forced labor are not working effectively.
The U.S. has prohibited imports made with forced labor since 1930 under Section 307 of the Tariff Act, but few other major economies have matched America’s combination of a clear legal ban and serious enforcement.
The result is a global market that still rewards exploitation. When countries freely admit goods made through coercion, those products continue to find buyers. Producers that exploit workers retain an artificial cost advantage, while companies operating under higher standards are forced to compete on an uneven playing field.
USTR’s Section 301 investigations found that 54 economies lacked an effective forced–labor import prohibition. Six others, including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Indonesia, and Pakistan, had laws or partial restrictions but failed to enforce them meaningfully.
The final action creates two tariff tiers. Economies that have adopted a forced–labor import ban, committed to adopting one through a reciprocal trade agreement or established at least a partial prohibition will generally face an additional 10% tariff. Economies that have taken none of those steps will face a 12.5% tariff. This distinction will reward countries that have begun acting while imposing greater costs on those that continue to do little or nothing.
A particularly innovative provision involves temporary three–year tariff–rate quotas for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Once implemented, the quotas will allow limited volumes of textiles and apparel from those countries to enter without the additional Section 301 duty. The size of each quota will be tied to purchases of American cotton and yarn. The more those countries buy from U.S. producers, the greater preferential access they can receive for finished goods. This is most likely an appeal to workers in cotton producing states in the U.S. like Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi by creating a system that incentivizes pushing out more U.S. apparel inputs to the world and eliminates procuring cotton from forced labor bad actors like China.
From the U.S. perspective, the principle is straightforward. Goods made with forced labor should not have unrestricted access to the world’s largest consumer market, and governments that tolerate their production or sale should face economic consequences.
For years, producers around the globe who play by the rules have been undercut by artificially cheap goods. Whether for tariff action or not, we’ve seen unprecedented action over the past few months since the U.S. Section 301 trade investigation was announced of governments adopting and enforcing stronger import rules. In theory, this could level the playing field for countries that play by the rules.
The action will also have immediate consequences for businesses around the globe. Importers will face higher costs from covered economies unless their goods qualify for an exemption or future tariff–rate quota. This should encourage companies to diversify sourcing, strengthen due diligence, and examine labor practices deeper in their supply chains.
Critics of the Section 301 action contend that it functions more as a broad tariff mechanism, especially in the wake of earlier trade tools being constrained by the U.S. courts, rather than a precisely calibrated response to forced labor. They cite thin country–specific evidence of actual burdens on U.S. commerce, the application of similar rates to economies with vastly different labor records, and the likelihood of higher costs for American importers and consumers.
However, when it comes to action against forced labor, the Section 301 action mirrors the trade actions that have been taken in the past year on forced labor. The international response to forced labor has long emphasized awareness, reporting, and voluntary commitments — with limited progress. The new strategy takes a page from the innovative enforcement angle found in the USMCA and replicated in the new Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs). The USMCA was the first comprehensive trade agreement to require parties to prohibit imports of goods made with forced labor, while earlier FTA’s only obligated partners to adopt and enforce domestic laws reflecting ILO core standards on eliminating forced labor.
The Section 301 investigation now introduces a unilateral investigative tool applied across 60 economies, imposing tariffs for the failure to maintain or enforce such a ban while rewarding countries that have already made ART–style commitments with the lower rate. In practice, it functions as a broad enforcement backstop that builds on and extends the ART standard globally, rather than merely amplifying bilateral deals themselves. As the U.S. now appears to be moving from condemnation to consequences, there is an opportunity to turn skepticism into exactly what critics are calling for: tangible wins for workers, support for companies that play by the rules, and an end to modern-day slavery. Historically, Abraham Lincoln understood slavery as both a moral evil and an economic system that forced free labor to compete against coerced labor. Today’s global challenges are different, but the underlying principle remains the same: Laborers should be free, and those who exploit workers should not receive an unfair commercial advantage.
The U.S. Section 301 action seems to be giving countries a clear choice: confront forced labor or pay the price.
