Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) report claims 60 economies, including the EU, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, distort trade by not enforcing import bans on goods made with forced labor. The report proposes tariffs on 99.4% of U.S. imports by value, but critics argue the findings are hypocritical and lack evidence, as the U.S. itself has not ratified the ILO's forced labor convention.

The Trump administration proposes additional tariffs of 10% or more on products from major trading partners including Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, UK, China, Japan, India, and others, citing failure to enforce forced labor import bans. The U.S. Trade Representative cited a Section 301 investigation finding 60 countries failed to prevent forced labor imports, while China denied the allegations and urged resolving disputes through dialogue. Tariffs are subject to public comment and hearings starting July 7.

The Trump administration is proposing tariffs of 10% or more on products from major trading partners including Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, the UK, China, Japan, India, Brazil, and others, citing failure to enforce a forced labor import ban. The tariffs, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, aim to address forced labor practices and avoid previous Supreme Court restrictions on tariff authority.

The Trump administration proposed 25% tariffs on Brazil over 'unreasonable' trade practices, citing lax anti-corruption enforcement and unfair tariffs. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative conducted the investigation, and the plan excludes over half of U.S. imports from Brazil, including aircraft and minerals. The administration invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for the investigation.

The Supreme Court invalidated the Trump administration's broad tariff regime under IEEPA in February 2026. The USTR subsequently initiated extensive Section 301 investigations covering 99% of U.S. trade, targeting 16 economies for structural excess capacity and 60 for forced labor concerns. The administration aims to use Section 301 as a permanent mechanism for tariff authority, raising unresolved constitutional delegation questions.