US Proposes 10-12.5% Tariffs on 60 Partners Over Forced Labor

The Trump administration has proposed tariffs ranging from 10 to 12.5 percent on goods from 60 trading partners that together represent nearly all U.S. imports, citing those countries' failure to block products made with forced labor. The move, announced by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, follows two rounds of court setbacks for the president's earlier tariff policies and would apply to partners including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, India, Mexico and China.

A report released by the trade office concluded that 54 countries had not imposed or enforced a legal prohibition on imports produced wholly or partly with forced labor. Six others, including Canada, the EU, Mexico and Indonesia, were found to have fallen short on enforcement even if they maintained some rules. The tariffs would not take effect immediately and would first go through a public comment period. Officials described the action as necessary to prevent American workers from competing on an uneven field against goods whose production relies on coercion.

The proposal comes after the Supreme Court struck down a broad set of earlier tariffs in February and a subsequent trade court ruling questioned a second round of across-the-board duties. Administration officials have framed the forced-labor investigation, conducted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as a separate legal track that allows them to address what they see as unfair trade practices. Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said the failure of major partners to act created conditions that effectively subsidize forced labor through global supply chains.

Countries named in the report have pushed back. The European Union called the tariffs unjustified and said they conflict with a trade agreement reached last year. Chinese officials rejected the premise that goods from their country are produced with forced labor. The United Kingdom stated that it already maintains measures to address the issue. An analyst in India described the tariffs as a negotiating tactic rather than a targeted response to documented abuses.

If implemented, the duties would raise costs for a wide range of imported goods, from electronics and machinery to clothing and agricultural products. Economists note that such broad tariffs tend to be passed along in part to U.S. businesses and consumers, adding to price pressures at a time when inflation remains a political concern. Supply chains that rely on components from multiple countries would face new compliance costs and potential delays as importers seek to document labor conditions.

The administration has previously linked forced-labor concerns to specific sectors, most notably solar panels and apparel linked to China's Xinjiang region. The current list, however, sweeps in nearly every significant trading partner without distinguishing between documented problems and general enforcement gaps. That breadth has led some trade experts to view the policy as a mechanism for achieving protectionist goals that courts have limited in other forms.

Trading partners now face a choice between accepting higher tariffs, negotiating exemptions through bilateral talks, or strengthening their own import controls to satisfy U.S. demands. The EU and others have signaled they will contest the measures through existing trade frameworks. For American companies that source globally, the immediate effect is uncertainty over costs and sourcing strategies while the comment period plays out.

The proposal underscores the administration's continued focus on using tariffs as leverage in trade relations, even as legal and diplomatic constraints have shifted the available tools. Whether the forced-labor rationale holds up under scrutiny or produces measurable changes in global supply chains will depend on how trading partners respond and how courts ultimately treat the new duties.