Just as the 150-day global interim tariff expired this Friday, the Trump administration rolled out fresh tariff measures.
According to reports, the US Trade Representative’s Office announced a July 23 statement, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose additional tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on dozens of countries and regions, effective July 24 Eastern Time. The move claims to combat “forced labor” practices, covering nearly 99% of US trade volume.
The office had earlier warned that the US would slap a 10% extra tariff on 14 economies, including Canada, the EU, and the UK, which have partially implemented forced labor controls. Meanwhile, a 12.5% levy targets 46 economies, such as mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, Australia, and others, where the US deems these nations have not enforced relevant bans.
The new tariffs stack on top of existing ones, with only select exemptions for agricultural goods, pharmaceuticals, aircraft parts, and steel and aluminum.
Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act authorizes the US Trade Representative to investigate “unreasonable or unfair trade practices” by other countries and recommend presidential unilateral sanctions. Compared to earlier emergency powers, this legal basis is stronger, significantly reducing the odds of being overturned by courts.
Back in 2017, during his first term, Trump expanded Section 301’s scope, particularly targeting Asian trading partners across areas like digital trade, intellectual property, market access (e.g., ethanol), and environmental policies (e.g., illegal deforestation).
According to Dan Cannistra, a partner at law firm Crowell & Moring, up to January 17, 2025—before Trump’s second term kicked off—US administrations had launched over 130 Section 301 investigations, with 35 of those initiated after the World Trade Organization’s founding in 1995.
After returning to office, Trump’s team expanded probes from traditional trade imbalances into broader realms like manufacturing capacity, digital service taxes, and forced labor.
US trade policies are flip-flopping, which will once again rattle the domestic economy and global trade flows. Overall, targeted countries are responding by filing WTO complaints, imposing retaliatory tariffs, and accelerating supply chain diversification to reduce reliance on the US.
China’s stance, outlined in a white paper on Sino-US trade issues, states that the US Section 301 tariffs are typical unilateralism and protectionism, seriously violating multilateral trade rules. They not only undermine global supply chain stability but also fail to solve America’s own trade problems, instead driving up its domestic costs.
A spokesperson from China’s Ministry of Commerce responded, noting the US still hasn’t ratified the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, rejecting international rules, yet repeatedly manipulates the “forced labor” narrative. This latest Section 301 probe against China and other economies aims to build trade barriers, and is unilateral, arbitrary, and discriminatory—pure protectionism.
A WTO expert panel already ruled that US Section 301 tariffs on China violate WTO rules. By again abusing Section 301, the US places domestic law above international rules, compounding its error and severely destabilizing global supply chains and disrupting international trade order.
As a traditional US ally, the EU is bolstering internal market integration to buffer external shocks while teaming up with other affected nations against unilateral US sanctions. Mexico’s strategy focuses on leveraging nearshoring opportunities to strengthen local industry and upgrade manufacturing, while reducing dependency on the US single market.
India is countering by canceling high-level exchanges and military purchases, while accelerating trade cooperation with Shanghai Cooperation Organization members. It’s also actively developing energy and local currency settlement ties with Russia and Iran. New Delhi has filed a formal WTO complaint challenging US steel and aluminum tariffs, and plans to impose retaliatory levies on US agricultural and electronics goods, while trimming dollar-denominated assets.
As major export-driven economies in Asia, Vietnam and Japan are both restructuring supply chains to dodge risks. Japanese automakers, for instance, are jointly rebuilding a supply chain system that sidesteps “US risk.”