U.S. Imposes Far-Reaching Section 301 Tariffs

On July 23, 2026, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) imposed wide-ranging tariffs on imports from 60 major U.S. trading partners following its Section 301 investigations regarding forced labor import policies. The new tariffs range from 10% to 12.5% and took effect at 12:01 am on July 24. Like prior tariff measures imposed by the current administration, the new Section 301 tariffs may be vulnerable to court challenge.

The countries subject to the new tariffs reportedly account for more than 99% of U.S. imports.

Section 301 Investigations

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the USTR, at the direction of the President, to impose import tariffs or take other action against a country if investigation establishes that the country is administering unfair trade measures. In 2017, the first Trump administration imposed Section 301 tariffs against broad classes of imports from China following findings of unfair measures, mainly involving inadequate intellectual property protection.   

USTR initiated the forced labor-focused Section 301 investigation, and another Section 301 investigation focused on “structural excess capacity” in the manufacturing sectors of 16 trading partners, following the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s tariffs purportedly under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). USTR has described the Section 301 investigations as a pathway to “replace” the IEEPA tariffs.

Tariff Rates and Exceptions

USTR is imposing two tiers of new Section 301 tariffs:

1. 10% tariff:

Goods imported from Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom will face a 10% tariff. Goods imported from the European Union and Taiwan with current Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariff rates of less than 10% shall face a Section 301 tariff equivalent to the difference between the MFN rate and 10%. Goods imported from the European Union and Taiwan with current MFN tariff rates equal to or greater than 10% will face no Section 301 tariff.

2. 12.5% tariff:

Goods imported from Japan, South Korea and Switzerland with current MFN tariff rates of less than 12.5% shall face a Section 301 tariff equivalent to the difference between the MFN rate and 12.5%, and goods imported from Japan, South Korea and Switzerland with current MFN tariff rates equal to or greater than 12.5% shall face no Section 301 tariff. Goods imported from 40 other countries, including Brazil and China, will face a 12.5% Section 301 tariff.

Recognizing the likelihood of legal challenges, USTR noted that each country-specific tariff action “is intended to operate independently of each other, and the potential invalidity of one tariff action taken in this Notice should not affect any other tariff. The potential invalidity of one aspect of any tariff action taken in this Notice should not affect any other aspect of the tariff action.”

USTR identified several categories of goods that would be carved out from the proposed tariffs, including:

• Merchandise already subject to Section 232 national security tariffs
• Certain raw materials “whose inclusion could lead to unavailability of domestic supply”
• Products that could cause economy-wide disruption if subject to these tariffs
• Certain products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities in the United States or obtained from other sources.

These exclusions cover dozens of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 8-digit subheadings. The excluded HTSUS subheadings appear in Annexes 1 and 2 to the USTR notice.

Beyond the July 23 Section 301 announcement, U.S. officials have also recently imposed separate tariffs on certain imports from Brazil and Canada.

Judicial Review and Tariff Litigation

Importers are challenging the new Section 301 tariffs before the U.S. Court of International Trade. To survive judicial review, the determination to impose Section 301 tariffs would need to satisfy a variety of statutory requirements, including:

• Actionable trade practices. USTR’s findings would need to establish that each targeted country’s forced-labor policies (or lack thereof) constitute acts, policies or practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce within the meaning of Section 301.
• Adequate factual basis. The record developed during the investigation—including the country-specific findings regarding forced-labor import prohibitions and enforcement—would need to adequately support USTR’s findings that the identified practices warrant the proposed remedy.
• Proportionality and reasonableness of remedy. The tariff rates and product coverage selected would need to be reasonable and proportionate responses to the identified practices. USTR would need to provide a reasonable explanation for the chosen tariff levels (including the distinction between the 10% and 12.5% tiers) and the scope of exceptions.
• Procedural compliance. USTR would need to show it followed Section 301 procedural requirements, including sufficient public notice, opportunity for public comment, and a reasoned explanation for its final determination.

Section 301 actions have historically been subject to limited judicial scrutiny, but recent litigation involving tariff actions—including challenges to the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating emergency tariffs earlier this year—has brought renewed attention to the scope of judicial review available in trade cases.

Subscribe to Orrick’s Tariff Watch resource center for updates on key legal and regulatory developments, including the unfolding process before the Court of International Trade, implications for tariff payers and claim buyers, and potential shifts in U.S. trade policy.