U.S. Government Moves Toward Far-Reaching Section 301 Tariffs

On June 2, 2026, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) released the findings of its Section 301 investigations regarding anti-forced labor import policies of 60 major U.S. trading partners, and proposed new tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from those 60 countries. USTR determined that all 60 trading partners either lack a complete prohibition on imports of merchandise produced using forced labor or fail to effectively enforce the prohibitions they have.

It appears likely that USTR will impose tariffs as proposed – an unprecedently broad application of the Section 301 law. But these Section 301 tariffs may be vulnerable to court challenge.

Section 301 Investigations: A Pathway to “Replace” Previously Invalidated Tariffs?

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes USTR, at the direction of the President, to impose import tariffs or take other action against a country if USTR determines 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 trade measures, mainly involving inadequate intellectual property protection.   

USTR initiated the Section 301 investigations 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 these investigations as a pathway to “replace” the IEEPA tariffs. USTR has launched two Section 301 probes: the just-completed forced-labor investigation of 60 major trading partners and an investigation regarding “structural excess capacity” in the manufacturing sectors of 16 trading partners. The latter investigation is ongoing and could result in additional proposed tariffs.

Findings Across 60 Countries

USTR determined that all 60 trading partners either lack a complete prohibition on forced labor imports or fail to enforce their prohibitions effectively. Of the 60 countries it investigated, USTR determined that only six — Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan — maintain policies prohibiting the importation of merchandise produced using forced labor. USTR found that none of those six effectively enforce the prohibitions they have. 

Proposed Section 301 Tariff Rates and Exceptions

USTR is proposing two tiers of new Section 301tariffs:

• Goods imported from, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan, Pakistan and the U.K. will generally face a tariff of 10%;
• Goods imported from the remaining 46 investigated countries (including Brazil, China, India, Japan and South Korea) will generally face a tariff of 12.5%.

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

• merchandise already subject to Section 232 national security tariffs, such as semiconductor and pharmaceutical products and critical minerals;
• certain raw materials “whose inclusion could lead to unavailability of domestic supply;” and
• certain agricultural products.

Possible Judicial Challenge

Importers affected by any final Section 301 tariff action will have standing to challenge the tariffs before the U.S. Court of International Trade. Section 301 actions have historically been subject to limited judicial scrutiny, but the legal landscape is evolving. Recent litigation regarding tariff actions — including challenges to the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the emergency tariffs earlier this year — has brought renewed attention to the scope of judicial review available in trade cases.

To survive judicial review, USTR’s determination to impose Section 301 tariffs would need to satisfy a variety of statutory requirements.

• 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 the existence and enforcement of forced-labor import prohibitions — 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 have provided 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 have followed Section 301 procedural requirements, including providing sufficient public notice, opportunity for public comment, and a reasoned explanation for its final determination.

Process and Timing

Interested parties are free to submit comments to USTR on the Section 301 tariff proposal by July 6. On July 7, USTR is scheduled to convene a public hearing, and any post-hearing rebuttal comments must be submitted by five days after the final hearing day.

After reviewing public comments and any hearing testimony, USTR will issue a final determination on the tariff actions. USTR retains discretion to modify the proposed tariff rates, the list of covered products, and/or the scope of tariff exceptions before finalizing the tariffs. As a result, the new tariffs are unlikely to take effect until late July at the earliest.

Summer associate Alessandra Hallman contributed to this article.