In February, the Supreme Court struck down the sweeping global tariffs Donald Trump had imposed on nearly every country on Earth. The justices ruled he had exceeded his authority. The tariffs that had been generating tens of billions of dollars a month for the federal government were gone. Trump and his Treasury Secretary vowed to replace them. This week, they unveiled the plan.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced proposed tariffs of 10 to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 countries, covering virtually every major U.S. trading partner. The legal basis this time: forced labor. The administration says each of these countries has failed to adequately prohibit or enforce bans on goods made with forced labor, and that failure burdens American commerce. Critics, including the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, are calling it exactly what it looks like: a way to rebuild the tariff wall using a legal theory the courts have not yet struck down.
Why Trump Needs a New Legal Theory
The original tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law Trump used to declare a national emergency over trade deficits. The Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that IEEPA did not give the president that authority. The tariffs were struck down.
After that ruling, the administration imposed temporary replacement tariffs of 10 percent globally under a different authority. Those tariffs expire July 24. A specialized federal trade court has already ruled those are illegal too, though they remain in place while the case proceeds through the courts.
The revenue impact has been significant. Tariff collections peaked at more than $31 billion in October 2025. By March and April of this year they had dropped to $22 billion a month, according to Treasury Department data. Trump had been counting on tariff revenue to offset the cost of his 2025 tax cuts. That math is not working out.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a different legal tool, and one with a cleaner track record in court. Trump used it to impose tariffs on China during his first term and those survived legal challenge. The new forced labor investigations are running at roughly twice the normal speed for Section 301 cases, according to trade lawyers who spoke to the Philadelphia Inquirer, because the administration needs the new tariffs ready before the stopgap ones expire on July 24.
Who Gets Hit and for How Much
The proposed tariff rates break into two tiers. Sixteen economies, including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, would face 10 percent tariffs. The USTR found these countries have forced labor laws on the books but do not enforce them effectively. The remaining 44 countries, including China, Japan, India, South Korea, Brazil, and Australia, would face 12.5 percent tariffs for having no enforceable prohibition at all.
The administration exempted a long list of products to limit political exposure ahead of the midterms: aircraft parts, food products from coffee to beef, rare earth minerals used in smartphones and cars, and Canadian and Mexican goods covered by the existing North American trade agreement. The carve-outs are calibrated to avoid the worst visible price increases before November.
The Pushback
Allies are not accepting the forced labor framing. Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, was direct about it on social media: Accusing the EU of not doing enough against forced labor is absurd. The EU has adopted the world’s most stringent rules against products made with forced labor. This looks very much like trying to make the facts fit a legal justification for tariffs that has already been decided.
China’s Foreign Ministry denied the forced labor allegation entirely, calling the tariffs political manipulation. Canada said it would introduce new legislation on forced labor in supply chains, positioning itself to potentially qualify for better treatment. The United Kingdom said it is already tackling forced labor in global supply chains.
Trade lawyers are more candid than foreign governments about what is actually happening. What is somewhat brilliant about this way of approaching Section 301 is that politically it is very hard to argue that you should not go after forced labor, trade lawyer Ryan Majerus told the Philadelphia Inquirer. The forced labor framing is not legally fraudulent. It is, however, a rationale chosen because the original rationale was rejected by the highest court in the country.
What Comes Next
The proposed tariffs are not yet in effect. Public comments are open through July 6, with a hearing on July 7. The administration intends to have the new tariffs finalized before the stopgap ones expire on July 24, leaving no gap in revenue collection.
The forced labor case is not the only Section 301 investigation underway. The USTR is separately investigating whether 16 major trading partners, accounting for 70 percent of all U.S. imports, are overproducing goods and undercutting American manufacturers. And on Monday, the administration proposed 25 percent tariffs on Brazil alone, citing what it called unreasonable trade practices including lax anti-corruption enforcement and Brazil’s own tariffs on American goods.
The Supreme Court removed one set of tariffs. The administration is building replacements faster than the courts can rule on them.