U.S. Trade Representative's Section 301 Report Targets Forced Labor Enforcement and Imposes Tariffs on 60 Countries

On June 2, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued its report on its conclusions for the Section 301 investigations into 60 countries “related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.” The USTR determined that the acts, policies, and practices of each country failed to “impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition” which therefore “burdens or restricts U.S. commerce,” and are thus actionable under Section 301 of the Trade Act. On July 7–9, the USTR will hold additional hearings in order to facilitate the determination of the imposition of the tariffs, or anticipated exceptions.

Background

On March 12, 2026, the USTR Jamieson Greer announced that its office initiated expedited investigations into 60 countries under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the USTR to investigate whether the rights of the United States are being denied by a country’s conduct, and whether that conduct burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Usually, once investigations are initiated, the USTR consults with the country it is investigating to attempt to find a mutually beneficial agreement with that country while reviewing public comments and petitions from interested parties before making its determination. Read more about the processes of Section 301 investigations in our previous post.

As for these investigations, the USTR participated in confidential consultations with 46 of the 60 countries, and held public hearings on April 28 and 29 in Washington, D.C. A total of 456 written comments were submitted in response to the investigations into forced labor, with commenters ranging from trade associations to representatives from the investigated countries themselves. Boies Schiller Flexner's Kenya Davis attended the public hearings. What became crystal clear at those hearings is that the concerns varied across industries and stakeholders, with some domestic manufacturers calling for complete tariffs, while others with a mixed supply chain called for a narrowing of the proposed tariffs and exceptions for certain countries and industries. 

Findings

Within the report, the USTR concluded that all 60 countries fail to enforce forced labor regulations by either (1) failing to have a forced labor import prohibition law, or (2) for countries that do have such a law in place, concluding that those countries fail to effectively enforce their forced labor import ban. 

1. Countries Without Forced Labor Import Bans

The USTR concluded that 54 of the investigated countries failed to have a forced labor import prohibition, which it defines as “a legal measure that forbids bringing goods or other articles produced wholly or in part by forced labor from another economy into the domestic market for wholesale,” such as the United States' Section 307 of the Trade Act of 1930. If a country does not have a similar law on its books that expressly bans the importation of forced labor goods, the USTR automatically found that the country failed to enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods made with forced labor. 

2. Countries that Have Forced Labor Import Bans, but Fail to Enforce Such Laws

For the six countries that do have a law prohibiting the importation of goods produced with forced labor—Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan—the USTR concluded that the countries fail to effectively enforce those laws. As defined by the USTR, to “effectively enforce” such a law, “a government must compel observance of the measure in a way that produces a desired effect.” Using the U.S. as an example again, the USTR noted that the U.S. compels the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to observe the forced labor import prohibition and emphasizes that the CBP has denied entry to tens of thousands of shipments of forced labor goods into the U.S. market. The imposition of the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act (UFLPA) stands as an example of the type of enforcement USTR expects from other nations.

The USTR concludes that the six countries failed to effectively enforce their forced labor import prohibitions by comparing each country’s number of suspected shipment seizures to the number of seizures in the U.S., and relying on eight elements identified by “independent research” “that inform whether a forced labor import prohibition will be effective.” For example, it found that Canada does not effectively enforce its import prohibition because Canada has intercepted only 50 shipments and seized 2 within the same time period that the U.S. denied entry to 6,386 shipments, as well as Canada lacking some of the eight elements “such as a public entity list and rebuttable presumption.” For these reasons, the USTR concluded that all 60 countries failed to effectively enforce forced labor import prohibitions.

3. How the Countries’ Conduct Burdens or Restricts U.S. Commerce

These failures were deemed to be unreasonable and therefore burden or restrict U.S. commerce because they create unfair competition in the global market by distorting costs of goods, give countries that tolerate forced labor an advantage in exporting their goods, displace market share of fairly produced goods, and allow forced labor goods to evade U.S. restrictions and enter the global supply chains. 

Proposed Response

The USTR proposed imposing additional tariffs on these nations at either a 10% or 12.5% rate, depending on the level of progress each country has made towards effectively enforcing a forced labor import ban, with exceptions made for certain imported products and trade agreements.

The 10% tariff applies to countries that impose a forced labor import prohibition, have committed to doing through an agreement on reciprocal trade, and countries that have partially prohibited the import of forced labor goods. The 12.5% tariffs apply to all other countries. A list of the countries that fall under each proposed tariff rate is below. 

Broad exceptions were proposed to certain goods from the investigated countries, such as certain metals, aircraft parts, pharmaceuticals, various food and agricultural products, raw and natural materials that are not abundantly available within the United States, and others.

What Does This Mean?

If the proposed tariffs are implemented, tariffs will apply to a substantial percentage of imports into the U.S., as the 60 investigated countries collectively account for over 99% of all U.S. imports. This could have various consequences, including litigation and retaliatory tariffs. 

One potential consequence is the tariffs being legally challenged domestically and/or internationally. In 2018, the United States conducted Section 301 investigations into China’s implementation of laws and practices related to intellectual property and technology “that may encourage or require the transfer of American technology and intellectual property to enterprises in China or that may otherwise negatively affect American economic interests.” Internationally, China filed a dispute against the U.S. with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO issued a report that found that the U.S. breached its WTO obligations when it imposed such tariffs on China. Domestically, companies that import goods into the U.S. filed approximately 3,600 cases in the Court of International Trade (CIT), which consolidated the matters into one. Most notably, the CIT found that the USTR violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by declining to give the affected importers sufficient time to submit comments regarding the proposed tariffs, and for failing to consider relevant factors when determining to impose tariffs. 

Outside of litigation risks, another potential consequence of these tariffs is that the efforts from companies that are working to rid forced labor and increase transparency within their supply chains may not be enough anymore. Because these tariffs are placed on whole countries’ imports, it may be insufficient that companies are independently working to rid their supply chains of forced labor and increase transparency in. Imposing the tariffs onto countries rather than certain goods and products casts a wide net that captures both responsible and irresponsible actors, unless the country passes a law or regulation acceptable to the United States.  

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Operational Guidance

On June 12, 2026, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published operational guidance to importers explaining how it enforces prohibitions on imports made with forced labor, consolidating information from three primary legal authorities, including the section 307 of Tariff Act. Key themes within the operational guidance include the CBP’s expectations that importers are proactive in their due diligence, not just reactionary when their goods are detained at the border. The guidance also discusses how investigations work and how the CBP makes its decisions to detain goods. The guidance suggests that importers must be ready to produce documentation to show diligence and compliance in eliminating forced labor throughout their supply chains, from manufactured goods all the way down to raw materials.

What is Next?

The USTR will hold public hearings in response to the issued report on July 7–9, 2026. If all goes as expected, the tariffs will start at the end of the summer, if not sooner.