On Thursday, July 24th, 2026, the Trump Administration finalized new double-digit tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners, authorized under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These tariffs, ranging from 10 to 12.5 percent, follow a five-month investigation into efforts by trading partners to eliminate products made with forced labor from their supply chains. The new duties take effect as a temporary global 10 percent tariff expires.

Starting Friday, July 25th, 17 trading partners—including Canada, the European Union, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and Mexico—will face a 10 percent duty. Additionally, 10 countries that have signed trade agreements addressing forced labor with the U.S. will also face this rate. Another 43 countries, including Japan, China, South Korea, and Australia, will be subject to a 12.5 percent tariff.

These Section 301 tariffs appear intended to replace temporary Section 122 tariffs, which expired on July 24th and were invalidated by the U.S. Court of International Trade in May, though appellate litigation is ongoing.

Critics argue the policy is based on sham investigations and violates legal doctrines. Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute, an expert on trade policy, described the forced labor investigations as a pretext for a significant presidential power grab. Legal experts, including author Ilya Somin and Peter Harrell, contend that the tariffs violate Section 301's requirements and the major questions doctrine, which demands clear congressional authorization for executive actions with vast economic and political consequences.

The Supreme Court, in the IEEPA case, emphasized limits on presidential tariff powers, stating the president does not have authority to "impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time." Chief Justice Roberts noted that while some statutes grant tariff authority, including Section 301, such delegations are subject to strict limits.

The new tariffs affect the entire national economy and numerous major trading partners, raising concerns about their legality and economic impact.

Sources