2026-07-28
U.S. Imposes Section 301 Tariffs on Forced-Labor Grounds for the First Time, Bringing 60 Economies Under Its Expanding Trade-Enforcement Framework
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced on July 23, 2026, that it would take final action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 against 60 economies that had failed to establish or effectively enforce bans on imports of products made with forced labor. Tariffs of 10% or 12.5% took effect on July 24, U.S. Eastern Time.
This marks the first time the United States has simultaneously imposed Section 301 tariffs on multiple economies on the grounds that they failed to adequately regulate imports of goods produced with forced labor. The investigation covered the United States’ 60 largest trading partners, which together account for 99.4% of total U.S. imports. However, this figure refers to the share of imports originating from the economies under investigation. It does not mean that 99.4% of all U.S. imports will be subject to the new tariffs, as semiconductors, certain critical raw materials, and products already covered by Section 232 measures remain exempt or excluded. With U.S. imports of finished goods remaining near historical highs in recent years, the measures could still affect a broad range of cross-border supply chains and importer costs despite the numerous product exemptions.
Read More at Datatrack
The measures also replaced the temporary Section 122 tariff that expired on July 24. Unlike Section 122, which is subject to a 150-day limit, Section 301 does not carry the same fixed expiration date. This indicates that the United States is incorporating forced labor, human rights, and supply-chain governance into a longer-term trade-enforcement framework.
The 60 Economies Are Divided into Four Tiers, with MFN Stacking Determining the Actual Tariff Burden
USTR established different tariff treatments based on whether each economy had adopted, enforced, or committed to implementing a ban on imports of products made with forced labor. In addition to the two headline rates of 10% and 12.5%, the more important distinction is whether the new tariff is added to the existing most-favored-nation tariff, or MFN tariff.
Tariff treatment
Representative economies
Calculation method
10% without MFN stacking
Taiwan, European Union
Combined MFN and Section 301 tariffs capped at 10%
10% added to MFN
Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, India, Indonesia, and others
An additional 10% imposed on top of the existing MFN tariff
12.5% without MFN stacking
Japan, South Korea, Switzerland
Combined MFN and Section 301 tariffs capped at 12.5%
12.5% added to MFN
China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, Brazil, and others
An additional 12.5% imposed on top of the existing MFN tariff
For example, if a Taiwanese product previously faced an MFN tariff of 4%, the additional Section 301 tariff would be 6%, bringing the combined rate to 10%. If the existing MFN tariff is already 10% or higher, no additional Section 301 tariff will be imposed.
By comparison, for an economy subject to a 10% tariff added on top of MFN treatment, a product with an existing MFN rate of 4% would face a final tariff of 14%. Economies such as China and Vietnam, which are subject to a 12.5% tariff added to the existing MFN rate, may also face other pre-existing duties. Their actual cost of exporting to the United States could therefore be significantly higher than the apparent 2.5-percentage-point difference in the headline rates.
Enforcement Expands from Specific Products to Economy-Wide Import Regimes, Making Supply-Chain Compliance a Market-Access Requirement
The United States has long maintained a system for prohibiting imports of goods made with forced labor. Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue withhold release orders when it possesses reasonable information indicating that goods may have been produced using forced labor. Such orders can prevent products associated with specific companies, commodities, or sources of supply from entering the United States.
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, or UFLPA, enacted in 2021, established a rebuttable presumption for goods produced wholly or partly in China’s Xinjiang region or linked to designated entities. Such goods are presumed to involve forced labor unless the importer can provide sufficient evidence to address the relevant concerns.
The latest Section 301 measures expand the scope of scrutiny from individual goods and suppliers to the import-control regime of an entire economy. U.S. authorities will assess whether each economy has established a ban on imports of goods made with forced labor and whether the relevant laws are being effectively enforced. When an economy’s system fails to meet U.S. requirements, a broad range of goods originating from that economy may be subject to additional tariffs.
Section 301 has traditionally been used to address intellectual-property violations, industrial subsidies, market-access restrictions, and other unfair trade practices. Its extension to labor rights and supply-chain governance demonstrates that the United States is increasingly using tariff treatment to encourage trading partners to change their domestic laws and enforcement practices.
This shift also increases companies’ supply-chain management responsibilities. Exporters will need to monitor not only their direct suppliers, but also the sources of raw materials, lower-tier suppliers, working conditions at contract manufacturers, procurement records, and product flows. Relevant documentation must be available for customs inspections or customer audits. Even when an individual product has not been identified as involving forced labor, it may still face higher U.S. tariffs if its economy of origin lacks an effective import-control regime. Supply-chain traceability is therefore evolving from an internal management function into a condition for accessing the U.S. market.
The Taiwan government has stated that it will use the Foreign Trade Act as the legal basis for controlling imports of products made with forced labor, while the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Labor will jointly establish screening and blocking mechanisms. Taiwan’s ability to retain preferential access to the U.S. market will depend on whether these commitments can be translated into enforceable regulations, inspection procedures, and supply-chain traceability systems.
Exemptions Reduce Risks to U.S. Supply, While Taiwan’s Traditional Industries Gain a Relative Advantage
Although the new system covers 60 major U.S. trading partners, USTR has excluded several categories of products that could otherwise create double taxation or disrupt U.S. supply security. Major exemptions include informational materials, donated goods, travelers’ personal baggage, and products and components already subject to Section 232 tariffs. Products that the United States cannot produce in sufficient quantities, whose taxation could cause domestic supply shortages or broader economic disruption, or for which additional tariffs would not help address forced-labor concerns may also qualify for exemption.
This arrangement allows the United States to increase compliance pressure on its trading partners while reducing the risks of domestic shortages, higher prices, and production disruptions. Certain economies have also received economy-specific product exemptions, indicating that the United States is using tariff rates and exemptions as policy incentives to encourage trading partners to establish and enforce bans on imports of goods made with forced labor.
Taiwan and the European Union are the only two economies receiving the 10% treatment without MFN stacking. Under the U.S. calculation method, if the existing MFN tariff on a Taiwanese product is below 10%, the Section 301 tariff will only make up the difference so that the combined rate reaches 10%. If the existing MFN tariff is already 10% or higher, the applicable Section 301 tariff will be zero. This arrangement gives Taiwan a lower effective tariff burden than Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland, which are subject to a combined ceiling of 12.5%, and also places Taiwan in a more favorable position than most economies that must add a further 10% or 12.5% tariff on top of their existing MFN rates.
Regarding product exemptions, the Taiwan-U.S. Economic and Trade Working Group reported that the United States granted Taiwan exemptions covering 2,231 agricultural and industrial products. These comprise 322 agricultural products and 1,909 industrial products, with 118 products receiving Taiwan-specific exemptions. Under the industrial-product classification published by Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs, the 1,909 exempt industrial products consist of 1,817 products covered by global exemptions and 92 products covered by Taiwan-specific exemptions. The difference between the two sets of figures mainly reflects whether agricultural products are included and does not represent a conflict between the data sources.
Semiconductors and major information and communications technology products are currently exempt from the forced-labor-related Section 301 tariffs. Steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, automotive components, and certain pharmaceutical products already covered by Section 232 measures are also excluded from the scope of the new tariffs.
Among non-exempt goods, Taiwanese machine tools and machinery are subject to a 10% ceiling, lower than the 12.5% rates applied to Japan and South Korea, creating a tariff advantage of 2.5 percentage points. Industries such as hand tools, plumbing hardware, bicycles, plastics, textiles, and medical devices may also gain more favorable pricing conditions relative to competitors in China and Vietnam, whose products are subject to the new tariffs on top of existing duties.
Lower tariffs can improve the relative pricing position of Taiwanese products, although actual orders will continue to depend on product specifications, delivery schedules, exchange rates, production capacity, and customer qualification. The benefits are likely to emerge first in traditional manufacturing sectors characterized by intense price competition and greater flexibility in replacing suppliers.
The Excess-Capacity Investigation Remains Underway, Leaving Taiwan’s Overall U.S. Tariff Treatment Unsettled
Following the completion of the forced-labor investigation, another Section 301 investigation into structural excess capacity and overproduction remains underway. The investigation covers 16 economies, including China, the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, and Mexico. It involves 20 major industries, including semiconductors, steel, aluminum, electric-vehicle batteries, and solar modules.
Although semiconductors and major information and communications technology products are currently exempt from the forced-labor tariffs, they may still be affected by the outcome of the excess-capacity investigation. Taiwan’s current 10% treatment without MFN stacking therefore applies only to the tariff arrangement under the forced-labor investigation and should not be regarded as the final tariff treatment for all Taiwanese exports to the United States.
The latest U.S. action shows that trade-enforcement tools are expanding beyond inspections of individual goods and sanctions on specific companies to assessments of national legal systems and supply-chain governance capabilities. For export-oriented economies, future competitiveness will depend not only on pricing, technology, and delivery performance, but also on the ability to establish verifiable systems covering labor conditions, human rights, and product-origin traceability. Tariffs directly alter the cost of goods, while supply-chain transparency will increasingly determine whether companies can preserve long-term access to the U.S. market.