On June 2, 2026, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer proposed tariffs of 10–12.5% on imports from 60 economies — covering 99.4% of all U.S. imports by value. The announcement came four months after the Supreme Court struck down Trump's IEEPA-based tariffs 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, eliminating most of 2025's tariff regime. The new tariffs use Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a separate statute with a different legal basis. Public comment on the proposed rates closes July 6; hearings begin July 7.

1. The Trade War Is Now About Forced Labor (Jamieson Greer, AFL-CIO)

Greer says other countries are letting slave-labor goods undercut American workers — and America's biggest unions agree.

The U.S. already bans forced-labor imports. Section 307 of the Tariff Act prohibits importing goods made with forced labor. Greer's argument: if your country has no equivalent ban, your exports are getting a de facto subsidy that American workers can't match. The specific trigger is Xinjiang solar. Despite a U.S. Customs block on solar shipments tied to forced labor, Hoshine Silicon, a Xinjiang-based silicon producer that supplies the global solar industry, grew its output from 530,000 to 1.2 million tons between 2021 and 2024 — mostly still from Xinjiang — by routing goods through third countries.

American unions backed these investigations from the start. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler called forced labor "a violation of human dignity and labor rights" that "undermines American competitiveness." The United Steelworkers and United Auto Workers both praised the investigations when USTR launched them in March.

2. But That Hits Countries With Better Laws Than Ours (EU, Canada, Australia)

The EU passed a forced-labor ban in 2024 and Australia has strict labor laws — both are getting tariffed anyway.

The EU passed a forced-labor ban in 2024. The EU's Forced Labour Regulation entered into force December 2024. It's among the world's strictest forced-labor bans. But its enforcement doesn't kick in until December 2027 — which is why USTR placed the EU in the 10% tier for having a law it hasn't yet activated. Bernd Lange, the EU Parliament's trade committee chair and a German MEP, said the U.S. is "searching for new legal foundations for its tariff policy" after losing in court. EU Commission spokesperson Olof Gill called the tariffs "unjustified."

Australia, Japan, and South Korea face the same 12.5% rate as China. They're in this tier despite having functional legal systems and no documented history of state-forced labor. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pointed out that tariffs "are actually a penalty on consumers in the United States." China's Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yongqian said the tariffs use forced labor as a "pretext" for "unilateral restrictive measures."

3. And the New Statute Has No Rate Cap (Bryan Riley, Cato Institute)

American critics from the right say Section 301 hands USTR unlimited rate authority — and the same legal doctrine that killed IEEPA tariffs may kill these too.

Section 301 sets no maximum tariff rate. The IEEPA tariffs used emergency powers; Section 301 gives USTR discretionary authority to respond to "unreasonable or discriminatory" foreign practices — with no proportionality requirement and no statutory rate limit. Bryan Riley, director of the National Taxpayers Union's Free Trade Initiative, said Greer "arguably has the authority to pluck tariff levels out of thin air" and called the measure "a massive power grab." James Bacchus, a former WTO appellate judge and Cato Institute adjunct scholar, called it "mostly protectionism in the guise of do-goodism."

This legal theory may not hold. Alan Wolff, former deputy director general of the World Trade Organization and now a senior researcher at the Peterson Institute, argued that Section 301 addresses "the act, policies, and practices of a foreign country" — the statute's singular language suggests it wasn't designed to hit 60 economies at once. He called the action "unlikely to survive judicial review." The American Action Forum estimated the tariffs would cost U.S. businesses and consumers $58.3 billion annually.

Where This Lands

Greer says every trading partner must do more to stop forced-labor goods from entering global supply chains. The EU says it already passed the world's toughest forced-labor ban — it just isn't in force yet. China says forced labor doesn't exist in China. The legal fight starts after the July 6 comment deadline, and domestic critics say the major-questions doctrine that killed IEEPA tariffs is the likeliest tool to challenge these too.

Sources