Trump administration invokes human rights in latest bid to restore ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

The Trump administration is charting a course to restore its signature "Liberation Day" tariffs by invoking human rights, specifically concerns over the use of forced labor, to impose new duties. 

This week, the U.S. Trade Representative proposed a new baseline tariff of 10% on at least 60 countries that were deemed to be failing in their duties to prohibit importing goods that were produced with forced labor. Those 60 countries are the source of 99.4% of all goods imported to the United States, the agency said.

A blanket duty at this rate would restore the minimum level tariffs President Donald Trump imposed last year under an interpretation of an emergency authority that the Supreme Court later ruled he did not have.

Since that court ruling, the president has sought alternative authorities with which to maintain his signature tariff policies, which he says are geared toward rebalancing trade with the world and reviving domestic manufacturing.

Trump made tariffs a centerpiece of his second administration's economic policy from the moment he took office in January 2025. On April 2, 2025, he announced sweeping tariffs on all U.S. trading partners, a package he dubbed "Liberation Day," introducing a 10% baseline duty for all trading partners, with higher rates for dozens of countries. The tariffs were justified as a response to large and persistent trade deficits.

The tariff rates changed repeatedly between the April 2 announcement and February 2026. The first major change came days after the Liberation Day speech, when a back-and-forth escalation with China pushed U.S. tariff rates on Chinese goods to 125% for a roughly month-long period, while country-specific rates on other trading partners were delayed.

The legal foundation for the tariffs came under immediate challenge. The administration relied primarily on Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, citing an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security and the economy arising from allegedly unfair trade practices by trading partners. Within days of the announcement, several plaintiffs filed lawsuits arguing that the tariffs were an unlawful use of emergency powers.

In February, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The ruling, in the case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority. The decision invalidated the tariffs and triggered a complex refund process which the Trump administration has fought in court. 

Other approaches to constitutionally acceptable tariffs explored

President Trump moved to reimpose tariffs under a separate legal authority, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. On the same day as the Supreme Court’s ruling, the president signed an executive order implementing a 10% additional global tariff under Section 122, structured similarly to the previous IEEPA tariffs and including a comparable set of product exceptions, as well as an exemption for goods qualifying under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Section 122 allows a president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days by citing a balance of payments crisis. These new tariffs were challenged, but an appeals court ultimately allowed them to remain in effect. However, because they are temporary measures, the Section 122 tariffs are expected to expire on July 24, unless extended by Congress.

At the time, the administration also announced it would launch investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a tool to replace, in whole or in part, the invalidated IEEPA tariffs. 

The Trade Representative outlined that investigations would address areas including industrial excess capacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against U.S. technology companies, digital services taxes, ocean pollution, and trade in seafood, rice and other products, according to an agency press release.  

In March, USTR formally launched two separate Section 301 investigations targeting the 60 economies with which the U.S. conducts the vast majority of its trade. The first covered excess manufacturing capacity and the second, forced labor enforcement.

The first step in this process came late on Tuesday in the form of a U.S. government finding that 60 "economies" have failed to "impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor," allowing the U.S. to impose tariffs under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974.

"The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable. This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement.

"We will no longer tolerate this disparity. Some trading partners have taken initial steps to prevent the importation of forced labor goods, including through USMCA and commitments in Agreements on Reciprocal Trade. However, each of our trading partners must do more to ensure that trade does not perversely encourage and entrench forced labor globally," he added.

For countries that already prohibit importation of items produced with forced labor and who have signed agreements to enforce those provisions in trade agreements with the United States or those who have made an effort to do so, the agency proposes the U.S. impose a 10% tariff. These countries include the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Mexico and Canada also face tariffs, but the Trade Representative noted that goods that comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement would be exempted.

Suggested a 12.5% rate for China, India, and Japan, which do not prohibit imports produced with forced labor

For other countries, the agency suggested a 12.5% rate, according to a report released by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Tuesday. Countries in this category include China, India and Japan, which do not prohibit imports produced with forced labor.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry strongly denied the existence of forced labor in China and criticized the Trump administration for using it as a “pretext” for imposing further tariffs. 

“So-called forced labor does not exist in China, and we oppose using this as a pretext for political manipulation,” a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said at a press conference in Beijing on Wednesday.

The European Union Commission also criticized the planned tariffs. “The Commission will carefully analyze the preliminary findings of the investigation and will continue engaging with the U.S. Administration. That said, the EU considers tariffs imposed on these grounds to be unjustified,” said Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill.