Trump’s New Tariff Strategy Could Hit Sellers Sourcing From Almost Anywhere

The Trump administration's tariff agenda has a new legal vehicle, and this one is designed to be harder to strike down in court. On June 2, 2026, the Office of the US Trade Representative proposed additional duties of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, covering countries that USTR determined have failed to effectively ban imports of goods made with forced labor. The list includes China, the EU, Japan, and the UK, meaning the proposed tariffs would affect the overwhelming majority of US import volume.

For ecommerce sellers, this is not an abstract policy development. If the tariffs are finalized, they would stack on top of existing duties in most cases, adding another cost layer to imported goods that have already absorbed significant tariff increases over the past 18 months.

Why the Administration Changed Its Legal Approach

The backstory matters for understanding what makes this round of tariffs different from earlier ones. In February 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose its so-called reciprocal tariffs, ruling that the broad emergency powers invoked did not justify that application. That ruling invalidated much of the tariff structure the administration had built since Liberation Day in April 2025.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a different statute with a longer track record of surviving court scrutiny. The Trump administration used it during the first term to impose tariffs on China, and those tariffs withstood multiple legal challenges and were maintained by the Biden administration. The new forced labor investigations, initiated March 12, 2026, just three weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, are widely understood as an attempt to rebuild the tariff wall on a more legally durable foundation.

Section 301 is more process-heavy than emergency powers. It requires formal investigations, public comment periods, and a reasoned administrative record. The public comment period on the proposed forced labor tariffs closed July 6, with hearings held July 7. No final action has been announced as of publication.

The Rate Structure and What It Means for Importers

The proposed tariffs split into two tiers. Economies that have imposed at least a partial forced labor import prohibition face 10% additional duties. All others face 12.5%. USTR also proposed a textile mechanism that would allow certain volumes of apparel and textile imports from some economies to enter at a reduced rate, though the details of that mechanism are still being developed.

The tariffs are proposed on a country-of-origin basis, not a shipment-specific basis. That means they would apply based on where goods were manufactured, regardless of whether a particular shipment can demonstrate it was produced without forced labor. For sellers sourcing from China, the new duties would stack on top of existing Section 301 China tariffs already in place, compounding an import cost structure that has already reshaped sourcing decisions across the ecommerce industry since 2025.

Trade policy experts are divided on whether the courts will uphold the forced labor rationale as a valid basis for tariffs of this scope. Gibson Dunn's analysis of the proposal notes that while Section 301 is generally more legally durable than IEEPA, the scale of applying it simultaneously to 60 economies is unprecedented, and courts could rule that the sweeping application exceeds congressional intent. Alan Wm. Wolff of the Peterson Institute for International Economics has expressed similar skepticism, saying courts are likely to view the action as another attempt to concentrate broad tariff authority in the executive branch.

How Different Stakeholders View the Rationale

The forced labor framing has drawn pointed reactions from trading partners and policy observers across the political spectrum.

The EU's response was direct. An EU spokesperson called the reasoning behind the tariffs “unjustified,” arguing that the EU's own forced labor enforcement standards are stricter than those in the US. The EU has challenged the application on exactly those grounds.

Some trade analysts have raised questions about the administration's motivations. Edward Aldean of the Council of Foreign Relations described the announcement as a “transparently cynical effort” and a “pretext to maintain tariffs that the administration believes has been effective” in pursuing its broader trade policy goals, according to commentary in The Hill.

The administration frames the tariffs differently. USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer stated that each trading partner “must do more to ensure that trade does not perversely encourage and entrench forced labor globally,” and the proposal was developed after receiving more than 450 written comments and testimony from nearly 60 witnesses during the formal comment process.

The Broader Economic Picture

The evidence on whether the existing tariff regime has achieved its stated goals is mixed. The US merchandise trade deficit in 2025 wound up $25 billion larger than in 2024, and manufacturing employment continued declining for the third consecutive year, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data cited in The Hill's analysis. A recent New York Federal Reserve study concluded that US households and firms bear the overwhelming majority of tariff costs, a finding the administration disputes.

At the same time, the tariffs have not produced economic disruption at the scale some economists initially predicted in 2025. Some goods were exempted, bilateral deals with key trading partners produced lower negotiated rates in certain categories, and US tariff policy has shifted more than 50 times since Liberation Day, according to the Tax Foundation, leaving importers to navigate a constantly changing cost environment rather than a single, stable increase.

What Sellers Should Do Right Now

The proposed Section 301 forced labor tariffs are not in effect yet, and their final scope, rates, and exemptions will depend on the outcome of the public hearing process and any subsequent legal challenges.

For sellers importing from any of the 60 affected economies, the most actionable step right now is mapping your exposure by country of origin and HTS code before final rates are announced. Sellers who can demonstrate that their specific products fall under existing exemptions, including Section 232 goods, USMCA-qualifying products, and other excluded categories, should document that position with their customs broker now rather than after a final order creates urgency.

Sourcing diversification away from China has been a recurring response to US tariff pressure since 2019, but the scope of the new proposed tariffs, covering the EU, Japan, Vietnam, India, and dozens of other markets alongside China, narrows the geography of countries outside the proposed duty structure significantly. Sellers who moved supply chains to Southeast Asian countries as a China tariff hedge should check whether those countries are among the 60 now under investigation.