Trump Imposes New Tariffs Citing Forced Labor, Drawing International Criticism

Donald Trump has imposed a fresh round of tariffs on more than 80 countries to replace a 10% global duty that was due to expire, provoking a wave of criticism and protests from US allies and major trading partners.

In the latest attempt to instate aggressive trade policies despite challenges from the US supreme court, the president has imposed tariffs of between 10% or 12.5% on dozens of countries, including the UK, Mexico, Canada, Australia, India, China and the 27 countries that make up the European Union. It in effect replaces the blanket 10% tariff that Trump imposed in February, right after the supreme court declared many of his earlier tariffs were illegal.

The newest levies, announced late on Thursday by the US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, would fall under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is aimed against countries that engage in forced labor. Trump had said his administration would investigate unfair trading practices to impose permanent tariffs as soon as the February supreme court decision was announced.

“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer said in a statement. “I am encouraged by the trading partners who have moved quickly to adopt forced labor import prohibitions, and look forward to ensuring their effective enforcement.”

Australia and Brazil described the new tariffs as unjustified and said they would seek to have them removed, while Norway’s foreign minister said there was no basis for the new tariffs.

The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said the bloc would seek ​clarification from Washington, adding that it had honoured commitments under a transatlantic trade agreement reached last year and viewed ⁠the new tariffs as a shock.

Canada, one of America’s largest trading partners, immediately responded that it “should not be targeted”, adding it was a leader against the practice of importing goods produced with forced labor. “If the intent is truly to address forced labour, the focus should be a coordinated approach through a multilateral mechanism,” Matthew Holmes, executive vice-president of the Canadian chamber of commerce, said in a statement. “The timing of this is somewhat suspect as previous rounds of tariffs sunset.”

Trump had long viewed tariffs – border taxes levied on imports – as a core tool to protect American jobs and manufacturing, reduce trade deficits and reverse what he sees as “unfair” practices by US trading partners. Tariff, he has said many times, is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”.

Only Congress has the authority under the constitution to levy taxes. But last April, on what he declared was “liberation day”, Trump announced a baseline 10% tariff under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a trade law that grants the president the authority to regulate international transactions during a national emergency.

That policy, however, suffered a damaging blow in February when the US supreme court ruled 6-3 that the ability to enact tariffs during peacetime still belongs to Congress. Trump immediately announced another 10% tariff regime under another trade law that had never been used before, which limited the tariffs to a period of 150 days. Those tariffs expired a minute past midnight on Friday morning US eastern time.

The latest round of tariffs invoke section 301, which has long proved controversial and so far been used sparingly, according to a Brookings analysis of the law in March.

Alan Wolff, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, wrote in an analysis on Thursday that the latest tariffs “again raise the question of whether the president has the legal authority to determine and implement US tariff policy – an authority that the constitution vests in Congress”.

“The answer is no: Congress did not delegate authority of such breadth to the president. It cannot constitutionally do so,” he said. “These new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach. If they were challenged in court, the supreme court would likely overturn them.”

Outside courtroom setbacks, Trump’s tariffs have also proved unpopular among Americans, potentially presenting a threat to Republicans at the midterms this November.

A Harris Poll survey, conducted exclusively for the Guardian, found earlier this year that seven in 10 Americans said they paid higher prices because of Trump’s tariffs, and 72% of voters believe the tariffs have had a negative rather than a positive impact on consumers.

This belief persisted even among Republican voters: 64% agreed that Trump’s tariffs had led to higher prices, and 60% said tariffs have had a negative impact.

American consumers have also been pummeled by the effects of the war in the Middle East, which have sent energy costs and gas prices soaring. The rise in energy prices has also led to a surge in inflation, which jumped to a three-year high this May.

Trump and his administration, however, are adamant that his policies have only improved the lives of American consumers. During a heated exchange before US senators on Wednesday, Greer appeared to claim Trump’s policies had not driven prices higher. Asked by the Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren if the tariffs had increased prices for American families, Greer said: “No.”

“Core inflation fell to 2.6% year on year, much better than in January 2025,” he added. Core inflation excludes food and energy. Overall inflation is slightly higher than it was when Joe Biden left office.