Trump Levies 10-12.5% Tariffs on 60 Nations: Section 301 End-Run After Supreme Court Loss

The Trump administration is set to impose a new tranche of tariffs—10% and 12.5%—on goods from 60 trading partners, including the UK, EU, and Australia, effective at 12:01 am EDT on Friday, July 24, 2026. The measure, announced via a Federal Register notice, frames the duties as a response to alleged lax enforcement of forced labour bans abroad. It marks the White House’s latest effort to resurrect President Trump’s vision of a near-global tariff after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier “reciprocal” duties in February 2026. Critically, the new tariffs are imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that has survived previous court challenges, rather than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that the Court found unconstitutional for such broad trade measures. This legal engineering aims to dramatically reduce the risk of immediate judicial invalidation. The duties cover an estimated 99.4% of all US imports, although they carve out notable exemptions: oil and gas, fertiliser, and certain food items are spared. The timing is precise: the new tariffs replace a temporary 10% global tariff that Trump imposed for 150 days after the Supreme Court setback, which expires at the same moment. Goods already in transit will benefit from a brief reprieve until July 28. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer justified the action by citing the US's own century-old forced labour import ban, calling on partners to adopt equivalent standards. He also pledged that countries with bilateral trade deals capping US tariff rates would not see the new forced labour duties push levies above those ceilings. The move has immediate compliance implications for multinational corporations: importers must quickly adapt to a new duty structure that raises costs on a vast swath of goods, while navigating the forced labour narrative as a potential non-tariff barrier. The legal rationale centres on Section 301, which authorises the President to take action against unfair trade practices. By framing the duties as a measure to combat forced labour abroad—an issue that enjoys broad political support—the administration hopes to insulate them from the type of executive overreach claims that doomed the IEEPA tariffs. However, challenges may still arise: World Trade Organization rules prohibit discriminatory trade measures, and critics could argue that the forced labour justification is a pretext for protectionism. Companies and trade lawyers will be scrutinising whether the determination process and product coverage withstand due process and equal treatment claims. Looking forward, the tariff landscape is becoming more fragmented and legally complex. Trade partners like the UK and EU may retaliate or initiate dispute settlement proceedings at the WTO. The forced labour angle could also accelerate legislative scrutiny of supply chains, potentially leading to new compliance burdens akin to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. For legal and compliance professionals, the immediate task is to assess exposure: which product lines face the 10% versus 12.5% rate, how exemptions apply, and whether existing trade deals cap rates. The transition from a temporary to a permanent, Section 301-based regime signals that the administration intends to keep tariffs in place for the foreseeable future, making them a durable fixture of global trade policy.