Trump Tariff Crackdown on Forced Labor Practices Gets Pushback

Policing forced labor is a good thing, businesses and trade groups say. But some are skeptical that imposing tariffs is the best way to achieve that goal—and many argued they shouldn’t be targeted.

The Trump administration is getting feedback from industry, with hearings starting Tuesday on potentially widespread new tariffs tied to investigations into whether more than 80 economies are insufficiently enforcing forced labor import prohibitions.

The potential tariffs, which could help replace the ones the US Supreme Court struck down in February, are getting a mixed reception. Some industries—including US makers of honey and solar panels—welcomed the administration’s move to push forced labor enforcement as a trade issue, according to comments collected by the US Trade Representative’s office. Other companies and trade groups cautioned that broad tariffs were unlikely to be effective, and many argued for their own good track records on forced labor.

For example, the apparel company Jockey wrote that while it supports the goal of getting all the countries on President Donald Trump’s list to agree to banning forced-labor imports, “the use of Section 301 tariffs to achieve such results is flawed and will only serve to hurt the ‘good actors.’”

USTR is investigating whether US firms are disadvantaged compared to foreign competitors because they’re forced to meet stricter standards. US enforcement includes barring imports in which forced labor appears in any part of the supply chain.

Other governments pointed to their own enforcement practices on forced labor to dismiss the need for tariffs. The Swiss government, for example, told USTR it “strongly rejects the allegations.”

President Donald Trump’s administration is investigating whether 59 economies, plus the EU, fail to “impose and effectively enforce a prohibition” on imported goods made with forced labor in ways that are “unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict US commerce.” The administration has also opened trade investigations into “structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors” in 15 economies, plus the EU, with another hearing scheduled next week.

Forced Labor Ban

The investigations fall under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president power to respond to other countries’ practices with tariffs.

“These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts US workers and businesses,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement March 12, a few weeks after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of an emergency powers act to impose widespread tariffs.

Forced labor—in which a person is made to perform work or a service under threat of a penalty and non-voluntarily, according to the International Labour Organization—is a pervasive global problem. The ILO estimates that over 27 million people were in forced labor in 2021, according to the organization’s latest data.

The US bans imports made with forced labor under laws including Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was implemented in 2022.

But other major economies act on the issue too, commenters said. For example BusinessEurope, Europe’s largest business organization, pointed to the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation, which begins to apply in late 2027.

Asking to be Left Out

USTR could impose tariffs based on the results of the investigation. If that happens, businesses will be watching to see if the government produces a specific list of items that target major imports from a nation’s economy, or takes a broader approach. It’s also not clear if there will be tariff exclusions available, though Trump has generally moved away from that process in his second term.

Businesses and industries from diamonds to airlines to agriculture made a case to USTR that, while they support the fight against forced labor, they should be left out of tariffs.

The Cheese Importers Association of America “strongly urges USTR not to target cheese and dairy products,” the group wrote, adding that it “is not aware of any allegations of forced labor in the production of EU, UK or Swiss dairy products or cheeses exported to the United States.”

Some companies and groups argued their industry had never been the target of a Customs and Border Protection forced labor action, or that they were already applying rigorous scrutiny to their own supply chains.

Delta Airlines said the civil aviation sector “presents limited forced labor exposure, is already subject to extensive regulatory oversight and traceability requirements and faces severe supply chain constraints.”

De Beers, the diamond company, called for “an enforcement approach that differentiates supply chains based on demonstrated risk, transparency, and compliance.” To do otherwise, the company said, “may restrict access to compliant supply chains and impose unnecessary compliance, sourcing, and due diligence costs on US businesses, without advancing forced labor eradication objectives.”

Tariffs as Leverage

Some industries were more supportive of the administration looking to tariffs as a lever on forced labor policy.

The American Honey Producers Association alleged that unfair trade practices by India, Vietnam, Argentina and Brazil flood the US market and undercut US honey prices. It called for those nations to strengthen their enforcement against forced labor imports.

Honey producers in those countries “benefit from unfair acts, policies, and practices and have used that advantage to dominate more than 80 percent of the US market for honey, pushing the domestic honey industry toward extinction,” the group wrote.

Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, a coalition that represents non-Chinese solar companies, called for USTR to continue negotiating provisions on forced labor rule adoption into trade agreements. The trade group pointed to a provision in the 2025 US-Malaysia trade agreement it said should serve as a model.

The group also called out a drop in overall UFLPA enforcement activity in the past year.

“Without support from foreign governments, bad actors will continue to find ways to circumvent UFLPA enforcement,” the group said.