The U.S. imposed new tariffs on 60 trading partners this Friday, replacing an expiring 10% global duty [1], [2].
The move signals a significant escalation in trade tensions as the administration links market access to human rights legislation. By tying tariff rates to forced-labour laws, the U.S. is using trade policy to pressure foreign governments into adopting specific legal frameworks.
Under the new structure, countries that have established forced-labour laws will face a 10% tariff [2], [3]. Trading partners without such laws will be subject to a higher rate of 12.5% [3]. The affected partners include Canada, Australia, Japan, and China [1], [4].
President Donald Trump (R-FL) said the measures are intended to address forced-labour concerns. However, trade policy experts suggest the move is part of a broader strategy to rebuild a "tariff wall" and protect domestic industry [1], [3].
International reactions were immediate. Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said the tariffs were “completely unjustified” [5]. A spokesperson for the European Commission also said the measures were “unjustified” [6].
Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, said the justification regarding forced labour may be a pretext for wider economic goals [1], [3]. The new levies follow a previous temporary global duty of 10% that had recently expired [2].
““completely unjustified.””
This policy shift represents a transition from broad, uniform duties to a tiered system that leverages moral and legal benchmarks—specifically forced-labour laws—as a mechanism for economic leverage. By creating a financial incentive for countries to adopt certain legislation, the U.S. is integrating human rights compliance directly into its trade cost structure, while simultaneously maintaining a baseline of protectionism for U.S. industries.
