Full story
Forced-labor tariffs face court
President Trump’s latest tariff proposal would use Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose duties of 10 percent or 12.5 percent on imports from 60 countries for exporting goods made with forced labor, after the Supreme Court struck down the use of reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“The Canadian government told the Trump administration that new legislation combatting forced labour in supply chains should shield Canada from new tariffs”
The Hill’s Nicholas Sargen writes that the Trump administration’s Section 301 plan is set to apply in a sweeping way, and he quotes Alan Wm. Wolff of the Peterson Institute for International Economics saying the courts are likely to rule it is "just another attempt to transfer the full tariff power from Congress to the president."
Sargen also notes that Edward Aldean of the Council of Foreign Relations called the announcement "a “transparently cynical effort” and a “pretext to maintain tariffs that the administration believes has been effective."
The Hill frames the legal dispute as part of a broader shift in tariff justifications, with the administration previously using Section 301 in its first term to impose duties on China and the European Union that survived multiple court challenges.
Canada argues no basis
Canada told the Trump administration that new legislation combatting forced labour in supply chains should shield Canada from new tariffs, saying in a written submission to the United States Trade Representative’s office that it "remains committed to working closely with the United States to eradicate forced labour from global supply chains."
In the same submission, Ottawa argued there was "no basis for the imposition of additional Section 301 duties on Canadian goods," as the CBC reports that the U.S. Trade Representative’s office launched trade investigations into 60 countries including Canada.
The CBC says U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced in March that Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom and some other countries should be hit with 10 per cent duties because they’re not doing enough to enforce bans on forced labour, while he proposed a 12.5 per cent duty on dozens of other countries with partial or no bans.
Canada’s case was presented alongside more than 1,500 written submissions from nations and industry groups ahead of a three-day hearing in Washington, and the CBC links the dispute to the Supreme Court’s ruling that led Trump to implement a 10 per cent worldwide tariff using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.
U.S.-China dialogue and tariffs
In a separate discussion of trade’s role in diplomacy, Princeton School of Public and International Affairs frames the U.S.-China relationship after the May summit as having an opening for renewed dialogue, with students traveling to Beijing after meetings between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“Trump built walls out of tariffs on ‘Liberation Day’”
Rory Truex, an associate professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton SPIA, says the summit was significant because it "may signal some raising of the floor of U.S.-China relations," adding that both sides realized the limits of their power and the ability of the other to inflict economic damage.
Truex also describes the Chinese side’s concept of “constructive strategic stability” as guiding the relationship by acknowledging competition while aiming to regularize diplomacy and make it more predictable, which he says may yield longer-term progress on thorny issues like trade.
The South China Morning Post adds historical context by comparing Trump’s tariff approach to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930 targeting more than 20,000 imported goods and to the Tariff Act of 1789, while warning that analysts see Washington’s protectionist pivot as a structural shift likely to last.
