The United States of America has imposed fresh tariffs on imports from 60 of its major trading partners, including the United Kingdom, China and the European Union, in the latest escalation of President Donald Trump‘s trade policy aimed at reshaping global commerce and boosting domestic manufacturing.
The new measures, announced on Friday, impose tariffs ranging from 10 to 12.5 per cent on virtually all goods imported from the affected countries, replacing a temporary 10 per cent levy that expired the same day.
The White House said the tariffs were introduced because the targeted countries had failed to take adequate measures to prevent goods produced through forced labour from entering global supply chains.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the action was intended to address both human rights concerns and unfair trade practices.
“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” Greer said.
According to the US administration, the new tariffs cover the country’s 60 largest trading partners, accounting for 99.4 per cent of all American imports.
However, trade experts have questioned the official justification for the policy, arguing that the move is primarily aimed at reducing America’s trade deficit and encouraging domestic manufacturing rather than addressing forced labour concerns.
Caroline Freund, Dean of the University of California, San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy, said the forced labour explanation was largely a legal basis for reintroducing tariffs after the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that many of Trump’s previous tariffs had been imposed unlawfully under emergency powers.
“I think they were looking for a legal reason to put the tariffs in,” Freund said, adding that the administration’s broader objective remained reducing trade deficits and revitalising US manufacturing.
The new duties replace the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs introduced by President Trump in April 2025. Those tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2026, prompting the administration to adopt a temporary 10 per cent universal tariff pending a new legal framework.
Trade analysts said the latest tariffs demonstrate the Trump administration’s determination to continue its protectionist trade agenda despite legal setbacks.
Deborah Elms, a trade policy expert at the Hinrich Foundation, said countries affected by the tariffs would find it difficult to convince Washington that they had taken sufficient steps to eliminate forced labour from their supply chains.
The new levies are also expected to increase costs for businesses and consumers, although analysts noted that exemptions for certain goods could lessen the overall impact.
Wendy Cutler, Vice-President of the Asia Society Policy Institute, said many affected countries would likely seek to reduce their dependence on the US market by expanding trade with other economies.
Several governments reacted critically to the announcement.
The United Kingdom said the new measures would not alter the tariff rates currently faced by British businesses but reaffirmed its commitment to tackling forced labour in global supply chains.
British Chambers of Commerce Director William Bain expressed concern that the UK had lost a competitive advantage over the European Union, noting that while the EU secured an all-inclusive 10 per cent tariff arrangement, British exports would continue to face a universal 10 per cent tariff in addition to product-specific duties.
Brazil described the 12.5 per cent tariff imposed on its exports as “unjustified,” while Japan expressed regret over the decision. Australia’s Trade Minister, Don Farrell, also condemned the measures as “completely unjustified.”
China reiterated its opposition to unilateral tariffs and rejected allegations that forced labour exists within its manufacturing sector.
“There is no so-called forced labour in China, and we oppose using this as an excuse for political manipulation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.
However, several international human rights organisations have continued to allege that forced labour occurs in China’s Xinjiang region, particularly involving members of Muslim ethnic minority groups.
The latest measures are expected to further heighten global trade tensions as the Trump administration continues investigations into the trade practices of 16 additional countries that account for the majority of US imports, raising the possibility of further tariffs in the coming months.
Full List:
| S/N | Economy / Country | Section 301 Tariff Rate | Category / Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Argentina | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 2 | Bangladesh | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 3 | Cambodia | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 4 | Canada | 10% | Enforcement Framework / ART |
| 5 | Ecuador | 10% | Enforcement Framework / ART |
| 6 | El Salvador | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 7 | Guatemala | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 8 | Honduras | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 9 | India | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 10 | Indonesia | 10% | Enforcement Framework / ART |
| 11 | Jordan | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 12 | Malaysia | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 13 | Mexico | 10% | Enforcement Framework / ART |
| 14 | Pakistan | 10% | Enforcement Framework / ART |
| 15 | Sri Lanka | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 16 | Trinidad and Tobago | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 17 | United Kingdom | 10% | Forced Labor Ban / ART Commitment |
| 18 | European Union | 10% (Net of MFN) | Total duty capped at 10% (0% if MFN ≥ 10%) |
| 19 | Taiwan | 10% (Net of MFN) | Total duty capped at 10% (0% if MFN ≥ 10%) |
| 20 | Japan | 12.5% (Net of MFN) | Total duty capped at 12.5% (0% if MFN ≥ 12.5%) |
| 21 | South Korea | 12.5% (Net of MFN) | Total duty capped at 12.5% (0% if MFN ≥ 12.5%) |
| 22 | Switzerland | 12.5% (Net of MFN) | Total duty capped at 12.5% (0% if MFN ≥ 12.5%) |
| 23 | Algeria | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 24 | Angola | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 25 | Australia | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 26 | The Bahamas | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 27 | Bahrain | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 28 | Brazil | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 29 | Chile | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 30 | China (People’s Republic of) | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 31 | Colombia | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 32 | Costa Rica | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 33 | Dominican Republic | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 34 | Egypt | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 35 | Guyana | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 36 | Hong Kong, China | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 37 | Iraq | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 38 | Israel | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 39 | Kazakhstan | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 40 | Kuwait | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 41 | Libya | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 42 | Morocco | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 43 | New Zealand | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 44 | Nicaragua | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 45 | Nigeria | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 46 | Norway | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 47 | Oman | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 48 | Peru | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 49 | Philippines | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 50 | Qatar | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 51 | Russia | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 52 | Saudi Arabia | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 53 | Singapore | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 54 | South Africa | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 55 | Thailand | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 56 | Türkiye | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 57 | United Arab Emirates | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 58 | Uruguay | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 59 | Venezuela | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
| 60 | Vietnam | 12.5% | Standard Rate |
