USTR Initiates Section 301 Investigations into 60 Countries Forced Labor Policies

On March 12, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) initiated investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S. Code § 2411) into whether certain countries have failed to impose or effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced by forced labor. The probe targets 60 countries ranging from strategic allies, such as the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico, to geopolitical rivals, such as China and Russia. The move comes a day after the administration announced a separate set of Section 301 Investigations into structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors.

Section 301 grants the agency expansive authority to investigate and then remedy “unfair” trade practices, including by imposing tariffs and import bans. These investigations build on past government efforts to combat forced labor globally. Most recently, USTR concluded a separate Section 301 probe into Nicaragua’s labor policies in December 2025, determining that the nation’s policies and actions related to labor rights, human rights and basic freedoms represent an unreasonable burden on U.S. commerce. To address the Section 301 violation, USTR imposed a phased-in tariff on Nicaraguan goods. The tariff was set at zero percent, effective Jan. 1, 2026, and will later increase to 10% on Jan. 1, 2027, and 15% on Jan. 1, 2028.

In the wake of Learning Resources, Inv. v. Trump, the Supreme Court decision invalidating tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Ambassador Jamieson Greer indicated that the administration would invoke a series of Section 301 investigations. Two days ago, USTR initiated separate investigations into whether certain countries’ policies have resulted in structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors. The Trump administration is likely to continue to leverage the authority to maintain its broader tariff regime.

While President Trump appears to favor a “baseline” tariff of at least 10% on all trading partners, Ambassador Greer and other senior USTR officials have been careful not to prejudge the results of Section 301 investigations. They have emphasized that while tariffs are a potential outcome, the administration intends to conduct further negotiations with targeted trading partners. Nonetheless, given the broad scope of this Section 301 probe, the Trump administration may ultimately leverage the statute to maintain tariffs on most trading partners. The administration is notably timing these investigations to conclude before the president’s current universal 10% tariff, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, expires.

Stakeholders should be aware of the following deadlines related to the new Section 301 probe:

• April 15, 2026: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments and any requests to appear at the public hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.
• April 28, 2026: The Section 301 Committee will convene the public hearing beginning at 10:00 a.m., continuing, as necessary, until May 8.
• Seven calendar days after the last day of the public hearing: Due date for submission of post-hearing rebuttal comments.

Below provides a summary of the Section 301, as well as an analysis of the political landscape.

BACKGROUND ON SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974

The statute grants USTR the authority to investigate whether an act, policy or practice of a foreign country either “violates, or is inconsistent with, the provisions of, or otherwise denies benefits to the United States under, any trade agreement” or “is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” This investigation can be triggered by USTR itself or by petitions from outside parties. While Section 301 requires certain requests for consultation with the targeted countries, the statute lacks any significant procedural or substantive limits. As long as USTR determines a country has engaged in unfair or unreasonable practices, the president has the broad authority to impose tariffs and other import controls for an open-ended period of time.

For more information on the Section 301 process, please see our previous analysis.

USTR INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO THE FAILURE TO IMPOSE AND EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE A PROHIBITION ON THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS PRODUCED WITH FORCED LABOR (NOTICE, PUBLIC DOCKET)

USTR alleges that select nations have failed “to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.” Targeted countries include:

1. Algeria
2. Angola
3. Argentina
4. Australia
5. The Bahamas
6. Bahrain
7. Bangladesh
8. Brazil
9. Cambodia
10. Canada
11. Chile
12. China, People’s Republic of
13. Colombia
14. Costa Rica
15. Dominican Republic
16. Ecuador
17. Egypt
18. El Salvador
19. European Union
20. Guatemala
21. Guyana
22. Honduras
23. Hong Kong, China
24. India
25. Indonesia
26. Iraq
27. Israel
28. Japan
29. Jordan
30. Kazakhstan
31. Kuwait
32. Libya
33. Malaysia
34. Mexico
35. Morocco
36. New Zealand
37. Nicaragua
38. Nigeria
39. Norway
40. Oman
41. Pakistan
42. Peru
43. Philippines
44. Qatar
45. Russia
46. Saudi Arabia
47. Singapore
48. South Africa
49. South Korea
50. Sri Lanka
51. Switzerland
52. Taiwan
53. Thailand
54. Trinidad and Tobago
55. Türkiye
56. United Arab Emirates
57. United Kingdom
58. Uruguay
59. Venezuela
60. Vietnam

USTR defines forced labor as “work or service extracted from a person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.” The notice highlights that U.S. law has prohibited the importation of goods produced in whole or in part by forced labor for nearly a century due to humanitarian concerns, as well as to protect domestic producers against unfair competition. USTR argues that certain countries “have committed to adopt [similar] measures. However, none of these countries has adopted and effectively enforced a forced labor import prohibition to date.” As a result, many companies continue to exploit forced labor to lower their labor costs and ultimately sell their goods at an artificially low price to the detriment of U.S. industry. Specifically, due to other nations’ failure to enforce an import ban, “firms can continue to source, use, and profit from imported products produced with forced labor, even if the use of forced labor is prohibited domestically.”

ANALYSIS

In its press release announcing these Section 301 investigations, USTR highlights that the probe targets “the largest trading partners of the United States.” Should a Section 301 violation be found, the broad nature of the probe would enable the Trump administration to impose import restrictions on the world’s largest economies, most of which are currently engaged in ongoing trade negotiations with the United States. The White House maintains that broad tariffs are essential to combating evasion and transshipment, while enhancing U.S. leverage in trade discussions. Due to the time-restricted nature of Section 122, Section 301 offers the Trump administration a viable path to reinstate its sweeping tariff policies.

Notably, every targeted country engages in trade with China—a nation known for its exploitation of forced labor. In December 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) of 2021 (Pub.L 117-78) to establish a presumption that goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China or by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List were produced by forced labor, and, therefore, prohibited from importation. Given the evidence of China’s labor rights abuses, as well as the broad bipartisan support for combating forced labor, USTR could conclude that the targeted nations have failed to properly curb the importation of goods produced by Chinese forced labor, necessitating the imposition of Section 301 countermeasures to address the burden on U.S. commerce.

While the probe is concerning for targeted countries, its outcome is not predetermined, and USTR may find that a targeted nation’s policies do not constitute a Section 301 violation. In regard to timing, USTR is likely to conclude its investigation around or before the expiration of the 10% tariff imposed under Section 122 to maintain pressure on countries with open trade negotiations at that time. Barring an extension by Congress, the 122 tariff will remain in effect through July 24, 2026.

NEXT STEPS

In the wake of USTR’s initiation of a multicountry Section 301 investigation, our team stands ready to help impacted entities in navigating the process and managing associated risks. We can help assess and respond to issues such as:

• Preparing and engaging on public comments;
• Conducting tariff impact assessments on supply chains and forced labor audits under attorney-client privilege;
• Diversifying or restructuring supply chains in anticipation of potential tariff measures; and
• Developing risk-mitigation strategies, such as tariff engineering, country-of-origin review or leveraging existing Free Trade Agreements; and
• Understanding existing documentation of forced labor in the targeted jurisdictions arising from investigations by nongovernmental organizations like Sheffield Hallam University, as well as prior U.S. government investigations and litigation arising from noncompliance with statutes like Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

For additional insights into the Trump administration’s trade agenda, or assistance in navigating this rapidly evolving environment, please contact a member of the Brownstein team.

---

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING SECTION 301 TARIFF INVESTIGATIONS BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.