USTR initiates Section 301 investigations of 60 US trade partners over forced labor import prohibitions

On March 12, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into acts, policies, and practices of 60 US trade partners related to “the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”¹ The investigations are intended to determine “whether acts, policies, and practices of each of these economies related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on the importation of goods produced with forced labor are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict US commerce.” Affirmative determinations would allow President Trump to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports or to enter into negotiations with the relevant government.

Target economies and focus of the investigations 

The targets USTR selected for the investigations are the economies comprising the United States’ top 60 sources of goods imported in 2024, which USTR states accounted for 99% of all goods imported in that year. The full list of economies subject to the investigations is provided in Annex A of the Federal Register Notice.² The notice only provides a high-level overview of USTR’s general concerns with the trade effects of forced labor, providing no information about the specific concerns USTR has with any of the listed economies.

Notably, the list includes economies that have already adopted or implemented prohibitions on imports made by forced labor and supply chain due diligence standards, such as the European Union,³ Canada, and Mexico. US trade partners that have committed to adopting forced labor import prohibitions in the Trump administration’s Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs) are also covered by the investigation. USTR acknowledges the inclusion of these economies in the initiation notice, but it then states that “none of these countries has adopted and effectively enforced a forced labor import prohibition to date.”

Forced labor interests in US trade policy

US trade restrictions targeting labor rights concerns in foreign countries, including efforts to counteract potential effects on US competitiveness, have expanded in recent years with broad bipartisan support. The Trump administration has taken these interests in new directions since early 2025, introducing new policies into the mix of compliance issues that companies and US trade partners must consider.⁴ In the past year, the US government has begun considering whether inadequate wages violate antidumping duty laws, proposing country-wide Section 301 tariffs to pressure countries to improve labor rights, and asking countries to commit to adopting prohibitions on imports of goods made with forced labor in President Trump’s ARTs.

The Trump administration likely intends to use the Section 301 investigations and accompanying tariff threats to continue pressuring US trade partners into adopting and implementing forced labor import prohibitions, now that the United States Supreme Court has stopped President Trump from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. As part of the ART negotiations, USTR is asking trade partners to commit to implementing forced labor import prohibitions in exchange for a moderation of the now found unlawful IEEPA “reciprocal” tariffs. For example, in the last ART signed before the United States Supreme Court ended the IEEPA tariff program, Indonesia committed to “adopt and implement a prohibition on the importation of goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced or compulsory labor” within two years of the ART’s entry into force.⁵ The text does not specify how Indonesia should design the import prohibition, but it mentions that USTR would like Indonesia to coordinate its actions with the United States’ actions under Section 307 of the Tariff Act, which is the United States’ forced labor import prohibition.⁶ Similar language exists in all the other ARTs, and is likely part of USTR’s model ART text. While the offer of reducing the IEEPA tariff rate was the incentive for trade partners to agree to the ARTs, the implicit threat by the Trump administration to raise the IEEPA tariffs if the commitments were not successfully implemented was the intended enforcement mechanism – a role that Section 301 could also now fulfill.

Opportunity for public engagement

As part of the investigations, USTR is soliciting public comments and will hold public hearings. The docket for receiving comments and requests to appear at the hearing will be open from March 12 to April 15, 2026, via the USTR Comments Portal.⁷ The initiation notice provides further details on how to submit comments and participate in the hearings. USTR highlights that it is particularly interested in receiving information about whether the target economies have implemented or are in the process of implementing forced labor import prohibitions, whether those policies are being effectively enforced, whether a failure to enforce those policies is harmful to US exports, and what actions the United States should take in response.

Timeline for the investigations

The initiation notice provides a timeline for the initial steps of the investigations:

• March 12, 2026: Initiation of investigation; public docket opens for submission of written comments and requests to appear at the hearings.
• April 15, 2026 (11:59 p.m. EST): Deadline for written comments and requests to appear at the hearings.
• April 28 – May 1, 2026: Public hearings held in Washington, DC.
• Seven calendar days after the last day of the public hearing: Due date for submission of post-hearing rebuttal comments.
• Dates to be determined: Issuance of the investigation determinations and proposals for remedial action, which may include additional opportunities for public feedback.
• July 24, 2026 (unofficial): Target date for completion of the investigations and remedy determinations, according to USTR and President Trump.

USTR has stated that it intends to conduct these investigations on an expedited basis, aiming to complete the process and be prepared to impose tariffs by around July 24, 2026. However, the initiation notice does not mention any specific actions USTR is taking to expedite its procedures. USTR has not invoked provisions under Section 301 that would permit it to proceed with these investigations without first holding the standard public consultation and advisory committee meetings.

About Section 301

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC. §§ 2411–2420) authorizes USTR, under the president’s direction, to address foreign government conduct that (1) denies US rights under a trade agreement, (2) constitutes “unjustifiable” action that “burdens or restricts” US commerce, or (3) constitutes “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” action that “burdens or restricts” US “commerce” (defined to include goods, services, and investment).

Section 301 investigations are categorized as either “mandatory” or “discretionary,” depending on the nature of the alleged foreign conduct. Action is “discretionary” where the act, policy, or practice is “unreasonable or discriminatory” and “burdens or restricts” US commerce. USTR will carry out the new forced labor import investigations under the discretionary provision, Section 301(b). The statutory time limit for a discretionary investigation is 12 months.

The statute authorizes USTR to (1) impose duties or other import restrictions, (2) withdraw or suspend trade agreement concessions, or (3) enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to either eliminate the conduct in question (or the burden to US commerce) or compensate the United States with satisfactory trade benefits. If USTR decides to take the remedial actions authorized by Section 301 after concluding an investigation, it typically holds additional notice and comment periods to receive input on the specific remedies proposed. Upon making an affirmative determination to take remedial action, USTR must implement that action within 30 days, although there are options to extend this timeline.

Replacing IEEPA tariffs with Section 122 and Section 301 tariffs

In advance of the recent announcement, President Trump⁸ and USTR⁹ described the Section 301 investigations as part of a broader plan to replace the tariffs previously imposed under IEEPA. The Trump administration was required to rescind the IEEPA tariffs on February 24, 2026, after the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs. In response, President Trump announced that he would immediately reconstruct the tariffs using alternative legal authorities:

• Section 122 tariff: President Trump imposed a temporary 10% global tariff on imports from all countries under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a short-term measure on January 24, 2026.¹⁰ Section 122 tariffs can be implemented quickly but are limited to a maximum duration of 150 days and a maximum rate of 15%.
• Section 301 investigations: President Trump directed USTR to initiate new Section 301 investigations targeting US trade partners, which would provide a legal basis for longer-term tariffs. Unlike Section 122, Section 301 tariffs are not subject to the same practical time or rate limitations.

This two-stage approach enables rapid tariff implementation under Section 122 while using the 150-day window to develop and implement Section 301 tariffs as longer-term trade measures.

The new Section 301 investigations

The Section 301 investigation into forced labor import rules is the second in a series of anticipated cases. USTR has stated that these investigations will proceed on an “accelerated timeframe,” covering most major trade partners and addressing a broad array of issues, including “industrial excess capacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against US technology companies and digital goods and services, digital services taxes, ocean pollution, and practices related to the trade in seafood, rice, and other products.”

Section 301 investigations of 16 US trade partners targeting industrial excess capacity

The day before announcing the forced labor imports Section 301 investigation, on March 10, 2026, USTR announced it had initiated an investigation of 16 US trade partners targeting industrial excess capacity.¹¹ In these investigations, USTR will examine “structural excess capacity or production in certain manufacturing sectors” of China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India (all of which are also subject to the forced labor imports Section 301 investigation). USTR alleges that these economies “are producing more goods than they can consume domestically,” which “displaces existing US domestic production or prevents investment and expansion in US manufacturing[.]”

^{1 Press release: “USTR Initiates 60 Section 301 Investigations Relating to Failures to Take Action on Forced Labor,” USTR, March 12, 2026; and Notice of initiation of investigations and hearings, and a request for comments: “Initiation of Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor,” advance copy of the Federal Register Notice.
2 The full list of economies subject to the investigation is: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, European Union, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam.
3 See White & Case's detailed analysis of the EU’s forced labor ban in “EU Adopts Forced Labour Ban: 8 Things to Know.”
4 See White & Case's detailed analysis of the United States’ expanding use of trade actions to address labor rights concerns in “United States expands use of tariffs in response to labor and human rights concerns abroad.”
5 Article 2.9, United States-Indonesia Agreement on Reciprocal Trade.
6 19 USC. § 1307. Information on the United States’ import prohibition is available on the US Customs and Border Protection website.
7 See USTR Comments Portal. Use docket USTR-2026-0133 to submit comments and docket USTR-2026-0134 to request to appear at the hearing.
8 Truth Social post of February 20, 2026 by President Trump.
9 Press Release: “Ambassador Greer Issues Statement on Supreme Court IEEPA Decision,” USTR, February 20, 2026.
10 Presidential Proclamation 11012 of February 20, 2026: “Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems,” 91 FR 9339; and CSMS # 67844987 - Imposing Temporary Section 122 Duties, February 23, 2026.
11 See White & Case's detailed analysis of the industrial excess capacity Section 301 investigations in “USTR initiates Section 301 investigations of 16 US trade partners targeting industrial excess capacity.”}

Author: Ian Saccomanno

For further information regarding this report or international trade matters, please contact any of the partners or senior attorneys listed below from White & Case’s Global International Trade Practice.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}