Since returning to office last year, President Donald Trump has shifted his approach to trade policy, moving away from expedited tariff measures toward using more traditional and legally established trade statutes. This transition follows a significant setback earlier this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated parts of his initial tariff program for lacking a proper legal basis.

The latest phase began with the imposition of new tariffs on imports from 60 countries, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, aimed at addressing weak enforcement of forced-labor bans. These duties, implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—a statute frequently employed against China during Trump’s first term—largely replace a global 10% temporary tariff that expired on July 24. According to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, the new tariffs cover approximately 99.4% of U.S. imports.

This latest action represents a rebuilding of the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed early in Trump’s tenure, which encompassed rates of 10% to 50% on imports from numerous countries but were struck down by the Supreme Court for relying on an untested national emergencies law. Beyond forced labor, the administration is planning additional tariff investigations that will target issues such as excess industrial capacity, intellectual property theft, and national security concerns in critical sectors including semiconductors, robotics, and industrial machinery. One ongoing inquiry focuses on industrial subsidies and export policies among 16 major trading partners, including China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Vietnam.

Industry reaction to the recent tariffs has so far been muted. Mark Bissell, CEO of Michigan-based Bissell Inc., noted that the new tariffs largely aligned with expectations and did not prompt the company to stockpile inventory in anticipation. However, the broader trade agenda has been met with mixed reviews from economists and business groups who warn of persistent uncertainty and potential disruptions.

Trump’s initial rapid imposition of tariffs had several effects: it increased costs for U.S. import-dependent industries, compelled numerous trading partners to negotiate tariff reductions, triggered retaliatory measures from China culminating in a fragile truce, and generated hundreds of billions of dollars in federal revenue. The “Liberation Day” tariffs alone raised an estimated $166 billion, providing a significant offset to the federal deficit, although ongoing refund claims have affected net collections. The subsequent 150-day temporary tariffs contributed an additional $31 billion through early July, though legal challenges may compel refunds if courts uphold recent rulings against those duties.

Trade experts suggest that despite legal challenges, the administration’s reliance on Section 301 provides a more stable foundation for future tariff actions. Small businesses have quickly mounted legal opposition to the forced-labor tariffs, but industry observers expect such cases to proceed slowly.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has emphasized that while the legal mechanisms have shifted, the overall trade strategy remains focused on reshoring production and reducing the trade deficit. Greer indicated that the new layers of tariffs will generally adhere to previously negotiated caps, such as 15% for the EU, Japan, and South Korea, with slightly higher rates for Southeast Asian countries. For China—the world’s largest target on these issues—tariffs are expected to stay within the agreed ceiling of about 20%, which is layered above the 25% duties imposed during Trump’s first term. Analysts suggest that discrepancies between announced and actual applied rates may serve as enforcement tools to ensure compliance with ongoing trade agreements.

Nevertheless, Trump’s ongoing tendency to announce unexpected tariffs remains a source of concern. In mid-July, the administration imposed 50% duties on Canadian products like beer, dairy, and hockey sticks, citing Ottawa’s resistance to trade concessions. Separately, the president threatened to sever trade ties with Spain over NATO defense spending issues.

Observers warn that this unpredictability could continue to unsettle global trade and have adverse impacts on American consumers and businesses. Eswar Prasad, a trade scholar at Cornell University, noted that the administration’s willingness to deploy tariffs broadly in pursuit of multiple policy goals creates ongoing risks for the international trading system and the U.S. economy.