U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday implemented new tariffs on imports from 60 countries, applying rates of 10% to 12.5% with the stated goal of targeting goods produced using forced labor. These duties cover approximately 99% of U.S. imports and largely replace a set of temporary global tariffs that expired at midnight, following their invalidation by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. The move signifies a shift toward more legally durable trade measures under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing the administration to impose tariffs on countries found to engage in unfair trade practices.

The higher 12.5% tariff rate applies to countries that do not have laws prohibiting imports made with forced labor, while the 10% rate applies to those with such laws but insufficient enforcement, according to the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Some products, including oil, fertilizers, steel, and aluminum, have been exempted from the new levies due to existing trade agreements or prior national security-related tariffs.

Critics from both inside and outside the United States have questioned the new tariffs’ effectiveness and rationale. Opponents argue that the tariffs largely act as a rebranding of previously struck-down global taxes and are likely to increase costs for American consumers and businesses. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden described the move as an attempt to resurrect “illegal global tariffs,” warning it would exacerbate inflation and have limited benefit for workers worldwide. Trade groups like the National Retail Federation cautioned that the tariffs would translate into higher prices for consumers and called for trade agreements aimed at lowering tariffs rather than raising them.

Internationally, objections have come from major U.S. trading partners. Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell called the tariffs “completely unjustified,” and the European Union’s Kaja Kallas highlighted strong labor protections on her continent in response to the forced labor rationale. Some lawmakers also raised concerns about consistency, noting that China—widely criticized for forced labor practices—faces the same tariff rate as countries with better labor records.

Businesses had anticipated the tariffs and adjusted their import schedules accordingly, leading to record import volumes in July at major U.S. ports. Some, like Michigan-based Bissell Inc., said they continued operations expecting tariffs in the 10-15% range. However, certain sectors, such as footwear, have already seen price increases attributed in part to tariff and energy cost pressures, with analysts warning that elevated consumer prices are likely to persist.

The Trump administration plans additional tariff actions in the coming months, including probes into foreign industrial subsidies, intellectual property violations, and national security concerns tied to strategic industries like semiconductors and robotics. Officials suggest that new tariffs will adhere to negotiated caps, such as 15% for the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, and around 20% for China, atop previous levies.

Financially, tariffs have generated substantial revenue for the U.S. Treasury, peaking at over $31 billion in October last year. However, revenue fell sharply after the Supreme Court invalidated some tariffs, leading to refund obligations that caused net losses in some months. Analysts note that while the new forced-labor tariffs and additional measures on countries like Canada and Brazil will recoup some revenue, they will cover only a portion of the shortfall caused by the canceled tariffs.

Legal challenges against the forced-labor tariffs have already been initiated by small business groups, but trade experts indicate that Section 301 tariffs have a strong track record in U.S. courts, making immediate injunctions unlikely. The Trump administration maintains that its overarching trade strategy remains focused on reshoring manufacturing and reducing the trade deficit, employing every available authority to build a more protective and "durable" tariff framework following earlier legal setbacks.

Observers note that while the current phase may bring more clarity, unpredictability remains, with the administration continuing to introduce tariffs abruptly, as seen in recent levies on Canadian products and threats involving Spain over NATO spending. Trade analysts warn that such actions could disrupt the global trading system and impose ongoing costs on American businesses and consumers.