Last week, U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer announced a new round of sweeping tariffs against 60 countries, which collectively account for more than 99.4% of U.S. trade. After the Supreme Court toppled President Donald Trump’s original tariff regime, Greer took steps to make sure these tariffs would stick. In launching the investigation that justifies the new tariffs, the U.S. trade representative set a test that countries were doomed to fail.
The U.S. government investigation demanded that each country prove that it imposed and effectively enforced a ban on the importation of goods made in whole or in part by forced labor. That inquiry fueled a grueling, monthslong regulatory process that garnered more than 2,100 public comments, testimony by more than 100 witnesses and generated two written reports. The final 431-page report determined that every country under scrutiny had committed unfair trade practices under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. As a result, 19 countries now face 10% tariffs; another 41 countries face tariffs of up to 12.5%.
In launching the investigation that justifies the new tariffs, the U.S. trade representative set a test that countries were doomed to fail.
Crucially, the question the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative asked was not whether a country had forced labor in its own markets; every nation does, including the United States. The question was whether each country sufficiently blocks goods tainted with forced labor from entering its markets. American exceptionalism prevailed. According to the Office of the U.S Trade Representative, “The United States is the only country in the world to adopt, and effectively enforce, a ban on imports made with forced labor.”
This is, in part, a true statement. For nearly a century, the U.S. has been playing solitaire on import bans. Forced labor-tainted goods blocked at U.S. ports could easily be rerouted to another country without an import ban. Now, using tariffs as a bludgeon, the U.S. trade representative is demanding that other countries adopt and implement forced labor import bans like that in the U.S.
In March, when the U.S. government announced the Section 301 forced labor investigations, countries cried foul. Skeptics proclaimed that forced labor was a pretext, a mere fig leaf to reinstate the Trump administration’s tariffs. But something interesting happened on the way to the second round of Section 301 hearings. Countries started adopting forced labor import bans in droves. More than 20 of the 60 countries under investigation moved toward putting a forced labor import ban on the books.
So, were the Section 301 investigations just a pretext, or an effective policy flex to eradicate the trade in forced labor? They were both. And it is possible to condemn the tariffs and embrace the new reality on forced labor import bans.
Forced labor import bans are a powerful, albeit imperfect, tool to combat forced labor. Bans that prohibit goods tainted with forced labor can protect workers. U.S. enforcement of its own ban has resulted in at least $85 million in back wages and recruitment fees repaid to workers over the last few years. And without the risk of consequences, companies will continue to treat forced labor as a mere public relations issue. Shipments blocked at the border hit the bottom line immediately. Indictments demand the attention of the C-suite.
When forced labor import bans are real, they make it possible to envision a world without any safe harbor for goods tainted with forced labor. When large importing economies enforce laws to block these goods, markets for forced labor shrink. When governments demand forced labor compliance, incentives to clean up supply chains grow. When containers do not move, profits obtained through forced labor vanish. As a result, workers everywhere can benefit.
Without investment, though, or a way for countries to couple improvements with tariff relief, the potential benefits for workers vanish.
But the goal of import bans is not to block goods. The goal is to disrupt, and ultimately eradicate, forced labor. That is a goal that requires time and investment. In testimony during the investigations on July 8, the Human Trafficking Legal Center called for both. We specifically called for phased implementation of tariffs to give countries time to implement enforceable import bans. And, importantly, we called for an offramp — a path that a country could follow to bring tariffs back down to zero.
There is the danger that countries have now adopted weak, unenforceable forced labor import bans simply to mollify a trading partner. If the Trump administration really wants trade law to bolster forced labor enforcement, it must do more than chide and punish — it must invest. The mechanisms for that investment already exist: The Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Office, the Department of Labor’s International Labor Affairs Bureau and the International Labor Organization, the multilateral body responsible for defining forced labor and international labor standard setting. Investing in these institutions is not soft diplomacy or naïve multilateralism. It is how durable labor protections are built.
Without that investment, though, or a way for countries to couple improvements with tariff relief, the potential benefits for workers vanish. Companies that skirted the system before will have little incentive to change their ways. The result will be a system that resuscitates the tariffs the Supreme Court struck down, fails to lock in robust forced labor import bans and leaves the real work of ending forced labor unfinished.
The post How Trump’s new tariff push is using a good idea in the worst way appeared first on MS NOW.
