Tariffs Return, Again: USTR Expands Section 301 Push with Forced Labor Probes

On March 12, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a second round of Section 301 investigations, this time focusing on whether major trading partners have failed to maintain or enforce meaningful restrictions on forced labor in a manner that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. The announcement comes just one day after USTR opened a separate set of Section 301 investigations into structural excess capacity and production in global manufacturing. Taken together, the two actions show that the administration is moving quickly to rebuild its tariff strategy through Section 301, among other legal authorities.

The new forced labor investigations, announced on March 12, are broader in geographic scope than the manufacturing capacity probes. USTR identified 60 economies whose acts, policies, or practices are under review: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, the 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, the Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

As with the earlier manufacturing capacity investigations, USTR has stated that it will consult with the governments involved in an effort to reach negotiated solutions. If those consultations do not resolve the agency’s concerns, and USTR determines that the identified practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden U.S. commerce, the result could be tariffs or other trade restrictions affecting imports from the covered economies.

Section 301 Investigations into Forced Labor

The March 12 Section 301 investigations into forced labor practices reflect a different, but no less consequential, theory compared to the Section 301 investigations into structural excess capacity and production. In these forced labor investigations, USTR is focused on whether trading partners have failed to maintain or enforce effective restrictions on forced labor, thereby creating an artificial cost advantage for goods produced under abusive conditions. Goods produced under such conditions may be found to distort competition for U.S. producers and workers.

USTR frames the issue not only as a humanitarian concern, but also as a matter of economic policy and national interest. In the agency’s view, weak enforcement against forced labor can depress prices, undercut compliant producers, and permit goods made under exploitative conditions to remain embedded in complex global supply chains.

The notice points to continuing growth in forced labor worldwide, including a marked increase in the private economy. USTR also highlights sectors it considers especially vulnerable to forced labor risk, including garments, textiles, thread and yarn; critical minerals used in solar products and auto parts; fish used to produce fish oil and fish meal; and palm fruit used to produce palm kernel oil and palm oil.

In short, the administration appears prepared to use Section 301 not merely as a trade remedy, but as an instrument to compel greater alignment from trading partners on labor enforcement.

Initiation of the Investigations

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate an investigation to determine whether an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. If USTR makes an affirmative determination, the agency must decide whether action is appropriate and what measures should be taken. Potential remedies may include negotiated agreements, additional tariffs, or other trade restrictions.

Comment Process and Hearing Schedule

USTR is requesting public comments on a range of issues related to the investigations, including:

• Whether the investigated economies maintain or are in the process of creating forced labor import prohibition and whether these prohibitions are being enforced
• Whether the failure to enforce restrictions on forced labor has negatively affected U.S. commerce through lost exports, lower prices for U.S. goods, or lower wages for U.S. workers in order to compete with the artificial lowered costs
• Whether such policies are unreasonable or discriminatory
• Whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce
• What trade actions, if any, would be appropriate to address the issue

The Section 301 Committee will accept written comments and conduct public hearings according to the following schedule:

Date	Forced Labor Enforcement Investigation
March 12, 2026	Investigations initiated
March 12, 2026	Dockets open for written comments
April 15, 2026	Deadline for written comments and requests to testify
April 28, 2026	Public hearings at the U.S. International Trade Commission
Seven days after hearings	Deadline for post-hearing rebuttal comments

Submissions must be filed through the USTR electronic comments portal.

Broader Trade Policy Context

These investigations arrive at a moment of sharp transition in U.S. tariff policy. Following recent litigation invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the administration’s subsequent turn to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for temporary global tariffs, the executive branch has been reassessing the tools available to address perceived trade imbalances and industrial policy concerns.

At the same time, petitioners in the long-running China Section 301 litigation on February 27, 2026 petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding USTR’s authority to expand the original China Section 301 action through Lists 3 and 4A. The petition raises a broader question with significance well beyond that case: whether USTR’s authority to “modify” an existing Section 301 action has meaningful limits, or whether it can be used to impose tariffs on a far broader scale without restarting the statutory process. In that setting, these new investigations suggest that Section 301 will remain a central instrument for targeting specific policies, sectors, and trading partners through a more formal, and potentially more durable, tariff process.

In this environment, Section 301 investigations may serve as an additional mechanism for addressing structural issues in global manufacturing, allowing the United States with leverage during trade negotiations, and the ability to target specific policies, sectors, or trading partners through more tailored trade measures.

Implications for Companies

These investigations address the enforcement of restrictions of forced labor across multiple economies and industries. The result is that any of these trade actions could affect a wide range of manufactured products and global supply chains. Companies with exposure to the identified economies should consider monitoring the proceedings closely, evaluating product-and-country-level exposure, and assessing whether participation in the comment process, hearing, or related advocacy efforts may be warranted. In some cases, companies may also wish to conduct supply-chain tracing and scenario planning now, before any tariff measures are announced.

Clark Hill’s International Trade attorneys and the professionals at Clark Hill Public Strategies work together closely to provide tailored solutions for businesses.

Contact Clark Hill

If you have questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Clark Hill’s International Trade Practice by emailing tariffs@clarkhill.com or by calling +1 202-230-9889.

Subscribe here to receive future International Trade alerts directly to your inbox.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.