An American decision has just placed almost all global trade under tension. Since Friday, July 24, 2026, the United States has applied new tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners. The European Union, China, Japan, India, the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, several African countries, and major Gulf economies are included in this measure.

The Trump administration claims to be responding to the inadequacy of bans on products made with forced labor. However, the scale of the measure immediately changes the nature of the debate: according to the Associated Press, the affected economies represent over 99% of American imports. This is therefore not a targeted sanction, but a new almost universal customs architecture.

A Tax Affecting 60 Partners and Nearly All Imports

The new tariffs replace temporary global levies of 10% that have expired. They are now based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a tool already used by Washington against China. This legal choice is crucial: the White House seeks to rebuild its trade policy after the setback inflicted by the Supreme Court in February on a previous series of tariffs based on emergency powers.

The USTR, the United States Trade Representative, divides partners into two main groups. Economies that have a ban on imports related to forced labor, but whose enforcement is deemed insufficient by Washington, are generally hit with a 10% tariff. Those that do not have, according to American findings, a sufficiently effective mechanism are targeted with a 12.5% tariff.

The list spans all regions. It includes strategic allies of the United States, Asian industrial powers, energy exporters, and emerging countries. By bringing them together in a single action, Washington transforms a human rights issue into a global trade negotiation lever.

Forced Labor Becomes the Heart of an Economic Standoff

The official message is both moral and economic. The Trump administration argues that American companies should not face competition from supply chains that include goods produced under abusive conditions. The stated goal is to encourage partners to ban these imports and better control their markets.

However, several governments contest the method and conclusions. Australia has described the increase imposed on it as unjustified. Japan protested after receiving assurances, according to the AP, that no new tariff would be added to a previous agreement. China has also rejected the decision. The fact that countries with very different laws, controls, and trade profiles are hit with similar rates fuels accusations of a protectionist pretext.

This controversy does not deny the existence of forced labor in global supply chains. It raises another question: does a general tariff on a country’s exports really eliminate the affected products? Critics fear that a broad tax will also penalize companies that comply with standards, without guaranteeing more precise traceability.

Europe and France Directly Exposed

For the European Union, this new wave comes at a time when the trade climate is already fragile. French and European companies exporting to the United States must check if their products fall under exemptions, absorb part of the cost, or pass it on to their customers. The luxury, agri-food, industrial equipment, pharmaceuticals, automotive, and consumer goods sectors are particularly attentive to the implementation modalities.

The USTR anticipates exceptions for certain products. These relate to raw materials that are difficult to replace, goods whose taxation could disrupt the entire American economy, products that are insufficiently available in the United States, as well as certain goods benefiting from specific treatment aimed at encouraging reforms among partners.

These exemptions limit the shock for certain sectors, but they also make the system more complex. A French company will need to examine the customs code of each product, the rates already applicable, and any potential exclusions. In some cases, the additional duty is calculated so that the total burden reaches 10% or 12.5%, rather than being mechanically added to all existing levies.

American Consumers May Bear Part of the Cost

A tariff is collected upon the entry of goods into the United States. It is paid by the American importer, even if the foreign government or producer may then face pressure to lower their price. The bill is therefore shared among company margins, suppliers, and often consumers.

When tariffs cover almost all sources, quickly replacing a supplier becomes more difficult. Importers cannot simply shift their purchases to an unaffected country, as very few are spared. This global coverage strengthens Washington’s negotiating power but also increases the risk of price hikes and logistical disruptions in the American market.

The exemptions on energy, fertilizers, certain raw materials, and products already subject to special regimes show that the administration itself wants to avoid an uncontrolled shockwave. They also reveal the persistent dependence of the United States on global value chains that a decree cannot replace overnight.

Initial Lawsuits Open a Legal Battle

As of Saturday, July 25, small American businesses have initiated proceedings against these tariffs, according to the Associated Press. They contest a measure that directly affects their procurement costs. This judicial front will be monitored well beyond the United States, as the robustness of Section 301 will determine the duration of the new regime.

The White House starts with an advantage: Section 301 has a long history and has already withstood challenges. However, the simultaneous use of 60 investigations, the breadth of the tariffs, and the link between forced labor and commercial harm could fuel new arguments. Plaintiffs will ask judges whether the executive is indeed respecting the limits set by Congress.

A Signal That Markets Cannot Ignore

The decision does not necessarily mean an immediate rupture of exchanges. Negotiations, additional exemptions, and adjustments are possible. Several partners may strengthen their bans on forced labor to obtain more favorable treatment. Others will choose diplomatic contestation, the World Trade Organization, or retaliatory measures.

For companies, however, the signal is clear: American trade policy remains fluid, legal, and aggressive. International groups will need to multiply scenarios, map their suppliers, and review contracts that determine who bears the tariffs. Investment decisions may be delayed until the true scope of exemptions and recourse is known.

By hitting 60 partners at once, Donald Trump is not just launching a new tax: he is imposing a resilience test on the world. If the tariffs survive the courts and negotiations, they could permanently reshape trade with the world’s largest importing power. If they trigger retaliation or new price hikes, forced labor risks becoming the starting point of a much broader trade war.

Reliable Sources

• Associated Press — Explanation of the new tariffs imposed on 60 partners, July 24, 2026.
• Associated Press — Initial complaints from small American businesses, July 25, 2026.
• Reuters — Implementation of the 10% and 12.5% tariffs, July 24, 2026.
• USTR — Official fact sheet on Section 301, rates, and exemptions, July 23, 2026.