A new barrier has just been erected in front of almost everything the United States purchases from the rest of the world. Donald Trump has ordered the imposition of tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on products from 60 trade partners, accusing their governments of failing to adequately prohibit or enforce bans on goods produced through forced labor. Behind this social argument lies a dramatic reconstruction of American trade policy, just hours before the expiration of a temporary 10% tariff.

The scope is immense: according to the U.S. administration, the affected economies represent about 99% of U.S. imports. The European Union, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, Vietnam, and many other markets are included in this framework. For businesses, consumers, and Washington’s partners, the question is no longer whether the tariffs will impact global trade, but where and how quickly their costs will be absorbed.

10% or 12.5%: What Washington Has Just Decided

The presidential memorandum published on July 23 relies on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This law allows the United States to respond to foreign practices deemed unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory that affect American trade. The USTR, the U.S. Trade Representative, had opened investigations in March targeting 60 economies and their mechanisms for controlling products made by forced labor.

Seventeen partners already subject to some form of prohibition are facing the 10% rate. This group includes the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Forty-one other economies, considered to lack an equivalent ban, are subject to a 12.5% rate. For some major partners, including the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland, the calculation takes into account the most favored nation tariff rate to reach the level set by Washington.

Exemptions are planned. They concern certain products for which American supply is insufficient, essential raw materials, goods whose taxation could cause general disruptions, or items for which a tariff would contribute little to changing the contested practices. This list of exceptions will be crucial for measuring the actual shock sector by sector.

Why This Decision Comes Now

The timing is as important as the rates. A temporary global surcharge of 10%, implemented under another provision of the Trade Act, was set to expire on July 24. It could only last 150 days without Congressional intervention. The White House was therefore seeking a new legal basis to maintain almost universal customs pressure.

This search accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, in February, the use of emergency economic powers to impose a large part of the tariffs desired by Donald Trump. The shift to Section 301 indicates that the executive intends to preserve its trade architecture by changing the legal instrument. The fight against forced labor becomes both the official reason and the legal key to this new wave.

The Associated Press emphasizes that these new tariffs take effect at the exact moment the temporary levies expire. There is therefore no real breathing room for importers. For Washington, continuity strengthens American negotiating power. For the targeted partners, it may give the impression that tariffs are becoming a permanent feature of access to the world’s largest consumer market.

Forced Labor: Moral Justification and Trade Weapon

The Trump administration claims that countries allowing goods produced under coercion create an unfair advantage. Companies adhering to social standards must face competitors benefiting from artificially low costs. The USTR thus presents the tariffs as a response to a distortion of trade and as a means to encourage foreign governments to adopt bans comparable to those of the United States.

However, this reasoning raises a debate. A general tax on products from a country does not solely target chains suspected of forced labor. It can also hit transparent businesses, certified producers, and goods unrelated to the alleged violations. American partners may contest the proportionality of the measures, their investigative methods, or their compatibility with international trade commitments.

Chile has already stated that the application of the measure to its economy does not correspond to the technical and political elements communicated during the investigation, according to the Associated Press. Other capitals may demand exemptions, initiate consultations, or prepare retaliations. The upcoming battle will not only focus on human rights but also on evidence, procedure, and Washington’s ability to impose its definition of acceptable oversight.

Europe and France: A Diffuse but Very Concrete Shock

For the European Union, classified at the 10% rate, the primary risk is uncertainty. French groups in fashion, luxury, cosmetics, agri-food, wines and spirits, aeronautics, or industrial equipment sell to the United States directly or through complex chains. Depending on the exemptions and rules of origin, the same company may see some products protected and others subjected to higher costs.

The bill will not necessarily be paid by a single actor. The exporter may reduce its margin, the American importer may absorb part of the cost, the distributor may raise prices, and the consumer may postpone their purchase. In many sectors, these four reactions will intertwine. Brands with strong pricing power will fare better than subcontractors or manufacturers of easily substitutable products.

France also has a political interest in the invoked rationale. Europe has strengthened its own rules on due diligence and is preparing to exclude products made from forced labor from the European market. Paris and Brussels may share the goal while rejecting an American method deemed too broad. This divergence could open up negotiations: mutual recognition of controls, customs cooperation, and exemptions in exchange for verifiable commitments.

China, India, Vietnam: Supply Chains Under Pressure

The Asian economies exposed to the 12.5% rate play a central role in electronics, textiles, machinery, automotive components, and consumer goods. Companies that had moved part of their production out of China to reduce their tariff risk may find that a site in Vietnam, India, or elsewhere no longer offers the same protection.

This is one of the most powerful effects of the framework: when a tariff covers almost all partners, circumventing the cost through simple regional relocation becomes much more difficult. Groups will need to seek product exemptions, automate further, bring some of their production closer to the United States, or renegotiate their contracts. Each solution requires time and capital.

Small businesses are the most vulnerable. They have fewer alternative suppliers, less cash flow, and fewer specialists capable of navigating customs classifications. A rate of 10% or 12.5% may seem lower than the 50% tariffs announced against certain Canadian products, but its breadth can produce a much wider macroeconomic effect.

The Inflationary Risk That Markets Will Monitor

The tariffs are paid at the border by American importers. Their final impact then depends on the ability of businesses to pass on the burden. If prices rise, the Federal Reserve will need to assess whether the shock is temporary or if it fuels persistent inflation. If margins decrease, investments, hiring, and profits may slow down.

The context makes this decision particularly sensitive. Energy tensions in the Middle East are already weighing on the cost of oil and transportation. Adding a cross-cutting tax on imports can amplify pressure on manufacturers and households. Conversely, the White House bets that customs revenues, trade negotiations, and industrial relocation will offset these risks.

The Signal the World Can No Longer Ignore

This decision is not merely a technical extension. It transforms a goal related to working conditions into an almost universal customs mechanism and offers Donald Trump a new path after his judicial setbacks. Its sustainability will depend on challenges, exemptions, negotiations, and the reactions of affected countries.

The message sent to capitals and businesses is brutally clear: access to the American market will now be linked not only to the price and origin of a product but also to the social control system of the country exporting it. If this model withstands judicial scrutiny, it could permanently change the rules of global trade. The tariff battle has now become a battle over how each nation oversees its entire supply chains.

Sources

• Associated Press — new tariffs, affected partners, and legal context, July 23, 2026
• White House — presidential memorandum on Section 301 investigations, July 23, 2026
• USTR — rates, affected economies, and categories of exemptions
• USTR — final decision in forced labor investigations, July 23, 2026