Trump Expands Tariffs to 60 Nations Amid Legal Hurdles

This week President Donald Trump announced fresh tariffs on 60 countries, including the United Kingdom, the European Union and Canada. The measures are presented as a response to alleged forced-labor practices in foreign supply chains. Countries that have taken steps to ban forced labor—such as the United Kingdom—are slated to pay a reduced 10 % rate, while others, exemplified by Norway, face the full 12.5 % penalty. The rollout follows the expiration of temporary Section 122 tariffs that had been in place for 150 days.

Unherd

In February, the Supreme Court ruled that the president lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that permits regulation of imports and exports during national emergencies. That decision invalidated earlier tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada and eliminated “reciprocal” duties applied to more than 180 nations. To sustain a tariff regime, the administration shifted reliance to Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows 15 % tariffs for up to 150 days without congressional approval and permits extensions if needed. After those temporary measures expired, the new forced-labor tariffs were invoked under a different statutory basis—Section 301 of the same Trade Act.

Unherd

The current tariff structure differentiates between nations based on their forced-labor policies: a 10 % levy for compliant countries and a 12.5 % levy for those deemed non-compliant. The commentary framing the policy argues that the public justification of forced-labor concerns masks an underlying goal of establishing a baseline global tariff that can be lowered through bilateral negotiations. This baseline, the author suggests, would serve as a bargaining chip while contradicting the liberal-internationalist premise that free trade reduces the risk of conflict.

Unherd

Commentators contend that the United States’ liberal-internationalist trade framework—rooted in post-World-II doctrines advanced by figures such as Woodrow Wilson—presumes free trade as the norm and treats protectionist moves as exceptions requiring elaborate investigations. The article argues that rising geopolitical competition from China, Russia and Iran has exposed the costs of this framework for American citizens, prompting a “return to tradition” of protectionism. However, the author notes that presidents must operate within an inherited legal architecture that assumes free trade, forcing them to invoke obscure, dormant statutes to pursue protectionist objectives until Congress reforms outdated trade laws.

Unherd