President Trump has long been criticized for a short attention span, but his fixation on tariffs remains remarkably consistent. Despite legal setbacks and underwhelming results, he continues to push new duties on trading partners. The latest iteration, targeting goods made with forced labor from 60 countries, represents a fresh legal justification for an old approach—one that economists say still hurts American households and businesses.
A Shifting Legal Basis
After the Supreme Court struck down reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Trump administration turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% global tariff. That measure is set to expire, prompting the White House to propose new duties of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 nations under Section 301 of the same act. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office would use this provision to investigate and retaliate against alleged forced labor practices.
Section 301 was a favorite tool during Trump’s first term, used against China and the European Union, and has survived court challenges. However, its application on such a broad scale is unprecedented. The European Union has already challenged the move, arguing its own forced labor standards are stricter than America’s. Trade experts question whether courts will uphold the measure. Alan Wm. Wolff of the Peterson Institute for International Economics predicts judges may see it as another attempt to seize tariff power from Congress.
Political Motives or Policy Substance?
The administration hopes the forced labor angle will attract support from Democrats and labor unions. But critics are skeptical. Edward Aldean of the Council on Foreign Relations called the announcement a “transparently cynical effort” and a “pretext to maintain tariffs.” The move comes amid a broader trade war that has seen clashes over sanctions and defense deals, further straining international alliances.
If the Section 301 tariffs survive legal scrutiny, the economic impact will hinge on the average effective tariff rate. The Tax Foundation estimates that under IEEPA tariffs in 2025, the average rate hit 7.7%, up from 2.4% in 2024. With the new duties, the rate could settle around 5.3% or higher. Yet the actual effect has been muted so far, partly due to exemptions and bilateral deals that have changed tariff policy more than 50 times since April 2025.
Promises vs. Reality
Trump’s stated goals—shrinking the trade deficit and reviving manufacturing—remain unmet. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2025 was $25 billion larger than the previous year. Manufacturing jobs continued to decline for the third straight year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Meanwhile, the president insists foreign exporters bear the cost of tariffs, but a New York Federal Reserve study confirms what many economists have long argued: U.S. households and firms overwhelmingly pay the price.
Public opinion reflects this disconnect. Polls show more than 60% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s tariffs. Midterm elections may offer a chance for voters to voice their frustration, but the president has shown little inclination to change course.
Nicholas Sargen, an economic consultant affiliated with the Darden School of Business, notes that the administration’s trade policy continues to ignore mounting evidence. As Trump pivots to new legal grounds, the fundamental outcome remains the same: American consumers and businesses are left footing the bill.
