The Trump administration has begun a new phase of trade enforcement efforts aimed at establishing longer-lasting import taxes after the Supreme Court ruled that its use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs went beyond legal authority.
The push comes as global trade tensions remain elevated, including from ongoing economic friction between the U.S. and China and broader supply chain disruptions linked to conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and conflict in Middle East, which has already reshaped energy and commodity flows across Europe and beyond, Associated Press reported.
Officials are now turning to established trade law tools to rebuild tariff structures that previously generated significant revenue and shaped international trade flows.
Beginning this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will hold hearings tied to two Section 301 investigations that could lead to new import duties covering a large share of global trade.
The first investigation, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, focuses on whether 60 economies, accounting for nearly all U.S. imports, are adequately preventing goods produced through forced labor from entering global supply chains.
“For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in March.
The administration has indicated that countries failing to meet standards could face punitive tariffs, a move that could affect supply chains across Asia, Africa and Europe.
A second investigation, expected next week, will examine whether 16 major trading partners, including China, Japan and the European Union, are contributing to global overproduction that officials say suppresses prices and disadvantages U.S. manufacturers. Those economies account for roughly 70% of U.S. imports, according to estimates cited by the Tax Foundation and reported by Bloomberg.
Many of the same economies appear in both investigations, underscoring the scale of the potential tariff impact if the findings lead to enforcement measures.
The legal foundation for the investigations is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the U.S. to impose tariffs in response to what it defines as “unjustifiable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. The administration used the same authority during its earlier trade dispute with China, which escalated into a prolonged tariff exchange widely described by analysts as a modern trade war.
Greer has said the investigations will follow standard procedures and that outcomes are not predetermined. However, trade analysts note that senior officials have already indicated the intent to replace expiring tariff revenue streams.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly stated that new import taxes are expected to help offset revenue losses from the now-defunct tariff regime struck down by the Supreme Court, according to reporting from Financial Times.
Critics argue the pace of the current investigations is unusually fast compared to earlier Section 301 reviews. During the first Trump administration, the China-related investigation lasted nearly a year before tariffs were imposed, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“It’s such a short timeframe,” Kenya Davis, a trade lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner, said in comments reported by Reuters, adding that the process appears highly compressed compared with prior trade cases.
The Supreme Court ruling in February blocked the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping global tariffs, a move that had previously generated an estimated $166 billion in revenue, according to Reuters. The court found that the statute did not grant authority for tariff imposition.
Following that decision, the administration temporarily introduced lower tariffs under a separate legal provision, but those measures are set to expire in July unless extended by Congress.
Importers and trade groups have raised concerns about the structure of the new investigations, with some legal experts questioning whether they are designed to replicate the scale of the previously invalidated tariff program under a different statutory framework.
Joyce Adetutu, a trade attorney at Vinson & Elkins, said in analysis cited by Bloomberg that the procedural nature of Section 301 could offer stronger legal grounding for new tariffs compared with emergency powers.
Separately, import-dependent industries are preparing for renewed cost pressures if new duties are imposed across multiple sectors, particularly given the broad geographic scope of the investigations, which include nearly all major U.S. trading partners.
Source link
#Trump #Administration #Moves #Replace #StruckDown #Tariffs #Import #Tax #System
