Why It Matters

Following a Supreme Court invalidation of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February, the second Trump administration has pivoted to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as its primary tariff vehicle, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the statute. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has initiated six Section 301 investigations since the administration took office, with four still underway and two completed as of June. From 1995 through the first Trump administration, Section 301 was used primarily to build World Trade Organization dispute settlement cases. The administration now deploys it as a primary vehicle for unilateral tariff action.

The stakes are immediate and broad. The administration faces a timing crunch: a 10 percent baseline tariff set under a different statute expires in late July, creating urgency to finalize Section 301 actions before then.

Rather than abandon its tariff strategy after the Supreme Court setback, USTR shifted to Section 301, launching two investigations on an accelerated timeframe covering dozens of countries simultaneously. These investigations could allow the administration to reconstruct a tariff regime similar in scope to what the court had struck down.

The Big Picture

Section 301 grants USTR authority to investigate foreign trade practices and impose retaliatory measures, most notably tariffs. The statute distinguishes between mandatory and discretionary actions: if a foreign practice is deemed "unjustifiable" and burdens U.S. commerce, action is mandatory; if deemed "unreasonable or discriminatory," action is discretionary.

Two investigations stand out for their breadth. An excess capacity investigation targeting 16 economies, initiated in March, remains ongoing. A forced labor investigation covering 60 economies, also initiated in March, concluded in June with proposed tariffs ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent depending on whether countries have failed to enforce or declined to impose import bans on forced-labor goods.

A Brazil investigation concluded in June with a proposed 25 percent tariff covering digital trade, electronic payment services, and ethanol. A China investigation into Phase 1 Agreement compliance, launched in October 2025, continues. Vietnam faces scrutiny over intellectual property protection, investigated starting in May. Germany faces a novel use of the tool: an investigation into alleged underpayment for pharmaceuticals, initiated in June, represents the first time Section 301 has been deployed into healthcare trade policy.

Members of Congress have taken note. Some have called specifically for using Section 301 to address foreign drug pricing and seafood practices. Others have introduced legislation requiring congressional notification and review of tariff actions, signaling concern about executive authority.

The Bottom Line

The Trump administration is betting that Section 301's broad language and flexible timelines can deliver what the Supreme Court just denied. By deploying the statute simultaneously across 60 countries on forced labor and 16 on excess capacity, the administration has created a compressed timeline that forces trading partners to negotiate or face tariffs before the July deadline.

This strategy sidesteps the court's IEEPA ruling while testing whether Section 301's discretionary language provides sufficient legal cover for the scale of action the administration intends. Congressional pushback on executive authority suggests the legal and political durability of this approach remains contested, even as the tariffs take effect.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article