Why It Matters

A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published by Christopher T. Zirpoli outlines the legal architecture behind the Trump administration's aggressive tariff campaign, revealing significant constraints on executive power and exposing Congress to pressure over forced labor enforcement.

The Trump administration is pursuing tariffs on 60 trading partners under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing alleged failures to prohibit forced labor imports. Over 99 percent of U.S. imports originate from these economies. A separate investigation targets 16 additional partners over excess manufacturing capacity. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) proposed tariffs ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent on the forced labor group as of June 2, 2026, with final action still pending.

The Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's initial tariff framework using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2026, finding that the statute does not authorize tariffs. President Trump then announced a 10 percent global tariff effective February 24, 2026, under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which carries a 150-day limit. Those tariffs were set to expire on July 24, 2026.

The forced labor investigation carries genuine legal authority that the prior IEEPA gambit lacked. Section 301 specifies that acts, policies, and practices that are unreasonable include any that constitute a persistent pattern of conduct permitting forced or compulsory labor. Unlike the Supreme Court's swift rejection of IEEPA tariffs, these actions face a more complex legal battlefield.

The Big Picture

The Trump administration has targeted economies that collectively account for the vast majority of American imports. If the new tariffs are upheld, businesses importing from the 60 targeted economies face increased costs and potential forced supply chain restructuring. Congress retains constitutional authority over tariffs and could constrain USTR's actions, but the Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval route requires either USTR voluntarily submitting its actions or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issuing an opinion that they qualify as "rules" under that statute. USTR has not historically submitted Section 301 actions for CRA purposes.

Section 301 tariffs are authorized by Title III of the Trade Act of 1974, while IEEPA tariffs, which were imposed in 2025, were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2026. The authority belongs to USTR as an agency rather than the President directly, making these tariffs subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) judicial review. The Federal Circuit's September 2025 ruling in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States established that USTR may modify tariffs under the "no longer appropriate" provision. The Supreme Court's June 15, 2026 denial of certiorari left that precedent intact.

The largest prior multi-country Section 301 action, covering 11 countries from 2019 to 2020 on digital services taxes, ultimately resulted in no tariffs being imposed. Section 301 tariffs terminate automatically after four years unless a petitioner or domestic industry representative requests continuation. USTR may extend the action, modify, or terminate any action if the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) or dispute settlement proceedings under other trade agreements find that the foreign practice does not violate U.S. rights, or if the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from the foreign conduct has increased or decreased.

A second round of public comments closed on July 6, 2026, and a public hearing was held July 7–9, 2026. The report's July 21 publication offered no final action on the forced labor investigation.

The Bottom Line

The Trump administration has constructed a tariff framework with more durable legal footing than IEEPA provided, but one that invites sustained litigation and congressional pressure. The forced labor rationale gives USTR credible statutory hooks, yet the scope (targeting nearly all U.S. trading partners simultaneously) creates political vulnerability for lawmakers facing constituent complaints about higher costs. How long the tariffs survive court challenges, whether Congress acts to constrain them, and whether USTR ultimately backs down as it did with the digital services investigations remain open questions.

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

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article