Trump tariffs on forced labor are the administration’s newest workaround, and the strategy reveals more about political maneuvering than any genuine concern for exploited workers. After running into walls in the courts and finding little appetite on Capitol Hill, the White House has landed on a fresh justification for raising import taxes, one that repurposes laws meant to combat modern slavery.

A New Pretext Emerges

The latest move arrived late Tuesday, when the U.S. trade representative unveiled a plan to raise tariffs on 60 countries. The proposed increases, ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent, are being framed as a response to nations that supposedly aren’t doing enough to root out forced labor within their supply chains.

On the surface, that sounds like a noble cause. Dig a little deeper, though, and the rationale falls apart. If the goal were truly to punish countries complicit in worker exploitation, it would be hard to explain why China is being lumped into the same category as Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland. Treating those nations identically strongly suggests that human rights aren’t the real driver here.

Why the Forced-Labor Argument Doesn’t Hold

There is no question that forced labor is a moral horror. It amounts to a modern form of slavery, which is precisely why the United States has long prohibited it. The 13th Amendment and Title 18 of the federal criminal code both forbid the practice, and laws barring the import of goods produced by coerced workers have existed for nearly a century.

One of the most prominent recent examples is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act of 2021. That law acknowledges China’s detention and mistreatment of the predominantly Muslim Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region and blocks goods made there from entering American markets.

Given that targeted tools already exist, the sheer scope of these new tariffs becomes telling. Sweeping 60 countries into a single net does not look like a careful effort to confront the abuse of foreign workers. It looks instead like a search for any available mechanism to revive the broad import taxes the president first announced last April.

A Trail of Legal Setbacks

That history matters. The duties rolled out on what the administration dubbed “Liberation Day” were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court struck them down in a 6-3 decision, and the administration has since been slow to refund the taxes it collected unlawfully.

With that avenue closed, the president turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to keep a 10 percent baseline tariff in place. But that provision comes with an expiration date: it allows such tariffs for only 150 days, and that window closes on July 24.

The most straightforward path would be to ask Congress to pass a tariff bill. The trouble is that the president knows neither Republican-controlled chamber would approve one. So rather than legislate, the administration keeps reaching for creative interpretations of existing law.

The forced-labor tariffs must still pass through a public comment period, with hearings set to begin on July 7. In practice, however, those proceedings tend to function as little more than a formality.

More Avenues, More Tariffs

The forced-labor gambit is not the only iron in the fire. On Monday, the administration proposed slapping 25 percent tariffs on Brazil under Section 301 of the Trade Act, accusing the country of failing to enforce its anti-corruption laws. Beyond that, officials are investigating 16 trading partners, which together account for roughly 70 percent of U.S. imports, over allegations that they are dumping goods at artificially low prices to undermine American manufacturers.

The pattern is unmistakable. Each new investigation or proposal represents another attempt to achieve through administrative action what cannot be accomplished through legislation.

The Quiet Admission Behind the Exemptions

Here lies the most revealing part of the story. Even as the White House publicly celebrates its inventiveness, many of the president’s own advisers privately understand that tariffs weigh down the economy. That tension explains why exemptions keep multiplying.

The administration is carving out a lengthy list of staples from the forced-labor tariffs. Among the goods spared are coffee, beef, and the rare-earth minerals essential to manufacturing high-tech products. Canada and Mexico fall under the additional 10 percent tariffs in theory, but those charges will be waived for any goods covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The retreats don’t stop there. Just this week, the White House trimmed its 25 percent tariff on agricultural and industrial equipment down to 15 percent. That reduction amounts to a quiet acknowledgment that these taxes raise costs for farmers, which in turn pushes up prices for the shoppers who ultimately buy what those farmers produce.

The Question That Lingers

All of this leads to an obvious and uncomfortable question. If farmers deserve relief from the burden of these tariffs, and they clearly do, then why shouldn’t every American receive the same break?

The growing list of carve-outs functions as an admission against interest. Each exemption signals that the administration recognizes the harm its own policies inflict. The honest conclusion is hard to escape: a policy that requires this many escape hatches may not be worth pursuing in the first place.