On July 24, 2026, the United States rolled out new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting over 60 nations. The move replaces a temporary 10% tariff that expired at midnight, following a Supreme Court ruling in February that peacetime tariffs are Congress’s job, not the president’s. The administration responded by activating a 150-day emergency measure, which now gives way to a longer-term framework based on each country’s stance on forced-labor imports.
The new system creates a two-tier structure. Countries that ban goods made with forced labor, or have committed to do so, face a 10% tariff. Everyone else pays 12.5%. Seventeen economies—including Canada, Mexico, India, and the UK—qualify for the lower rate. Taiwan and the European Union also qualify, but with a crucial twist: the EU’s additional tariffs do not stack on top of existing most-favored-nation duties, and the bloc secured exemptions for diamonds, cork, generic drugs, and aircraft parts. A European Commission spokesperson cautiously welcomed the outcome, noting it aligns with a trade deal struck at Trump’s Turnberry resort.
Meanwhile, 38 countries landed in the higher tariff bracket, among them China, Brazil, Vietnam, and Russia. Brazil is hit especially hard because it already carries a separate 25% Section 301 duty over alleged unfair practices, piling on additional costs for its major exports like coffee and beef. Brazil called the tariffs “arbitrary and unjustified,” accusing Washington of manipulating human rights to serve protectionism, and said it will file a WTO complaint. Australia, Norway, and Canada also denounced the measures, with Canada insisting it should not be targeted.
Legal experts warn the move tests the boundaries of presidential authority. Alan Wolff of the Peterson Institute questioned whether the president can unilaterally set tariff policy, a power the Constitution assigns to Congress. With lawsuits brewing and allies retaliating, the trade fight may ultimately be settled in court.
