Published On 4/6/2026
US trade policy is undergoing a new transformation, according to what the New York Times and Stratfor website reported, as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks to rebuild a broad system of customs duties after successive judicial cancellations that weakened the legal basis for previous duties.
The New York Times pointed out that last February the US Supreme Court invalidated the comprehensive fees imposed based on the Emergency Economic Law, which prompted the administration to search for a more solid alternative legal framework.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
The excuse of forced labor
According to the newspaper, the administration announced a new plan based on imposing fees ranging between 10% and 12.5% on 59 countries in addition to the European Union, to begin next July, under the pretext that these countries have not adequately implemented laws preventing the import of goods linked to forced labor.
The newspaper added that the administration is also working on a second package of fees related to industrial practices such as industrial production surplus policies, where some countries export the surplus at low prices, which Washington considers a form of dumping that harms American industry, in addition to the government support practiced by some countries. The second package fees may be added later to the current fees.
Formation of a global trading system
For its part, the Stratfor website indicated that this step comes within a broader path to reshape the global trading system that Washington seeks to build on the ruins of previous legal tools, especially after the American courts invalidated part of the fees that were based on emergency laws.
The website stated that the administration is increasingly relying on Section 301 of the Trade Law of 1974 as the most legally stable framework for imposing duties.
The New York Times explains that the US administration believes that most countries have not adopted or implemented effective legislation against forced labor, and that the government report issued by the Office of the US Trade Representative included more than 80 countries, representing the majority of US imports.
The newspaper’s report also pointed to significant disparities in the application of laws between countries, with criticism that they are not strictly implemented even in countries that have existing legislation.
Professor Iswar Prasad:
The administration appears to be moving its justifications to more morally and legally acceptable ground, but at the same time it is employing this framework to expand the use of fees as an economic and geopolitical tool, an approach that may be more durable. LegallyHowever, it remains a subject of political and moral controversy
Protectionist policy
On the other hand, the New York Times quoted trade experts, including Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations, saying that the use of the forced labor file may be a “pretext” to maintain fees for protectionist reasons rather than a real tool to address human rights violations, indicating that the application does not reflect a clear distinction between countries according to the extent of violations.
The newspaper also quoted Professor Eswar Prasad of Cornell University as saying that the administration appears to be moving its justifications to a more morally and legally acceptable ground, but at the same time it is employing this framework to expand the use of fees as an economic and geopolitical tool, and he added that this approach may be more durable. LegallyHowever, it remains a subject of political and moral controversy.
The Stratfor website indicates that the use of Article 301 gives the US administration a relatively stronger legal basis compared to emergency laws that were invalidated by the courts, especially since this article was previously used during the trade war with China and survived several judicial appeals.
Warning against expanding scope of use
At the same time, the website warned that expanding the scope of the use of this article in such a broad manner may open the door to new appeals based on overstepping legislative authority or weak procedural foundations.
The New York Times adds that the administration also seeks to make these fees a permanent part of the American trading system, so that it becomes… Cancel it It will be more difficult for subsequent administrations, especially with the previous temporary fees set to expire next July.
While supporters in Congress, such as Republican Representative Jason Smith, believe that many US trading partners do not adhere to the minimum level of cooperation in combating forced labor, critics believe that the administration is exploiting this issue to justify a broad protectionist policy that redraws the global trading system according to the interests of the United States.
The reports concluded that the next stage may witness an additional escalation in US trade policy, with the introduction of new files related to surplus production and industrial practices, which means that the current tariffs may be only an initial part of a broader and more influential structure in global trade during the coming period.
