President Donald Trump announced a new round of tariffs on Thursday targeting 60 countries that collectively account for over 99% of US imports. If the measures survive expected court challenges, they are projected to cost American consumers an estimated US$100 billion per year through higher prices on imported goods.
The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, are the administration's latest attempt to bypass repeated court rulings—including from the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court—that struck down earlier sweeping tariffs. Trump's top trade official, Jamieson Greer, invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the new levies, claiming they are meant to penalize nations that fail to enforce bans on goods produced with forced labor.
Observers were quick to question the timing and rationale. Bloomberg's Josh Wingrove noted the coincidence: “Magically, the US tariff probe on forced labor practices is done perfectly in time to replace the generalized but expiring Section 122 tariffs.” The earlier tariffs had relied on a different legal authority that was set to lapse.
Legal and economic fallout
Representative Mike Levin (D-Calif.) acknowledged that Section 301 was passed by Congress, but argued it was intended for specific, investigated trade violations, not blanket tariffs. “What is being done with it now is a tariff on 99% of American trade, set by Trump, with no expiration, no vote, and no ceiling,” Levin said. He warned that if such broad delegation is deemed lawful, “the tariff power in Article I means very little.”
The list of affected countries includes major US trading partners such as Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam. The tariffs come on top of existing duties that have already cost American families an average of $1,700 each between the start of Trump's second term and January 2026, as importers passed on higher costs. Small businesses have been hit hard, farmers face increased hardship, and the promised revival of American manufacturing jobs has not materialized.
The Progressive Policy Institute estimated the new tariffs would cost Americans $100 billion a year collectively. Its trade director, Ed Gresser, said the order “looks vulnerable to challenge, and courts would have good reason to strike it down.” Gresser pointed to the administration's vague claims about forced labor abroad, arguing they “do not hold up.”
“Constitutionally, it is likely impermissible as an attempt to use a law designed for problem-solving abroad to impose a general tariff increase,” Gresser said. “While making emotive claims about forced labor, it neither presents evidence that the listed countries are buying goods made with the use of forced labor, nor demonstrates that if they were, this would impose the statutorily required ‘burden on US commerce.’”
Representative Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, called the tariffs “a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran.” The Iran conflict, which has escalated into a protracted engagement, adds another layer of economic strain for American households.
The tariffs also threaten to disrupt supply chains for essential goods, including generic drugs from India and China, as reported earlier. For Southeast Asian nations like Vietnam, the new duties could undermine export-driven growth and complicate regional trade dynamics. Meanwhile, the broader economic impact may be partially offset by factors that have kept the US economy resilient, as some analysts note.
Legal experts expect the tariffs to face swift challenges in federal court, with plaintiffs likely arguing that the administration exceeded its authority under Section 301. The Supreme Court's earlier rejection of similar tariffs suggests the new measures may not survive judicial scrutiny. For now, American consumers and businesses brace for another wave of price increases, while Asian exporters watch closely for signs of how the dispute will unfold.
