Trump used impossible foreign labor standards as tariff workaround, small businesses say

Small importers Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology argue in the Court of International Trade this week that the Trump administration never properly established forced-labor cases against 60 trading partners before imposing 10% to 12.5% tariffs covering 99.4% of U.S. imports. The plaintiffs, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, say the administration relied on 'generalized assertions' rather than verified findings, exceeding authority Congress delegated under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

Former trade official Alan Wm. Wolff, who helped draft the statute, said it was designed for targeted retaliation against a single verified bad actor, not a blanket test applied to 60 countries simultaneously. He said the pattern suggests 'the purpose is to have the tariff, not to combat forced labor.'

This marks the third tariff vehicle the administration has tried on largely the same imports: after the Supreme Court struck down emergency IEEPA tariffs in February, the White House pivoted to a 150-day Section 122 tariff, then rolled out Section 301 forced-labor tariffs just as that expired. The Liberty Justice Center's CEO Sara Albrecht called the new tariffs 'blatantly pretextual,' noting businesses are still awaiting IEEPA refunds while already paying the next round.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the pending litigation, and the White House and Trade Representative's office did not respond to requests for comment.

The full dispatch is available from the source below.