The Trump administration has initiated a new round of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, reinstating an aggressive trade policy hours after temporary global import duties lapsed. These measures, which became effective Friday, July 24, 2026, replace the 10% global tariff previously imposed after the US Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs from April 2025.
Expert Warns of 'Weaponization' of Trade Policy
The latest action has triggered concerns regarding the stability of US trade commitments. Geostrategist Brahma Chellaney strongly criticized the move, describing it as the "weaponization of Section 301." In a post on X, Chellaney argued that while the Supreme Court may have struck down earlier tariffs, the administration has found a new legal avenue to continue its trade offensive. He questioned the fundamental value of trade agreements with Washington if their terms can be unilaterally altered.
"The U.S. Supreme Court may have struck Trump's global tariffs but he has found new ways to press ahead with his trade war. Trump's new Section 301 tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, replace the global duties that have just lapsed. More tariffs are on the way, as Washington is targeting India, the European Union, China and 13 other trading partners under Section 301 over alleged unfair manufacturing practices."
Chellaney emphasized that this development casts a shadow over ongoing India-US trade negotiations, as India is reportedly close to finalizing a new bilateral trade agreement with Washington.
New Tariff Structure and India's Position
The newly introduced tariffs categorize trading partners into two tiers:
- 10% Tariffs: Applied to countries that have adopted or committed to enforcing bans on imports produced using forced labor. This group includes India, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Sri Lanka.
- 12.5% Tariffs: Applied to nations that, according to Washington, have not adopted such prohibitions. This category comprises China, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and Israel, among others.
India avoided the higher 12.5% tariff rate because it has either implemented or committed to strengthening prohibitions against forced-labor imports, a detail confirmed by the White House.
US Justifies Tariffs on Human Rights Grounds
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the administration's stance, asserting that the United States has a long-standing tradition of enforcing restrictions on imports made with forced labor. "The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it. It's well past time for our trading partners to do the same," Greer stated. He added that the action aims to address both human rights abuses and distortive trade practices globally.
Broader Economic Implications
The shift to Section 301 follows the Supreme Court's ruling that invalidated many of Trump's previous tariffs. The administration had temporarily used Section 122 of the same law to impose a 150-day global tariff, which expired as the new Section 301 measures came into effect. Critics argue this simply replaces one legal mechanism with another to maintain a tariff-centric trade policy.
The economic impact of these tariffs remains a subject of debate. The New York Federal Reserve has estimated that approximately 90% of the cost of tariffs is ultimately borne by US consumers and businesses, challenging the administration's claims that foreign exporters primarily absorb these costs.