The United States has long prohibited the importation of goods made with forced labor under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1307) and, more recently, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). But the enforcement landscape is expanding. Through Section 301 investigations, free trade agreement negotiations, and trade deals and frameworks, the U.S. government is using novel trade policy tools to encourage its trading partners to strengthen, adopt, and enforce their own forced labor prohibitions.

Section 301 and the Expansion of Tariff-Based Enforcement

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiates investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether foreign trade practices are unreasonable, discriminatory, or burden U.S. commerce. Section 301 has been used as a tool to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports. Now, Section 301 has become a vehicle for addressing labor rights violations, including forced labor.

Using Section 301 tariffs to combat forced labor marks an expansion from the traditional enforcement methods under the UFLPA's rebuttable presumption and Section 307's withhold release orders and findings, which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses to detain or exclude shipments at the border before they enter the United States market. For companies sourcing from affected countries or sectors, tariff exposure now correlates directly with forced labor risk in supply chains, adding financial implications to what has traditionally been treated as a compliance or reputational issue.

Nicaragua. In December 2025, the U.S.TR announced its findings that Nicaragua's acts, policies, and practices related to labor rights, human rights, and the rule of law are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Pursuant to its investigation, the U.S.TR will phase in Section 301 tariffs on certain goods of Nicaraguan origin that are not eligible for, and do not claim, preferential treatment under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), starting with a 10% Section 301 duty rate on January 1, 2027. This investigation marked the first time the USTR announced Section 301 tariffs pursuant to a labor rights investigation.

New Section 301 Investigations on Forced Labor. The USTR has already signaled that it will continue to use Section 301 to investigate labor rights. On March 12, 2026, the USTR announced the initiation of Section 301 investigations into 60 economies, focusing on whether these economies have failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. The economies under investigation include major trading partners such as Mexico, Canada, the European Union, the U.K, Japan, China, Australia, India, Brazil and many more. The USTR's investigation is likely to be expedited so that it can impose additional duties as soon as possible.

Interested parties can submit written comments to the USTR through April 15, and the Section 301 Committee will hold a public hearing on April 28.

Free Trade Agreements and Labor Chapters

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) was the first U.S. trade agreement to include a ban on imports of products produced using forced labor. The USMCA is an example of how the United States has leveraged free trade agreements to shift the burden of forced labor enforcement to trading partners. Under the USMCA, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are required to prohibit the importation of goods produced, in whole or in part, by forced or compulsory labor, including forced child labor. However, few or no shipments have been detained under Mexico and Canada’s bans. 

Trade Deals, Frameworks and the Reciprocal Enforcement Movement

Although it is unclear how the trade deals and frameworks negotiated in 2025 and early 2026 will be impacted by the Supreme Court striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), these negotiations did signal the United States’ push to shift the enforcement burden from the United States to its trading partners. Rather than relying solely on the UFLPA Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, the Department of Homeland Security, and CBP to target entities and screen imports at the border, the trade deals and frameworks required partner countries to adopt their own import prohibitions against goods made with forced labor, or to strengthen labor rights enforcement in sectors with elevated risk.

While the precise mechanisms of enforcement in partner countries remain unclear in many cases, the inclusion of these provisions in trade negotiations signals sustained U.S. focus on expanding enforcement against forced labor.

Tariffs as Leverage

One thing is clear: Tariffs are being used not merely as a punitive measure but as a negotiating tool. The threat or imposition of tariffs creates leverage that the U.S. government has used to extract labor commitments from trading partners.

This use of tariffs as leverage is distinct from enforcement actions under the UFLPA or Section 307, which target specific shipments or entities. Forced labor enforcement is thus becoming a featured issue in trade policy.

Practical Implications for Importers and Multinational Companies

The intersection of Section 301 actions, deals and frameworks, and tariff leverage signals a shift towards a global enforcement environment that demands a broader approach to compliance and can introduce heightened risk for importers. If trading partners implement their own forced labor import bans, companies will need supply chain due diligence programs that satisfy not only U.S. requirements, but also those of partner countries. Companies that invest now in robust supply chain transparency and due diligence will be better positioned to navigate this evolving landscape.

Lucas Rock is a Senior Associate at law firm ArentFox Schiff LLP.