US Imposes New Tariffs on 60 Trading Partners as Trump Revives Global Trade War Strategy

Published: 24 July 2026 | The English Chronicle Desk | The English Chronicle Online

The United States has launched a sweeping new round of tariffs on dozens of its largest trading partners, marking the latest escalation in President Donald Trump’s renewed trade strategy and signalling that Washington remains committed to reshaping global commerce despite legal setbacks earlier this year.

The measures, announced by the White House on Friday, introduce tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 major trading partners, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, China, Japan, Australia and Brazil. According to US officials, the countries affected account for approximately 99.4% of all goods imported into the United States, making the move one of the broadest tariff actions undertaken by the Trump administration since the president returned to office.

The new tariffs replace a temporary tariff regime that expired on Friday. Although the rates remain broadly similar to the previous system, the administration has introduced a different legal justification for maintaining them. Rather than relying on emergency economic powers—which the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year had been improperly used—the White House now argues that the tariffs are necessary because major trading partners have failed to adequately prevent goods produced through forced labour from entering international supply chains.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the decision, describing it as both an economic and human rights measure.

“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” Greer said while announcing the policy.

Administration officials maintain that forced labour remains a serious concern in global manufacturing and that countries exporting to the United States must strengthen oversight of their supply chains. Washington argues that unfair labour practices not only violate human rights but also distort international competition by allowing lower production costs that disadvantage American manufacturers.

However, many trade specialists believe the human rights argument is largely being used to provide a legally sustainable basis for tariffs that are fundamentally intended to reduce America’s trade deficit and encourage domestic manufacturing.

Caroline Freund, Dean of the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California San Diego and a respected international trade economist, questioned the administration’s stated motivation.

Speaking to the BBC, Freund argued that the policy is “not about forced labour,” suggesting instead that the White House was searching for a legal mechanism to preserve tariffs after the Supreme Court invalidated earlier measures introduced under emergency powers.

According to Freund, President Trump and senior trade officials have consistently framed tariffs as tools for reducing the US trade deficit and bringing manufacturing jobs back to American factories rather than primarily addressing labour rights violations overseas.

The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling represented a significant setback for the administration’s trade agenda. The court concluded that the president had exceeded his legal authority when imposing broad global tariffs under emergency economic legislation, forcing the government to refund billions of dollars collected from importers.

Rather than abandoning its protectionist approach, the administration has pursued alternative legal avenues to maintain import duties. The forced labour justification now appears to be the latest strategy designed to withstand potential legal challenges while preserving the broader objective of protecting domestic industry.

Trade policy experts say the move demonstrates that Washington has no intention of retreating from tariffs as a central component of its economic strategy.

Deborah Elms, Head of Trade Policy at the Hinrich Foundation, said the administration appeared determined to continue using tariffs regardless of legal obstacles.

She also noted that proving compliance with forced labour standards across complex international supply chains would be extremely difficult for many exporting countries, making it challenging for governments to secure exemptions from the new duties.

Businesses around the world are now assessing the likely financial impact.

Economists generally expect the tariffs to increase costs for importers, manufacturers and consumers in the United States. Although some goods remain exempt from the measures, higher import costs are likely to ripple through supply chains over time, affecting prices across a wide range of products.

Wendy Cutler, Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former US trade negotiator, believes the overall impact could be moderated by exemptions covering certain categories of imports. Nevertheless, she warned that many governments are likely to respond by accelerating efforts to diversify trade relationships and reduce dependence on the American market.

Instead of relying heavily on exports to the United States, countries may seek stronger commercial ties with regional partners or negotiate new free trade agreements elsewhere.

The announcement has generated particular concern in the United Kingdom, where business groups argue that British exporters have lost an important competitive advantage.

William Bain, Head of Trade Policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, pointed out that while the European Union secured an arrangement involving an all-inclusive 10% tariff rate, UK exporters now face a universal 10% tariff in addition to any existing product-specific duties.

That distinction, Bain argued, leaves British businesses in a relatively weaker position when competing in the American market.

He said companies would be looking to the UK government to determine whether further negotiations with Washington could secure terms similar to those obtained by the European Union.

David Henig, Director of UK Trade Policy at the European Centre for International Political Economy, offered a more cautious assessment. While acknowledging that Britain’s relative position had weakened, he suggested businesses may hesitate before altering investment or export strategies given the unpredictability that has characterised President Trump’s trade policies.

“Anything could change tomorrow or the day after,” Henig observed, reflecting a broader uncertainty shared by many companies engaged in international trade.

The UK government responded by stressing that British businesses are not facing an increase beyond the announced tariff framework and reiterated its commitment to tackling forced labour in global supply chains.

A government spokesperson said the United Kingdom takes forced labour seriously and works to ensure British businesses are not complicit in human rights abuses within international supply chains.

Elsewhere, reactions have been considerably sharper.

Brazil condemned the decision, describing the 12.5% tariff imposed on its exports as unjustified.

Japan expressed regret over the measures, while Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell called the tariffs “completely unjustified,” warning they would create unnecessary obstacles for international commerce.

China also rejected Washington’s allegations.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing firmly opposes unilateral tariffs and denied accusations that forced labour exists within Chinese manufacturing.

“There is no so-called forced labour in China, and we oppose using this as an excuse for political manipulation,” Mao said.

However, numerous international human rights organisations continue to allege that forced labour exists in China’s Xinjiang region, particularly involving members of Muslim ethnic minority communities. These allegations have remained a persistent source of tension between Beijing and Western governments.

The latest tariffs represent another chapter in President Trump’s long-standing belief that import duties strengthen American industry by encouraging domestic production and reducing dependence on foreign manufacturing.

Since returning to office, Trump has repeatedly argued that previous trade arrangements disadvantaged American workers and allowed overseas competitors to benefit from unfair practices.

His administration first unveiled sweeping tariffs during what became known as “Liberation Day” in April 2025, imposing duties of up to 50% on imports from numerous countries. Although many of those measures were later overturned by the Supreme Court, the White House has consistently sought alternative legal pathways to preserve its protectionist agenda.

The administration has also imposed separate tariffs targeting countries including Canada and Brazil, while maintaining a cautious pause in its prolonged tariff dispute with China.

Tariffs have additionally been used as leverage in negotiations extending beyond trade itself. President Trump has previously linked tariff policy to issues such as migration and border security, particularly in discussions with Mexico.

Further trade action may still be on the horizon.

The US government is currently investigating 16 additional countries over allegations that excessive industrial production and manufacturing overcapacity are distorting global markets. Those investigations could ultimately lead to another wave of tariffs affecting an even greater share of international trade.

For businesses, investors and governments worldwide, the latest announcement reinforces an increasingly uncertain global trading environment. While the White House argues the measures are essential for protecting American workers and addressing unfair practices, critics warn they risk increasing consumer prices, disrupting international supply chains and encouraging trading partners to deepen economic relationships outside the United States.

As legal challenges, diplomatic negotiations and commercial adjustments continue to unfold, the future direction of global trade policy remains one of the defining economic questions facing international markets.

Checkout Our Latest News On>>