New U.S. Tariffs in the
Name of Forced Labor

← Back to Latin America News

On June 2, 2026, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) proposed additional tariffs of 10 to 12.5 percent on 60 countries it found to have insufficient controls over forced-labor imports, as the result of an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Mexico and Ecuador were placed in the 10 percent group alongside Canada, the EU, Indonesia, and Pakistan. The tariffs are not yet in effect; they will be finalized after a comment deadline of July 6 and a public hearing on July 7. It is another step forward in Washington's practice of wielding trade law as diplomatic leverage.

What Happened

The logic of a Section 301 investigation does not directly question each country's domestic labor situation. The yardstick is whether a country can prevent forced-labor goods from flowing into the U.S. through its own supply chains. Mexico and Canada were placed in the 10 percent group not because forced labor is taking place in their own factories, but because, in USTR's judgment, they impose a forced-labor import ban yet do not effectively enforce it. USTR's notice does not name China; the reasons it cites are four points, including that the failure contributes to the circumvention of existing forced-labor import prohibitions. The 60 targeted economies include 17 from Latin America and the Caribbean — Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela — of which Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala fall in the 10 percent group and the rest in the 12.5 percent group.

Because Canada and Mexico, which share the USMCA (the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), fall into the same category, this creates a complex legal situation in which the agreement's labor chapter and the Section 301 measure stand side by side. The two countries' statements at the July hearing will shape the final outcome.

Background

Ecuador's position is worth noting. From 2024 to 2026, Ecuador strengthened its security cooperation with the United States in response to worsening public safety and the rise of drug cartels. Yet this tariff proposal shows that Washington is applying pressure along an axis separate from security solidarity. Because the proposed additional duties apply to all Ecuadorian products except excluded items, its main exports — bananas, shrimp, and cacao — would also be covered.

The Ecuadorian government has long walked a tightrope, deepening ties with China while maintaining security cooperation with the United States. This proposal drives a new wedge into that balance.

The Argument / The Contrast

Section 301 has traditionally targeted intellectual-property infringement (the China tariffs of 2018 to 2019 are the classic example) and unfair trade practices. This time it uses Section 301 through the lens of forced-labor import controls, expanding the target to 60 economies at once. USTR's own notice does not name China, though some practitioners see an aim of closing routes used to circumvent UFLPA-based restrictions on China. What matters for Latin America is the precedent it sets: gaps in forced-labor import controls could expose the region's export industries as a whole to tariff risk.

Rather than the 10 percent group, Brazil is classified among the 46 economies deemed not to impose a forced-labor import ban at all, and is proposed for the heavier 12.5 percent additional duty. It is not that Brazil "could become a future subject of investigation" — it is already among the targets. The region as a whole has entered a phase where it cannot ignore the expanding reach of Section 301. Even if the tariffs ultimately take effect, the degree of impact will vary widely by industry. Agricultural exports would face a direct rise in costs, while manufacturing could in some cases respond by strengthening certificates of origin or changing suppliers.

The Author's View

What caught my attention in this news was the structure in which the words 'forced labor,' a human-rights term, are being used as a bargaining chip in trade. Repurposing human-rights norms for international pressure is nothing new, but when it merges with tariffs, a tool of economics, the protection of the very workers who should be safeguarded recedes into the background, and the issue easily slides into a story about the balance of power between states. I get the sense that the reality of the people working at the far end of supply chains becomes harder to see amid arguments about numbers and percentages.

The people working on banana plantations, in shrimp-processing plants, and in small roadside workshops within the targeted industries are the ones who stand to lose if the tariffs take effect and exports shrink. If we truly want to improve their working conditions, what is needed is the patient work of strengthening local oversight, wages, and safety, rather than choking off exports through tariffs. The more socially vulnerable a person is, the more easily they are left behind in these institutional gaps, their voices unheard. Are policies that speak of human rights leaving the very people behind? I want to follow the July hearing closely to see how far that question is actually addressed.

Glossary

Section 301 of the Trade Act: a U.S. domestic-law provision that allows the United States to take corrective measures, such as tariffs, against foreign trade practices it deems unfair. UFLPA (Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act): a U.S. law that, in principle, presumes products linked to China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to be made with forced labor and bans their import. USMCA: the free-trade agreement among the United States, Mexico, and Canada that replaced NAFTA, including a chapter on worker protection.

Using forced labor, a human-rights norm, as the trigger for trade law: U.S. diplomacy is moving across the border between law enforcement and economic pressure.

※ This article is the author’s commentary based on public information. Please confirm the latest figures, dates and procedures with governments and primary sources. Quotations are kept minimal and sources are cited.