“This is a blatant attempt to bring back Donald Trump’s illegal global tariffs under a different name,” said Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. “These new tariffs will continue to drive up inflation and prices for Americans, while doing nothing to help workers around the world.” The Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy organization, has already filed a lawsuit against the new tariffs in a court specializing in trade cases.
Trump’s strategy of imposing high tariffs, aimed at reviving American manufacturing, also carries political risks for the president. Americans are already unhappy with the high cost of living as the country prepares for the November 3 election, which will determine whether Trump’s Republicans retain full control of Congress.
HOW DO TRUMP’S NEW TARIFFS DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS ONES?
The new tariffs range from 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, including major U.S. trading partners such as the European Union, India, Japan, Canada and Mexico. The 12.5% rate applies to countries that do not have laws prohibiting imports produced with forced labor. The 10% rate applies to countries that have restrictions on imports produced with forced labor but that the Trump administration says do not effectively enforce them. Trump has exempted several products from the new tariffs, including oil, fertilizers, imports that are treated favorably under the North American Free Trade Agreement, and products such as steel and aluminum, which are already subject to tariffs imposed for national security reasons.
The new tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs and sanctions on countries deemed to have unfair trade practices. Trump used the same provision during his first term to impose steep tariffs on China, which survived legal challenges. Meanwhile, businesses — and therefore consumers — continue to pay the cost of other tariffs imposed earlier. During his second term, Trump imposed tariffs on imported cars, steel, aluminum, lumber and even kitchen cabinets, using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
For much of last year, Trump also imposed so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every country in the world using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, those tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court in February, forcing the administration to return billions of dollars in refunds. The previous 10% tariff, which expired on Friday, was imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs to be imposed only for a period of up to 150 days.
WHAT BUSINESSES SAY
The new tariffs were widely expected, and many companies prepared by increasing imports ahead of their implementation. The National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates predicted that import volumes at major U.S. ports would hit a record high in July as retailers stocked up to protect themselves from the tariff hike. According to Oxford Economics, because the new tariffs are so close to the previous 10% rate, the immediate impact on the average U.S. tariff level will not be significant. However, businesses remain concerned about the possibility of additional Section 301 tariffs.
The National Retail Federation warned that higher tariffs mean higher costs for businesses and higher prices for consumers. The organization called on the administration to focus on trade deals that lower tariffs, not raise them.
Matt Priest, president of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers Association, said manufacturers have been raising prices for months because of the expected tariffs. In June, he said, shoe prices rose 4.1%, while children’s shoes rose 4.7% compared to June 2025. He expects prices to continue to rise due to higher fuel costs after the war with Iran. “We don’t see anything in the market that is pushing prices down, and that’s concerning,” Priest said.
JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCED LABOR
The Trump administration argues that the new tariffs are necessary because the affected countries have not done enough to ban imports produced with forced labor. “The United States has banned imports produced with forced labor for nearly a century and rigorously enforces this ban. It is time for our trading partners to do the same,” said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
This argument was immediately rejected by trading partners. Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell called the tariffs “completely unjustified,” while EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas questioned this approach, highlighting the very good labor standards in Europe.
There was also criticism in Washington. Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez said that if Trump were serious about fighting forced labor, he would not impose the same 12.5% tariff on both China and Australia. Business groups argue that such tariffs will not solve the global problem of forced labor and are calling for more effective measures.
IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN TREASURY
Previous tariffs imposed under IEEPA brought in significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury and helped fund tax cuts enacted by Trump in 2025. At their peak, revenue from the tariffs reached $31.4 billion last October. After the Supreme Court’s decision to strike them down, revenue fell to $22 billion in March and April.
Then, due to forced refunds, the balance became negative: a $42 million shortfall in May was followed by a $25.6 billion loss in June. The Committee for a Responsible Budget estimates that the new tariffs, along with those announced this month on Canada and Brazil, will make up less than 60% of the revenue that the Treasury lost after the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs.