USTR “Section 301” Forced Labor Determinations Irreparably Flawed and Do Not Justify Imposition of Tariffs

July 6, 2026
Ed Gresser

Members of the 301 Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the Progressive Policy Institute on the tariffs recommended in USTR’s June 2 “Section 301” report entitled “Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor.”

By way of introduction, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit thinktank, established in 1989 and led by President Will Marshall, and publishes on a wide range of public policy topics. PPI has participated in U.S. trade policy debates since its founding, through public commentary, Congressional testimony, convenings, and participation in TPSC and U.S. Trade Representative Office hearings. I have served as PPI’s Vice President since 2021, and direct research and publishing on trade policy and global economy topics. Before joining PPI, I served as Assistant USTR for Policy and Economics, with responsibility for overseeing agency economic research and use of trade data, chairing the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee, and administering the Generalized System of Preferences. The latter role included work with the Office of Labor Affairs and other USTR offices on GSP’s labor standards criterion, including an eventually successful benefit review for Uzbekistan related to forced labor in cotton harvesting.

USTR’s Report covers 60 economies, together providing about 97% of U.S. goods imports. It recommends imposing tariffs of 12.5% on goods from 54 of these economies, and 10% on goods from the other six. Extrapolating from last year’s attempt to impose a 10% worldwide “International Emergency Economic Powers Act” tariff, this will likely cost American goodsbuyers about $100 billion annually — a very large figure, over 100 times the average value of imported goods CBP blocks each year on suspicion of forced labor content. We believe the report does not make the case for such an action. My testimony explains this by examining four topics:

The apparent goal of this investigation, as set out early this year by senior administration officials, which we believe inconsistent with the purpose of the statute and a breach of the separation of powers;
The Report’s assertions about the 60 economies’ alleged imports of goods made with the use of forced labor, which appear to us to lack factual evidence;
The Report’s argument that flows of goods made with forced labor impose a burden on American commerce, which likewise appears to lack factual evidence; and
The appropriate approach for administrations wishing to create new U.S. tariff rates.