U.S. Proposes New Tariffs on 60 Economies Over Forced-Labor, Drawing Sharp Rebukes from EU and China

The investigation covered economies accounting for 99.4% of all U.S. imports, underscoring the vast scope of the action . The tariffs will not take effect immediately; the USTR has scheduled a public hearing for July 7, 2026, and opened a public comment period before a final decision is made .

The Exemption Framework

The USTR's official notice states that the proposed duties apply to all products "except as provided in Annex A" . The logic behind the exemption framework is that economies which have credible forced-labor bans or related commitments through a trade deal receive the lower 10% rate. This incentive structure is designed to push partners to adopt policies aligning with U.S. objectives . The complete product-specific list of exemptions is detailed in the annex within the full government filing.

The EU's Forceful Rejection: 'Utterly Absurd'

The EU's response was swift and unambiguous. The European Commission labeled the proposed tariffs "unwarranted" and "unjustified" the following day, on June 3, 2026 . The bloc's objections were twofold: the findings ignore existing law, and the timing is destructive.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, called the U.S. findings "utterly absurd," directly pointing to the EU's own comprehensive 2024 law that already bans imports of forced-labor products . The European Commission echoed this, stating that its rules are among the most stringent in the world for banning such goods .

The proposal's timing sparked particular outrage. The EU noted it undermines existing efforts to implement the Turnberry Agreement, a broader trade deal that includes specific commitments for both sides to cooperate on eliminating forced labor from supply chains . Compounding the perceived contradiction, the European Parliament's trade committee had voted to advance the Turnberry deal’s implementation just one day before the U.S. announced the new forced-labor tariffs .

China's Blanket Denial and Retaliatory Rhetoric

China's rejection was equally firm but rooted in a fundamentally different argument. On June 3, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning stated that China "firmly opposes" the tariffs and urged Washington to resolve trade issues through dialogue rather than unilateral measures .

Beijing's central counter-argument is a complete denial of the underlying accusation. Chinese officials flatly denied the existence of forced labor within its borders, characterizing the U.S. allegations as politically motivated trade aggression . Mao Ning directly accused the U.S. of using the issue as a pretext, stating, "We oppose making up pretext for laying tariffs; we oppose this as a pretext for political manipulation" .

The Chinese government's position frames the tariffs as part of a broader pattern of U.S. protectionism, warning that unilateral measures and trade wars serve no party's interests .

The Perilous Turnberry Context

The forced-labor proposal is not happening in a vacuum. It lands directly in the middle of a fragile transatlantic trade détente known as the Turnberry Agreement. Reached in July 2025 between U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the deal requires the EU to slash tariffs on most U.S. industrial goods to zero, while the U.S. was to cap its tariffs on EU goods at 15% .

This framework was already under severe strain even before the forced-labor action. President Trump had previously given the EU a July 4, 2026, deadline to comply or face significantly higher trade barriers, and in May 2026, he threatened 25% tariffs on European cars and trucks . The EU legislature, wary of the deal's lopsided nature, had just secured safeguards including a "sunset clause" allowing the bloc to terminate the agreement by December 2029 unless it is formally renewed . The new tariff proposal is now seen as a new layer of trade aggression, threatening to derail the EU's ratification process for the Turnberry deal entirely .

The U.S. proposal has created a unifying moment of opposition between Brussels and Beijing, albeit for different reasons: the EU sees an untimely assault on a partner with identical laws, while China sees a fabricated justification for a strategic trade war.