Trump’s July 2026 Section 301 Tariffs: The Full Breakdown of Rates, Exemptions, Revenue, and Global Fallout

This article provides a complete, source-cited breakdown of the two duty rates, the affected countries, exempted product categories, projected revenue, the legal authority shift after the Supreme Court struck down earlier IEEPA tariffs, and the international response.

What Was Announced and When

On June 2, 2026, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) made final findings under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that 60 economies had engaged in unreasonable acts by failing to impose and enforce prohibitions on imports of goods produced with forced labor . The USTR proposed additional duties of 10% or 12.5% on imports from all 60 economies .

On July 23, 2026, the White House confirmed it would impose these tariffs starting just after midnight ET on Friday, July 24, 2026, as a temporary global 10% tariff — imposed under a different legal authority — expired .

The Two Duty Rates and Which Countries Fall Under Each

10% tier — Countries that already maintain their own forced-labor import prohibition, have committed to impose/enforce one through a reciprocal trade agreement with the U.S., or have a partial regime with equivalent effect. This tier covers 13 individual countries plus the European Union (treated as a single customs entity) .

12.5% tier — All other investigated economies that have not taken sufficient action. This is the larger group .

The full list of all 60 economies (published in the USTR's Section 301 Report PDF) includes: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, the European Union, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zambia .

10% tier — confirmed members: The USTR press release and accompanying report do not publish a simple two-column "10% vs. 12.5%" table. However, multiple trade-law analysis firms and news outlets have identified the following economies in the lower tier: Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom .

12.5% tier — the larger group: All remaining investigated economies, including China, India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Switzerland, Australia, Vietnam, and most others on the full list .

Product Categories Exempted

The USTR proposed the duties on "all products of the investigated economies" with two key exceptions :

• Items already subject to Section 232 national security tariffs (steel, aluminum, and certain derivative products) .
• Items listed in Annex A to the Federal Register notice — a specific set of product exclusions that USTR has not published in plain-text summary form but which is incorporated by reference into the official notice . The Dorsey law firm alert notes Annex A exemptions include certain agricultural products, aviation parts and equipment, industrial inputs, minerals, pharmaceutical goods, and goods that are subject to specific trade agreement provisions .

Additionally, the 10% tier benefits from a lower rate, effectively a partial exemption compared to the standard 12.5% .

Projected Revenue Over the Next Decade

Estimates for the new Section 301 tariffs vary across sources but converge on nearly $1 trillion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated that the new Section 301 tariffs would generate approximately $980 billion in revenue over the next decade (roughly $970 billion net after accounting for changes to steel, aluminum, and copper tariffs) .

This figure is distinct from earlier, broader CBO estimates. In 2025, the CBO projected that President Trump's overall tariff agenda (including then-existing IEEPA tariffs) would reduce federal deficits by up to $4 trillion over a decade , and separately estimated tariff revenue at roughly $3 trillion over a decade under prior authorities . The CBO indicated it would issue updated projections once the new Section 301 tariff regime was finalized .

Legal Authorities That Replaced the Earlier Struck-Down Tariffs

The Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's earlier emergency tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) . In response, the administration shifted to two legal workarounds:

1. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — The primary replacement. It allows the USTR to impose duties after an investigation finds unreasonable foreign trade practices. This is the authority used for the forced-labor tariffs on 60 economies .
2. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — Used as a temporary bridge. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, President Trump announced a global 10% tariff under Section 122, which is intended for balance-of-payments emergencies and expires by law after 150 days unless Congress extends it . That 150-day window expired on July 24, 2026, which is why the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs took effect the same day .

In a separate but related action, the administration also used Section 301 to impose 25% tariffs on Brazil based on a separate investigation into digital-services-tax policies .

International and Domestic Response

The new tariffs drew swift criticism from both foreign governments and U.S. lawmakers:

• European Union: EU officials criticized the tariffs as unjustified under WTO rules and signaled potential retaliatory measures. The EU is among the economies in the 10% tier .
• China: Beijing condemned the tariffs as "groundless" and accused the U.S. of using forced-labor allegations as a pretext for protectionism .
• Canada and Mexico: Both countries expressed strong opposition, with Canadian officials noting the irony of being targeted given Canada's own robust forced-labor enforcement regime .
• U.S. domestic criticism: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) called the tariffs "ill-designed" to combat forced labor globally, arguing they would harm U.S. businesses and allies without effectively targeting the worst offenders .
• General trade-partner pushback: Multiple affected nations filed comments during the USTR's public-comment period in June–July 2026, arguing the tariffs violated WTO commitments and that they had adequate forced-labor laws in place .