In brief
President Trump’s administration has slapped new duties between 10% and 12.5% onto imports from 60 key trading partners, including the UK, China and the EU. The move replaces a short‑lived 10% levy that expired on Friday and is billed as a response to forced labour violations, though critics argue it is a political tool. The tariffs will affect roughly 99.4% of U.S. imports and could spur businesses to seek alternative markets, while China, Japan and Australia have already denounced the measures. The U.N. and several human‑rights groups are weighing in on the forced labour claims, and U.S. trade experts scramble to assess the long‑term economic fallout.
23 July 2026, Updated 6 hours ago
By Michael Race, Francisco Velasquez, Jemma Crew & Osmond Chia
The United States has announced new duties from 10% to 12.5% on almost every import from 60 trading partners as a part of the administration’s ongoing trade war. The tariffs target major economies – the United Kingdom, China, the European Union, Brazil and Canada – and replace the temporary 10% levy that expired on Friday, which was itself a replacement for the earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the move is justified by a failure of partner countries to curb forced labour in their supply chains. The new duties will affect 99.4% of U.S. imports, but critics say the rationale is political and designed to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and reduce the trade deficit. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the “action will begin to correct what is a human‑rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere.”
Caroline Freund, a trade‑policy analyst from UC San Diego, noted that Trump is “looking for a legal reason to put the tariffs in” and that the policy is not truly driven by labour concerns. The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that many emergency‑power tariffs were illegal has added to the controversy.
For countries that have “made commitments to adopt and enforce bans on forced‑labour imports,” the duty will be the lower 10% rate, while others will face 12.5%. China has denied any forced labour practices, claiming the tariffs are “political manipulation.” Japan and Australia have called the levies “unjustified.”
The business community in Britain has expressed concerns over the higher tariffs that now sit on top of existing duties. William Bain of the British Chambers of Commerce said the UK has lost its comparative advantage against the EU, which enjoys a 10% all‑inclusive deal. Directors in the UK trade policy sector note that while the new tariffs risk hurting exporters, they are unlikely to trigger immediate strategic shifts for most firms, according to David Henig.
Economic experts warn that the increase could raise costs for consumers and businesses alike; Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute claims that exemption lists may soften the impact, yet the bulk of goods will still attract the higher duties.
The tariffs signal a return to higher duties after last year’s war‑like escalations and may prompt trading partners to diversify markets. Analyst Sharon McCall predicts that more U.S. tariffs are likely as the administration investigates 16 countries over manufacturing overcapacity concerns.
Overall, the U.S. move solidifies a hard‑line stance on trade, reviving earlier tariffs while presenting itself as a defender of human rights. Its effectiveness and international backlash remain to be seen as the global economic landscape adjusts to the new, sharper barriers.
