Trump administration slaps fresh tariffs on 60 trading partners including Russia and China

The Trump administration has announced a fresh round of import duties on goods from 60 trading partners, with Russia and China placed in the highest tariff band of 12.5 per cent, as the White House moved to expand its trade war on the eve of a court-imposed deadline. The decision, confirmed by the Department of Commerce and reported by CNN, means that 99.4 per cent of all imports into the United States will now be subject to the new levies, which range between 10 and 12.5 per cent depending on the country of origin. In a statement justifying the measure, administration officials argued that the targeted nations had either failed to introduce or were not adequately enforcing prohibitions on the importation of goods produced using forced labour, a rationale that has drawn both praise from human rights advocates and scepticism from trade economists who question its consistency with World Trade Organisation rules.

Under the new tariff regime, imports from the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland will attract duties of either 10 or 12.5 per cent, with the precise rate determined by existing trade arrangements and bilateral tariff schedules, according to Commerce Department guidance issued late on Wednesday. The inclusion of Russia and China in the 12.5 per cent category marks a significant escalation in Washington’s trade posture, particularly given that both countries were conspicuously absent from the sweeping tariff lists published in the spring of 2025, when President Trump first launched his global trade offensive. That earlier wave of duties, which covered imports from nearly every nation worldwide, was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court, which ruled the tariffs unlawful and ordered their rescission by 24 July 2026, a deadline that appears to have prompted the administration’s latest manoeuvre.

The legal backdrop to the new measures is itself a matter of considerable interest to trade lawyers and diplomats alike, given that the Supreme Court’s ruling had been widely interpreted as a decisive rebuke to the president’s unilateral tariff authority. Having reviewed the court’s judgment, constitutional scholars had suggested that any further attempt to impose sweeping import duties would require explicit congressional authorisation, a condition that the administration appears to have circumvented by reframing the tariffs as a response to forced labour practices rather than as a general trade remedy. Whether this recharacterisation will withstand judicial scrutiny remains an open question, with legal observers anticipating an almost immediate challenge from affected trading partners and domestic importers who stand to bear the additional costs.

The decision to impose differential rates has also raised eyebrows among trade analysts, who note that the 10 per cent tariff applied to European and Asian allies sits alongside the higher 12.5 per cent levy reserved for Russia and China, a distinction that appears to reflect both geopolitical considerations and the administration’s stated focus on labour rights enforcement. For the European Union, whose member states have long maintained their own robust anti-forced-labour regulations, the imposition of even a 10 per cent duty has been characterised by Brussels officials as disproportionate and unjustified, with early indications suggesting that formal complaints to the WTO are being prepared. Similarly, Japan and South Korea, both close security allies of the United States, are said to be deeply frustrated by the measure, which threatens to disrupt supply chains in sectors ranging from electronics to automotive manufacturing.

The inclusion of Switzerland, a non-EU European nation with strong trade ties to Washington, has further complicated the diplomatic landscape, as Bern has traditionally enjoyed preferential access to the American market under bilateral agreements that the new tariffs now appear to override. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s inclusion in the 10 per cent band has been interpreted in some quarters as a signal of continued US support for the island’s economic integration, even as the higher rate applied to China underscores the administration’s determination to maintain economic pressure on Beijing. For Russia, which has been subject to extensive sanctions since its invasion of Ukraine, the additional tariff is likely to have a marginal economic impact compared to existing restrictions, but it carries significant symbolic weight, reinforcing Washington’s stance on labour rights and geopolitical accountability.

The timing of the announcement, coming on the very day that the Supreme Court’s deadline for the rescission of the earlier tariffs took effect, has led some commentators to characterise the move as a defiant end-run around judicial authority, though administration spokespersons have insisted that the new duties are legally distinct from those previously struck down. In a briefing to reporters, a senior Commerce Department official argued that the forced labour justification provided a fresh and lawful basis for the tariffs, distinguishing them from the broader trade measures that the court had found unconstitutional. Critics, however, have pointed out that the administration had made no mention of forced labour concerns during the spring 2025 rollout, raising questions about the genuine motivation behind the latest escalation.

As the international community absorbs the implications of the announcement, trading partners are already calculating the potential damage to their export-oriented industries, with the European Commission reportedly convening emergency meetings to coordinate a response. For American businesses, particularly those reliant on imported components from China and the EU, the new duties threaten to increase production costs at a time of already elevated inflation, while consumers may face higher prices for a wide range of goods, from consumer electronics to automobiles. The Supreme Court, having already delivered one landmark ruling on the matter, may soon be called upon again to determine the legality of the administration’s latest gambit, ensuring that the trade war remains not only an economic contest but a constitutional one as well.