US Opens Forced Labor Trade Probes Into 60 Economies as South Korea Faces Dual Scrutiny

Sixty Economies Face a New US Trade Test

The United States opened investigations into 60 economies on March 12, 2026, examining whether their governments have failed to ban imports made with forced labor. The economies covered accounted for more than 99 percent of US imports in 2024, according to official statements, putting nearly the entire American import market within reach of possible new trade measures.

South Korea, China, Japan, India and the European Union are among those facing scrutiny under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced the investigations as the Trump administration sought new legal grounds for trade pressure after the Supreme Court struck down its emergency tariff authority on February 20.

The action came one day after the Office of the United States Trade Representative, known as USTR, opened separate investigations into structural excess manufacturing capacity in 16 economies. South Korea is included in both. Its exporters now face two investigations that could lead to tariffs or other restrictions, while Seoul seeks to preserve the benefits of its trade arrangements with Washington.

The forced labor investigation focuses on what governments allow into their markets. USTR will examine whether each economy has adopted and effectively enforced prohibitions on goods produced through coercion, including goods arriving from other countries. Officials argue that allowing those products into supply chains gives producers an artificial cost advantage over American businesses.

USTR has requested consultations with all 60 governments. Written comments and requests to appear at the forced labor hearings are due on April 15, with hearings scheduled for April 28. Greer hopes proposed remedies can be ready before temporary US tariffs expire in July, although he has acknowledged uncertainty about that timing.

What the Forced Labor Investigation Examines

USTR defines forced labor as work or service demanded from someone under the threat of a penalty for refusing, and performed involuntarily. In simple terms, a person is made to work and faces punishment for saying no.

The United States has prohibited imports made with forced labor for nearly a century under the Tariff Act of 1930. The prohibition reflects both concern for people subjected to coercion and concern about competition: a producer that exploits workers can keep labor costs artificially low.

USTR's notice argues that governments permitting goods made with forced labor to enter their markets can give domestic manufacturers an unfair advantage. A manufacturer may benefit from cheaper materials or components made through coercion, while American competitors must meet higher labor standards. USTR says that this distorts competition and threatens US workers and businesses.

The investigations will therefore examine both laws and enforcement. Officials will look at whether governments prohibit these imports and whether they actively enforce those prohibitions at borders and within supply chains. Under the statutory test, USTR must determine whether the relevant acts, policies or practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and whether they burden or restrict US commerce.

Greer, the US trade representative, explained the administration's position when announcing the investigations:

Despite the international consensus against forced labor, governments have failed to impose and effectively enforce measures banning goods produced with forced labor from entering their markets. For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor.

His statement presents the investigations as an effort to protect both workers subjected to exploitation and American firms competing against goods produced at artificially low cost.

Which Economies Are Covered?

The 60 economies include traditional US allies, strategic competitors and trading partners across Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas and the Middle East. The investigation reaches far beyond any single country or manufacturing region.

The complete list is Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela and Vietnam.

USTR says none of these 60 economies appear to have both adopted and effectively enforced comprehensive prohibitions to date. That assessment puts enforcement at the center of the proceedings, including for governments that already have legislation addressing forced labor imports.

Why the Supreme Court Ruling Matters

The Supreme Court's February 20 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump removed the legal foundation for a central part of the administration's tariff program. In a 6-3 ruling, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The ruling invalidated the emergency tariffs set for individual countries, including a baseline duty of 10 percent and higher reciprocal rates. Those reciprocal tariffs had applied different rates to different trading partners and had been a cornerstone of the administration's trade policy.

President Donald Trump responded by immediately imposing temporary tariffs of 10 percent under Section 122 of the Trade Act. That provision allows a short term import surcharge to address a balance of payments deficit, an imbalance in a country's financial transactions with the rest of the world. The temporary tariffs were later increased to 15 percent.

Section 122 has limits that make it a temporary solution. It caps the tariff rate at 15 percent and limits the measures to 150 days without an extension from Congress. The temporary measures are scheduled to expire in July, giving the administration a deadline as it seeks other legal foundations for its trade agenda.

Section 301 offers a different route. It permits investigations into foreign acts, policies or practices considered unjustifiable, unreasonable or discriminatory. Possible responses include tariffs, import restrictions or binding agreements with the governments concerned.

Unlike the temporary Section 122 measures, tariffs arising from Section 301 investigations do not carry the same time limits or percentage caps. Section 302(b) also allows USTR to start investigations itself, without waiting for a petition from a private business or other applicant. Greer used that authority for both the forced labor and manufacturing capacity investigations.

Legal analysts see the administration as seeking to reproduce the scale and reach of the invalidated IEEPA tariffs through these alternative powers. The investigations provide the process through which USTR can examine foreign practices and decide whether remedies are warranted.

South Korea Seeks Equal Treatment

South Korea's Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources said on Friday, March 13, that Seoul would remain in close consultation with Washington. The ministry called for equitable treatment compared with other major economies, balanced benefits from existing trade agreements and treatment no less favorable than that given to comparable countries.

Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo described the USTR action as an attempt to restore trade measures previously imposed through reciprocal tariffs. Korean exports had faced duties of 15 percent under that system before the Supreme Court ruling.

South Korea's immediate position was described as facing the temporary global tariff of 10 percent imposed after the IEEPA decision, while the broader account of the administration's response also records a later increase in the temporary tariff to 15 percent. The Section 301 investigations create a route to renewed higher tariffs or negotiated arrangements.

Seoul has stressed its commitment to the existing trade agreement with Washington, signed during previous negotiations. Officials are seeking clarity on how the investigations would interact with those commitments while pursuing diplomatic engagement rather than public confrontation.

For Korean exporters, the concern is that either investigation, or both, could produce additional trade costs. The government's approach is to demonstrate compliance or negotiate changes before USTR reaches final determinations.

A Second Investigation Targets Manufacturing Capacity

USTR's March 11 investigation into structural excess manufacturing capacity covers 16 economies, including South Korea, China, the European Union, Japan, India, Mexico, Taiwan and Vietnam. It examines whether production capacity disconnected from actual demand creates unfair trade advantages.

Excess capacity means that factories have the ability to produce more than buyers need. The inquiry concerns whether that gap is structural, rather than simply a brief slowdown in sales, and whether it affects competition in international trade.

USTR specifically identified South Korea as having structural excess capacity in various manufacturing sectors alongside persistent trade surpluses with the United States. A trade surplus means South Korea sells more goods to the United States than it buys from it.

South Korea's automobiles, electronics and semiconductors are considered particularly exposed to possible findings on excess capacity. Korean manufacturers export substantial volumes in these categories to the United States, making the outcomes economically important for businesses in both countries.

USTR's notice also raised concerns about the global automotive sector. It referred to capacity utilization below a healthy threshold of approximately 80 percent as an indication of overproduction. Capacity utilization measures how much of a factory's potential output is actually being used.

The two investigations examine different practices. The manufacturing inquiry concerns production capacity and demand, while the forced labor inquiry concerns whether governments stop imports made through coercion. South Korea and other economies named in both must respond to each set of concerns.

Other Governments Prepare Their Responses

Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry said it would engage directly with USTR over the investigation. It also pointed to Singapore's trade deficit of 34 billion Singapore dollars with the United States and healthy industrial occupancy rates.

Singapore's deficit means it buys more from the United States than it sells to it. Its reference to industrial occupancy addresses the use of industrial premises, a different measure from the factory capacity utilization cited in USTR's automotive concerns.

The Philippines, through Malacañang Palace, said it would monitor the process and actively participate to address American concerns. India also faces scrutiny in both the forced labor and excess capacity investigations, creating exposure to possible remedies under each.

Governments across the list are preparing responses ranging from cooperative engagement to explanations defending their existing policies. USTR's consultation requests give those governments an opportunity to discuss the concerns alongside the public process for evidence and arguments.

Diplomacy with China is proceeding at the same time. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is scheduled to meet Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Paris during the coming week. The talks could help set conditions for a summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Those discussions sit alongside the broader Section 301 proceedings. The administration is pursuing pressure through investigations covering many economies while also negotiating directly with individual governments.

How the New Cases Differ From Nicaragua

The forced labor investigations follow a recent Section 301 case involving labor rights and human rights in Nicaragua. In 2024, the Biden administration launched the first investigation under the provision specifically targeting violations in those areas.

That investigation examined repression of collective bargaining, child labor, human trafficking and the dismantling of protections for the rule of law. Collective bargaining is the process through which workers negotiate employment terms together, usually through a union.

USTR ultimately found Nicaragua's practices unreasonable and burdensome to US commerce. It introduced a phased tariff remedy scheduled to reach 15 percent by 2028.

The new investigations have a different focus and a much wider reach. Nicaragua's earlier case concerned labor practices inside Nicaragua. The March 12 investigations concern whether governments prevent goods made with forced labor, including goods from other countries, from entering their markets.

That approach creates a form of trade pressure requiring governments to police imports linked to exploitation outside their own borders or face possible American measures. It also makes border enforcement central to the inquiry, alongside the wording of national laws.

Existing Bans and the Scale of Forced Labor

Canada prohibited imports made with forced labor in July 2020 under commitments in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known as USMCA. Mexico implemented similar bans under the same agreement.

The European Union adopted its Forced Labour Regulation in December 2024. The regulation prohibits the sale, import and export of goods produced using forced labor throughout the single market.

USTR nevertheless says none of the 60 economies appear to have both adopted and effectively enforced comprehensive prohibitions. Canada, Mexico and the European Union illustrate why the proceedings will examine practical enforcement as well as legislation.

The International Labour Organization estimates that approximately 28 million people worldwide were in forced labor in 2021. That was an increase of 2.7 million from 2016, driven entirely by exploitation in the private sector.

Using those figures, the estimated total in 2016 was approximately 25.3 million. The increase to 28 million represents growth of about 11 percent over five years, showing that the problem expanded even as governments maintained an international consensus against it.

USTR links that human harm to the cost of producing traded goods. Workers subjected to coercion can be used to make cheaper inputs or finished products, affecting competitors elsewhere through international supply chains.

What Businesses and Trading Partners Face Next

USTR has identified tariffs and direct import restrictions as possible remedies in the forced labor investigations. The response will depend on whether it finds foreign practices actionable under Section 301 and what remedy it considers appropriate. No final tariff rates, import restrictions or completion date have been decided.

Tariffs would add a charge to affected imports, while import restrictions could limit which goods enter the United States. Either could disrupt supply chains involving the 60 investigated economies, which together represented more than 99 percent of American imports in 2024.

Companies with manufacturing operations, sourcing relationships or dependence on imports from those economies are assessing their exposure. Businesses also face the need to demonstrate that their supply chains exclude goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or partly through coerced labor to avoid possible exclusion from the American market.

The reference to goods made partly with forced labor extends the concern to materials and components, rather than only the final item a company buys. That makes the origin of inputs relevant to businesses whose products pass through several countries before reaching the United States.

The dates announced so far show how closely the trade proceedings follow the court decision:

• February 20, 2026: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs, prompting a shift to temporary Section 122 tariffs.
• March 11, 2026: USTR opens excess manufacturing capacity investigations into 16 economies.
• March 12, 2026: USTR opens forced labor import investigations into 60 economies.
• March 13, 2026: South Korea's trade ministry sets out its approach of consultation and equitable treatment.
• April 15, 2026: Written comments and requests to appear at the forced labor hearings are due.
• April 28, 2026: Public hearings on the forced labor investigations are scheduled.
• May 5, 2026: Hearings on the excess capacity investigations are scheduled.
• July 2026: The temporary Section 122 tariffs are scheduled to expire.

Greer's hope of reaching proposed remedies before July creates a narrow period for public participation and diplomacy. South Korea's effort to protect existing trade commitments, other governments' responses and the planned US-China talks will all proceed while USTR examines the two sets of trade concerns.

The Essentials

• USTR opened Section 301 investigations into 60 economies on March 12, examining whether they prohibit and effectively stop imports made with forced labor.
• The economies covered accounted for more than 99 percent of US imports in 2024.
• South Korea also faces a separate excess manufacturing capacity investigation launched March 11 into 16 economies.
• The investigations follow the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling against tariffs imposed under IEEPA.
• Possible remedies include tariffs and import restrictions. Final measures have not been decided.
• Forced labor comments and hearing requests are due April 15. Hearings are scheduled for April 28, followed by excess capacity hearings on May 5.
• Greer hopes proposed remedies can be ready before temporary Section 122 tariffs expire in July.
• The International Labour Organization estimated 28 million people were in forced labor in 2021, up 2.7 million from 2016.
• Bessent and He Lifeng are scheduled to meet in Paris during the coming week as trade diplomacy continues.