Two New Section 301 Investigations, 60+ Countries, and a July Deadline: What Importers Need to Know

Key Takeaways

On March 11 and 12, 2026, USTR launched two separate Section 301 investigations targeting a combined 60+ economies. These are the broadest use of Section 301 trade law authority in recent memory.
Investigation 1 (March 11): Structural excess manufacturing capacity. Targets 16 economies including China, the EU, Japan, South Korea, India, Mexico, Vietnam, and others. Covers sectors like steel, aluminum, automobiles, batteries, semiconductors, electronics, chemicals, solar, and ships.
Investigation 2 (March 12): Forced labor enforcement failures. Targets 60 economies for allegedly failing to impose or enforce bans on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.
These investigations are widely understood as the mechanism to replace IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The timeline is designed to produce actionable tariffs before the temporary Section 122 tariff authority expires on July 24, 2026.
The comment deadline was April 15, 2026. Public hearings begin April 28 (forced labor) and May 5 (excess capacity). Tariff action could follow within weeks of the hearings.
For importers, this means: the current 10% Section 122 tariff is temporary, but it is not going away. It is being replaced with Section 301 tariffs that could be higher, more targeted, and more durable. Some countries could face tariffs from both investigations simultaneously.

Who This Is For

This post is for importers, exporters, freight forwarders, customs brokers, and supply chain managers with sourcing exposure to any of the 60+ economies under investigation. If you import goods from China, the EU, Vietnam, India, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, or Southeast Asia, this directly affects your cost planning and sourcing strategy.

Why This Is Happening: The IEEPA Replacement Timeline

The Section 301 investigations are the next step in a sequence that started with the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, ruling:

February 20: Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs. President Trump terminates them via Executive Order the same day.
February 24: Trump imposes a temporary 10% tariff on most imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 has a statutory maximum duration of 150 days and a maximum rate of 15%.
March 11-12: USTR launches two Section 301 investigations, explicitly designed to rebuild the tariff architecture on more durable legal footing.
July 24, 2026: Section 122 authority expires (150 days from February 24). If Section 301 tariffs are not in place by this date, imports would revert to pre-IEEPA duty rates (plus any existing Section 232 and prior Section 301 tariffs on China).

USTR Jamieson Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have both publicly stated that the investigations will be conducted on an “accelerated timeline” of approximately five months, targeting completion before the Section 122 expiration.

The practical implication: the tariff burden on U.S. imports is not disappearing. It is being restructured. The question is not whether tariffs will exist in August 2026, but what rate, on which goods, from which countries, and under what legal authority.

Investigation 1: Structural Excess Manufacturing Capacity

Economies targeted (16): China, European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, India.

Sectors flagged: Aluminum, automobiles, batteries, cement, chemicals, electronics, energy goods, glass, machine tools, machinery, non-ferrous metals, paper, plastics, processed food and beverages, robotics, satellites, semiconductors, ships, solar modules, steel, transportation equipment.

The theory of the case: USTR alleges these economies are “producing more goods than they can consume domestically,” creating structural surpluses that displace U.S. production or prevent U.S. manufacturing investment. The investigation cites persistent trade surpluses, underutilized capacity, and government policies that “untether” production levels from market demand.

Specific examples cited by USTR:

Germany’s goods trade surplus reached 5.6% of GDP in 2024, with a bilateral surplus of $102 billion with the U.S.
Ireland’s goods trade surplus was $97 billion (15.9% of GDP) in 2024.
India’s solar module manufacturing capacity is cited as nearly triple domestic demand, with surpluses also flagged in steel and petrochemicals.

Key dates:

Comment deadline: April 15, 2026
Public hearing: May 5-8, 2026
Post-hearing rebuttals: Seven calendar days after last hearing day

Investigation 2: Forced Labor Enforcement

Economies targeted (60+): All 16 economies from Investigation 1, plus 44 additional countries. The full list includes virtually every major manufacturing and sourcing economy worldwide.

The theory of the case: USTR alleges these economies have failed to impose or effectively enforce prohibitions on importing goods produced with forced labor. This is a compliance-based investigation, not just a trade surplus argument.

Key dates:

Comment deadline: April 15, 2026
Public hearing: April 28 – May 1, 2026
Post-hearing rebuttals: Seven calendar days after last hearing day

Double jeopardy risk: Countries named in both investigations could face tariffs from each. China, the EU, India, Vietnam, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and most of the 16 excess-capacity targets are also named in the forced labor investigation. In theory, a single country’s goods could be subject to tariffs under two separate Section 301 findings, in addition to existing Section 232 (steel/aluminum) and prior Section 301 (China tech) tariffs.

What Section 301 Tariffs Could Look Like

Section 301 authorizes USTR to impose tariffs “equivalent in value to the burden or restriction” that the foreign country’s practices impose on U.S. commerce. There is no statutory cap on the tariff rate (unlike Section 122’s 15% maximum).

For reference:

Existing Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods range from 7.5% to 100%, depending on the product tranche and sector.
The IEEPA tariffs that were struck down ranged from 10% to 60%+ depending on the country.
Section 122 currently imposes a flat 10%.

It is plausible that Section 301 tariffs could be calibrated to match or exceed the IEEPA rates they are designed to replace. If USTR finds in the affirmative on both investigations for a given country, the combined tariff rate could be substantial.

There is no official guidance yet on proposed tariff rates. These will not be known until USTR completes its investigations and announces proposed actions, likely after the May hearings.

What This Means for Supply Chain Planning

The tariff landscape is not stabilizing. It is being rebuilt.

Importers who assumed the Supreme Court ruling would reduce their tariff burden are discovering the opposite. The 10% Section 122 tariff was a bridge. Section 301 tariffs will be the permanent (or at least more durable) structure. Planning around a tariff-free or low-tariff future for imports from the investigated countries is not realistic.

Sourcing diversification may not help as much as expected.

The traditional response to China-specific tariffs has been to shift sourcing to Vietnam, India, Southeast Asia, or Mexico. But all of these countries are named in one or both investigations. If Section 301 tariffs are applied broadly to the excess capacity targets, the tariff gap between China and “China+1” alternatives narrows, potentially reducing the economic benefit of diversification.

The forced labor investigation creates compliance exposure.

The forced labor investigation is not just about tariffs. It signals that the U.S. is expanding its enforcement focus beyond China’s Xinjiang region (already covered under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act) to a global standard. Importers sourcing from any of the 60 named economies should review their supply chain due diligence for forced labor risk, regardless of whether tariffs are ultimately imposed.

The July 24 deadline creates a planning window.

Between now and late July, importers have roughly three and a half months to assess exposure, model cost scenarios, and make sourcing or procurement adjustments. After that, the tariff landscape could shift again, potentially with limited notice between proposed and final action.

What to Do Now

Inventory your exposure. Identify which of your sourced goods fall within the sectors flagged by USTR (steel, aluminum, auto, batteries, electronics, chemicals, solar, semiconductors, etc.) and which originate from the 16 excess capacity or 60 forced labor economies.

Model cost scenarios. If Section 301 tariffs match or exceed prior IEEPA rates (10-60%), what does that do to your landed cost by product line and origin country? Run the numbers now while there is still time to adjust procurement.

Review sourcing alternatives. If your “China+1” strategy relies on a country also named in the investigations, evaluate whether the tariff advantage survives. Canada is notably absent from the excess capacity investigation (though it was subject to IEEPA tariffs), which may create relative advantage for Canadian-origin goods.

Monitor the public hearings. The May 5-8 (excess capacity) and April 28 – May 1 (forced labor) hearings will provide the first indication of USTR’s direction. Industry associations and legal advisors will be filing comments and testimony. Track these for signals about which sectors and countries are most likely to face action.

Preserve IEEPA refund rights. If you are also pursuing IEEPA tariff refunds through the CAPE system (covered in our IEEPA refund guide), note that Section 301 tariffs are separate. Refunds of IEEPA duties do not reduce your exposure to new Section 301 duties on the same goods.

Operational Note: When tariff rates change across multiple origin countries simultaneously, the shipments most affected are those already in transit or booked before the effective date. Knowing which containers are on the water, from which origin, carrying which commodity, and arriving when helps procurement and compliance teams model their exposure before goods hit customs, not after.

What to Watch

May hearings (April 28 – May 8). These are the first public forums where USTR will signal its approach. Watch for which sectors and countries receive the most attention.
Post-hearing timeline. USTR has signaled an accelerated process but has not invoked any formal expedited procedures. The gap between hearings and proposed action could be weeks, not months.
July 24, 2026. The Section 122 tariff expires. If Section 301 tariffs are not finalized by this date, there could be a brief gap in tariff coverage, or the administration may seek to extend or modify the Section 122 authority.
Section 122 legal challenge. Twenty-four states have filed suit to block the Section 122 tariff. If successful, it could create a tariff gap before Section 301 is ready.
Retaliatory measures. China and the EU have both signaled they may respond. China has already opened probes into U.S. trading practices. Retaliatory tariffs could affect U.S. exporters, adding another cost variable to the trade landscape.