In order to circumvent the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling of February 2026, which nullified its tariff strategy, the U.S. administration intends to invoke the Trade Act of 1974 to impose punitive tariffs on dozens of countries, alleging their lack of concrete action against forced labor.
Nevertheless, evidence suggests that it is within the North American nation that conditions are being fostered for an increase in labor exploitation exhibiting characteristics inherent to forced labor.
As in the biblical allusion made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, the Trump administration appears to see the mote in another’s eye, while failing to perceive the plank in its own.
I. The USTR Resolution
In mid-March 2026, the government of the United States of America announced that, pursuant to Sections 301(b) et seq. of the Trade Act of 1974, it would initiate investigations against sixty “economies,” all of which maintain commercial relations with the U.S., representing 99% of all goods imported by that country in 2024.
The resolution consistently employs the term “economies” rather than “countries” or similar designations. This implies that not only state entities, but also private actors—such as corporations or other non-governmental bodies—may participate in the process.
Among those under investigation, eighteen belong to the Latin American and Caribbean region: Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
According to Jamieson Greer, who directs the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the activation of the investigation is justified by the lack of effective enforcement of a prohibition on the importation of goods produced through forced labor.
Greer stated that, although most of these nations prohibit forced labor within their territories, their legal frameworks do not prevent companies from importing and selling foreign merchandise manufactured under such conditions.
“For too long, American workers and businesses have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may benefit from an artificial cost advantage derived from the scourge of forced labor,” Greer declared when announcing the application of Section 301(b) of the Trade Act.
II. Scope of the Investigation
According to an analysis by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the aforementioned provisions of the Trade Act are applicable when a law, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.
The same legal provision offers examples of “unreasonable” laws, including the denial of opportunities for business establishment, lack of protection of intellectual property rights, export promotion measures, tolerance of anti-competitive practices by private entities, and denial of workers’ rights.
“Discriminatory” laws, policies, and practices are defined as those that deny national treatment or most-favored-nation treatment to U.S. goods, services, or investments.
When the U.S. administration identifies a policy, law, or practice falling within these categories, it may then adopt measures against the countries involved.
Based on this provision, the USTR has initiated investigations to determine whether the acts, policies, and practices of each of these economies—relating to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor—are unreasonable or discriminatory and whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce.
The law authorizes the USTR to:
- Impose tariffs or other import restrictions;
- Withdraw or suspend trade agreement concessions;
- Enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to eliminate the conduct in question (or the burden on U.S. commerce); or
- Secure compensatory trade benefits satisfactory to the United States.
Upon conclusion of the investigation, should the USTR decide to adopt the corrective measures authorized under Section 301, it typically establishes additional notice-and-comment periods to receive input on the proposed measures.
Once the USTR decides to implement corrective actions, it must do so within thirty days, although options exist to extend this period.
III. Legal Grounds
The administrative resolution initiating the investigative process begins by affirming that for nearly one hundred years, U.S. law has prohibited the importation of goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part through forced labor.
It defines forced labor as: All work or service exacted from a person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which said person has not offered themselves voluntarily.
The resolution also recalls several international legal instruments that prohibit or oppose forced labor, including:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which holds that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude and that slavery and the slave trade are prohibited in all their forms;
- ILO Convention No. 105 (1957) concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour;
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), which establishes that no one shall be compelled to perform forced or compulsory labor;
- The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up (1998), amended in 2022, which includes the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor among its fundamental rights.
It is noteworthy that, in explaining the rationale behind these norms—as well as domestic ones—the resolution identifies three principal motivations: humanitarian concerns, foreign policy considerations, and national security imperatives.
According to the resolution, forced labor exploitation constitutes a threat to domestic enterprises, as they must compete with foreign goods produced under an artificial cost advantage, thereby distorting free competition.
Consequently, eradicating forced labor is declared a key priority and an economic and national security imperative for the United States.
It appears evident that the fundamental concern is not centered on the rights or living and working conditions of individuals, but rather on the impact on the U.S. economy and national security.
In this vein, after asserting that forced labor contaminates the entire supply chain in which it exists, the resolution cites the so-called 2024 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (TVPRA List) of the U.S. Department of Labor.
That list includes 134 products made with forced labor (cotton used to manufacture apparel, textiles, yarn, and thread; critical minerals used to produce solar components or auto parts; fish used to produce fish oil and fishmeal; and palm fruit used to produce palm kernels or palm oil, employed in various cooking oils and biofuels), in certain countries not specified, though it is presumed they are among the sixty under investigation.
The resolution states that, faced with this reality, the U.S. has adopted fifty-four measures through the Customs and Border Protection Office, prohibiting the entry of various goods due to their association with production chains where forced labor has been detected.
In defense of initiating the investigation, it is argued that other countries—such as those of the European Union, as well as trading partners like Canada and Mexico—have not adopted concrete measures to prohibit the importation of products made with forced labor.
Therefore, according to the resolution, despite national and international regulations, forced labor has not ceased but rather persists.
In that regard, it cites a joint study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which indicates that at the end of 2021, 3.5 per 1,000 people—i.e., 28 million individuals—were in a situation of forced labor worldwide.
Furthermore, it states that between 2016 and 2021, the number of people in forced labor increased by 2.7 million. According to the study, this increase was entirely attributable to forced labor in the private economy.
The publication estimates that in 2024, annual profits from forced labor in the global private economy amounted to approximately USD 63.9 billion, with annual profits per victim of USD 2,113 in the agricultural sector and USD 4,994 in the industrial sector—the highest among private economy sectors.
Although most countries prohibit forced labor in their domestic legislation, such prohibitions are insufficient to prevent enterprises from benefiting from forced labor.
Competitive conditions may tilt in favor of imports artificially cheapened through forced labor or those incorporating forced labor inputs.
Enterprises that do not use or rely on imports produced with forced labor may lose sales or revenue, or even be driven out of the market.
Thus, in markets lacking prohibitions, U.S. exports must compete with products made wholly or partially with forced labor, including products that have been denied entry into the U.S. market and subsequently re-exported.
This constitutes the objective of the investigation: to protect the U.S. market and domestic production from other countries that might benefit from forced labor at least at some point in the production and distribution chain.
IV. Procedure
In summary, the procedure to be followed in this USTR investigation is as follows:
a) Prior to the publication of March 12, the USTR held internal consultations with advisory committees and interagency meetings, as provided for in the 1974 Act.
b) The resolution initiates consultations with the authorities and other stakeholders of the “economies” identified as under investigation.This stage provides for a procedure involving written comments using a pre-established format, designed to ascertain:
- Whether the “economies” prohibit, or are in the process of prohibiting, the importation of forced labor products;
- Whether the absence of such actions discriminates against the U.S. economy;
- Whether both U.S. prices and wages are affected;
- What actions will be taken to remedy this problem, if it exists;
- Potential additional tariffs on products from any economy subject to these investigations.
c) The Section 301 Committee will convene public hearings on April 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.
Hearings may continue, as necessary, until May 1.
-
- To testify at the hearings, a request to appear must be submitted using the electronic portal at https://comments.ustr.gov/s/.
- Requests to appear must include a summary of the testimony and may be accompanied by a pre-hearing submission.
- Interventions at the hearings will be limited to five minutes to allow for potential questions from the Section 301 Committee.
- All submissions must be in English.
- The USTR must receive the request to appear and the summary of testimony by April 15, 2026.
d) Conclusion of the investigation.
It is anticipated that by July 24, 2026, as stipulated in Section 304 of the Trade Act, the USTR will determine whether the countries comply with what the U.S. considers reasonable actions in policies, laws, or practices concerning forced labor.
If any determination is affirmative, the Trade Representative must decide whether an action is appropriate and, if so, what action to take.
V. Commentary
When a country takes action—nationally or internationally—to combat forced labor, or more generally to uphold international labor rights standards, such action is positive and should be acknowledged.
Indeed, concern over the contamination of production and supply chains by forced labor, child labor, or multiple forms of labor exploitation is not novel; several international examples can be cited.
Such is the case of the European Union Regulation of December 2024, which prohibits the sale, import, and export of products made with forced labor.
However, the investigation initiated by the USTR is susceptible to critical examination regarding its objectives, procedure, and substance, which, as will be shown, leads to critical conclusions about its rationale and potential outcomes.
1. Purpose of the Action
The sudden and inadequately substantiated concern of the U.S. administration regarding forced labor worldwide appears to be oriented less toward combating labor performed under such conditions—sometimes termed new forms of slavery—than toward overcoming recent judicial setbacks affecting its tariff policies.
In February 2026, one month before the aforementioned USTR announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, characterizing the action as an overreach of authority.
IEEPA, enacted in 1977, is a federal statute authorizing the President to regulate commerce and financial transactions upon declaring a national emergency due to unusual threats to national security or the economy.
The ruling (adopted by a six-to-three majority) deemed tariffs based on IEEPA illegal, thereby opening the door for claims seeking reimbursement of paid tariffs. The decision is final, as no avenue for appeal exists.
It seems reasonably evident that the U.S. government has found a new path to the same destination: developing a tariff policy based on political criteria as a negotiating tool, extending far beyond purely commercial assessments.
If one reads the repeated references to potential tariff sanctions, as well as the extremely abbreviated procedure outlined in the resolution published on March 12, no doubt remains on this point.
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that, in the days preceding this investigation—specifically on March 10, 2026—the USTR announced the initiation of an investigation into sixteen U.S. trading partners to detect industrial overcapacity.
The countries under investigation are China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India (all also included in the forced labor investigation list).
The stated ground for the investigation is potential “structural or production overcapacity in certain manufacturing sectors,” which, according to the USTR, could displace U.S. domestic production or impede American manufacturing investment and expansion.
In other words, these countries are being investigated for being efficient, producing large volumes, and successfully competing with the U.S. economy. Beyond the unusual nature of the alleged justification, it is evident that this fully coincides with President Trump’s motivations for imposing tariffs on many countries.
Consequently, if the true objective differs substantially from the stated one, it is highly unlikely that the USTR investigation will yield progress in combating forced labor worldwide.
2. The Established Procedure
The procedure under Section 301 et seq. of the Trade Act of 1974 is unilateral, prevents adequate understanding of the realities of the countries involved, and for those nations that have trade agreements with the U.S., it represents not only a significant regression but also appears to be of questionable legal validity.
Most Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) signed by the United States in recent decades include enforceable labor chapters, resulting, inter alia, from pressure exerted by trade unions in the U.S. and the signatory countries.
Although strict labor clauses have not been incorporated in any case, specific labor provisions and dispute resolution mechanisms for potential conflicts have been included.
Examples include the USMCA with Canada and Mexico; DR-CAFTA with the Dominican Republic and Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua); and several bilateral agreements, such as those with Colombia, Chile, Peru, South Korea, Morocco, and Oman.
Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA/CUSMA), the parties legally commit to prohibiting the importation of goods produced by forced or compulsory labor, including child labor.
The treaty requires the three countries to maintain laws against forced labor, thereby strengthening regional trade through the enforcement of fair labor standards and the prohibition of imports produced through exploitation.
Mexico enacted enabling legislation on May 18, 2023, harmonizing its regulations with those of the United States and Canada to ensure compliance with strict labor standards and prevent exploitation in the supply chain.
In the case of DR-CAFTA, Chapter 16 of the treaty, dedicated to labor matters, explicitly includes the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor as one of the assumed commitments.
Similar provisions appear in other treaties signed by the U.S.
It is striking, therefore, that in the presence of these agreed-upon mechanisms, upon potential detection of indications of forced labor, the chosen course is to apply a domestic law from 1974 rather than follow the procedures established in the treaties.
Given the existence of these international agreements (which were extensively debated), circumventing them in favor of applying one’s own domestic law is highly likely to be challenged on legal and political grounds, because such a practice, if repeated, would simply render the international instrument meaningless.
It would appear, therefore, that the objective has been to avoid collective consideration—not only for the sake of expediency but, above all, because by applying its own domestic law, the “investigating” country becomes judge and party, while also avoiding being “investigated” by its peers on the same invoked issue.
3. Expedited Process
The proceeding was initiated on March 13, hearings will be held on April 28 (with possible extension to May 1), and the final decision will be rendered no later than July 24.
To participate in the hearings, an online request must be submitted by April 15, accompanied by a series of documents. Hearings will be conducted exclusively in English.
This involves sixty countries, all of which must participate in hearings on April 28, with each presentation allocated a maximum of five minutes. Both points indicate that expediency is deemed far more important than the substance of the so-called investigation.
Furthermore, the envisaged system, rather than being designed for states or as part of the exercise of diplomacy among sovereign nations, appears to have been constructed to fulfill a formality, with no genuine interest in addressing the merits of the issue.
The pertinent question is what the attitude of these sixty countries will be: will they agree to participate in this simulacrum of an investigation—including those with existing treaties with the U.S.—or will they refuse to do so? Will they make individual decisions, or will groups agree on a common course of action?
Barring a large-scale collective action (currently unimaginable), regardless of the option chosen, the outcome will be the same: the U.S. government will impose tariffs on imports from the investigated “economies,” based far more on its own political criteria than on legal or commercial grounds.
VI. What Is Happening within the U.S.?
The massive investigation launched recalls earlier years when Washington published its annual report on human rights around the world—which in practice covered almost the entire world, as it excluded itself from the evaluation.
In this case, the U.S. will issue its conclusion on forced labor in sixty other countries, but nothing is said—nor will be said—about itself.
There is no reason to believe that the same problems that the U.S. administration attributes to other nations do not occur on its own soil.
1. Regulatory Aspects
The document initiating the investigation asserts that: “For nearly one hundred years, U.S. law has prohibited the importation of goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor.”
Thus, it presents the U.S. as a country at the forefront of the fight against forced labor—not only now, but for at least a century.
However, a more detailed analysis of this issue requires tempering the scope of this assertion, as will be done below.
a) Abolition of Slavery and Forced Labor
The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery and forced labor, according to the following text:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Nevertheless, it must also be noted that some states took many years to ratify this constitutional amendment.
For example, Kentucky did so in 1976, and Mississippi only in 2013.
Thus, although this may be more symbolic than practical, the reality is that slavery and forced labor received full legal recognition in the country only about thirteen years ago.
b) Failure to Ratify ILO Convention No. 29.
The list of international instruments included in the resolution exhibits a notable omission: it does not mention the principal international instrument on the matter, the International Labour Convention No. 29 of 1930.
This Convention defines forced labor as: “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”
The definition comprises three elements:
- Work or service: refers to all types of work occurring in any activity, industry, or sector, including the informal economy.
- Menace of any penalty: covers a broad range of sanctions used to compel someone to work.
- Involuntariness: the expression “offered himself voluntarily” refers to a worker’s freely given and informed consent to begin employment and their freedom to leave it at any time.
As of March 2026, 181 countries have ratified this Convention—i.e., the majority of ILO members.
However, there is a notable exception: the United States has never ratified this instrument.
It has ratified Convention No. 105 of 1957, which focuses on the abolition of forced labor imposed by state authorities—for example, as punishment for public expressions of views, against strikers, or for racial discrimination, among other possibilities.
Although this Convention is relevant and also enjoys near-universal ratification, its scope is considerably narrower than that of International Labour Convention No. 29.
Moreover, the USTR resolution itself highlights this point by stating (citing a joint ILO-IOM study) that most forced labor in the world occurs in the private sector, not the public sector.
Therefore, if the U.S. wishes to commit genuinely to this issue, one of the first steps it should take is to ratify International Labour Convention No. 29 of 1930, as well as its 2014 Protocol.
2. Migration and Forced Labor
As noted, ILO Convention No. 29 defines forced labor as: “All work or service exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”
This definition consists of four key elements:
- Work or service: refers to any type of work, service, or employment in any activity, industry, or sector, whether performed for the State or private agents, including the informal economy.
- Any person: refers to adults and children, nationals and foreigners, including migrant workers in regular or irregular situations, and refugees.
- Menace of any penalty: refers to a broad range of penalties, threats, or sanctions used to compel someone to work.
- The term “offered himself voluntarily”: refers to a worker’s free and informed consent to accept employment and their freedom to leave it at any time.
In various documents, the ILO conceptualizes forced labor as situations where persons are compelled to work through violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means such as manipulated indebtedness, retention of identity documents, or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities.
Thus, many forms of labor exploitation currently detected may fall within these concepts, even if they do not constitute the semi-slavery conditions that predominated in earlier times.
Forcing people to work for extremely low wages that are sometimes not even paid, withholding wages, withholding personal documents—these join other practices such as confinement, violence, or other serious human rights violations.
These new forms of forced labor occur to a greater extent among migrant populations than among national citizens. It is estimated that out of every 1,000 migrants, 13.8 are in forced labor, whereas among non-migrants, the figure is 4.1.
Furthermore, there is a notable overlap between the sectors predominantly occupied by migrants and those where most forced labor occurs.
More than 80% of detected forced labor cases occur in the private sector, in domestic work, agriculture, construction, and manufacturing.
Most migrants work in these sectors.
According to a recent study, in 2023, undocumented immigrants represented 4.1% of the total U.S. population and 27% of the foreign-born population. They constituted 5.6% of the U.S. labor force, which exceeds their percentage of the total U.S. population (4.1%).
Although undocumented migrants work in virtually all sectors of the economy, the sectors with the highest proportions were construction (15%), agriculture (14%), leisure and hospitality (8%), other services (7%), and professional/business services (7%).
The main occupations with the highest proportions of undocumented immigrants were agriculture (24%), construction (19%), and services (9%).
In some specific labor sectors, undocumented immigrants represented between 25% and 40% of all workers in 2023. Most of these jobs are in the construction sector.
The vast majority of this irregular or undocumented workforce originates from Latin America, with Mexico being, by far, the country of origin with the largest presence, followed by Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Venezuela. There are also many individuals from India, although the total includes people from multiple regions of the world.
It is not surprising, therefore, that between 2015 and 2023, the “Latino GDP” in the U.S. grew more than twice as fast as that of the rest of the country.
Latino income reached USD 3.1 trillion, and purchasing power soared to USD 4.1 trillion, driven by record labor force participation, entrepreneurship, and educational attainment.
If considered separately, it would be the fifth-largest economy in the world.
Latinos accounted for 78% of all new workers between 2020 and 2030 and will constitute 22.4% of the U.S. labor force by 2030. They contribute between USD 500 and 600 billion annually in federal, state, and local taxes.
Within this group, undocumented migrants contribute approximately USD 96 billion per year. In 2022 alone, undocumented immigrants paid an average of USD 8,889 per person in federal, state, and local taxes.
In other words, for every one million undocumented immigrants residing in the country, public services receive an additional USD 8.9 billion in tax revenue.
It should also be noted that Latinos represent between 17% and 19% of active-duty military personnel in the United States, generally in direct combat positions rather than command roles.
Given that these data are irrefutable, explanations must be sought for the policy of persecution against migrants that has characterized recent U.S. administrations.
Although anti-immigrant rhetoric and measures are evident in the current Trump administration, it was during Barack Obama’s tenure (2009–2017) that the number of deported migrants exceeded three million, which, at least to date, remains the highest recorded figure.
However, the current administration marks a milestone in terms of detained migrants (66,000 per day), as well as deaths in detention centers (44 migrants have died in operations or while under ICE custody during the fourteen months of Donald Trump’s second term).
It is notorious that the rhetoric and actions of the U.S. government are aimed exclusively at persecuting migrants, but not the enterprises that hire undocumented workers.
This is revealing of the underlying objectives.
Beyond causes related to electoral strategies or racial prejudice, this issue must be analyzed from a class perspective: as is regularly corroborated, the persecution and criminalization of migrants are intended to generate conditions of greater exploitation and the erosion of rights.
What is the reason for punishing so harshly a population that is clearly an essential part of the social and economic fabric of the U.S.?
Contrary to some radically discriminatory discourses, the objective is not to deport all undocumented migrants, but rather to create conditions such that those who remain in the country do so in a state of such precariousness that they will accept virtually any type of work.
If we start from the definition of forced labor in Convention No. 29, which already explicitly stated in 1930 that it applies to irregular migrant workers, we can readily agree that such persons cannot freely choose their employment, let alone negotiate conditions for its performance. They are persons under the threat of being denounced, suffer the latent menace of deportation, and have no practical possibility of claiming potential violations.
Forced labor, therefore, is a reality occurring within the United States, even as its government demands accountability from others.
When ILO specialists suggest actions to combat forced labor or modern slavery, emphasis is generally placed on respect for workers’ rights and freedoms, freedom of association, collective bargaining, fair recruitment, social security, and other related aspects.
None of this is conceivable when individuals are subjected every day and every hour to the fear of being identified and deported, in a country where authorities, instead of protecting rights, promote the criminalization of migrants.
VII. Corollary
Forced labor and contemporary forms of slavery exist in today’s world not as remnants of the past, but as constituent elements of the prevailing system.
At the same time that some workers have achieved access to dignified conditions, fair wages, non-exhausting working hours, and generally decent working conditions, others find themselves in precarious circumstances, and some under realities of forced or semi-slave labor.
Attempting to eliminate modern slavery or forced labor is a task for the present, and actions directed toward that end deserve support.
However, for the reasons set forth above, the process initiated by U.S. authorities involving sixty countries is oriented more toward circumventing the judicial prohibition on the massive tariff measures adopted by the current U.S. administration than toward genuinely combating forced labor.
Without prejudice to the need to control products entering its country (which may have a positive effect in reducing forced labor), the U.S. should address its domestic reality, in particular the living and working conditions of millions of migrants, many of whom are in irregular situations whose extreme precariousness renders them easy prey to forced labor.
It would also be expected that the sixty “economies” subjected to investigation by the USTR would demand reciprocity, so that the U.S. would also subject its legislation, institutions, and especially its practices to scrutiny, in order to obtain a clear picture of the matter that could lead to useful and sustainable actions against forced labor and contemporary forms of slavery.