Comment in Support of USTR’s Section 301 Forced Labor Goods Findings
Today, I filed a comment in response to the United States Trade Representative’s request for comment on his office’s investigation into whether certain foreign governments are properly screening for goods produced by forced labor — and if they even have a mechanism in place for doing so at all.
In the comment, I lend support to USTR’s efforts while underscoring that exposing our markets to poorly-regulated countries like China was always going to result in exposure to forced labor products. Instead of critiquing the United States for upholding strict bans on forced labor, developed nations should instead cease the off-shoring of industry to countries famous for it.
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Section 301 Committee
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Re: Notice of Determinations and Request for Comments Concerning Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor; USTR Docket No. USTR–2026–0265
Dear Ms. Grimball:
On behalf of the Bull Moose Project, I commend United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and your office’s findings regarding forced global labor importation practices and the proposed tariff rates in response to those findings. As your office has already done an admirable job of laying out the case, it needs no repetition. I write instead to refute criticisms being levied by the targeted countries.
Many of those with weak forced labor importation bans, particularly developed countries, reacted with umbrage at the findings. The European Union, which describes “respect for human rights” as one of its “founding principles” was particularly angered by the finding. The European Commission, which admitted it had not been able to analyze USTR’s findings, pre-emptively declared “tariffs imposed on these grounds to be unjustified.” Their new regulation, they argued, “represents one of the most ambitious instruments of its kind globally. It establishes a prohibition to place on the EU market all forced labour products, irrespective of whether they originate in the EU or in a third country.”
The chairman of the European Parliament’s trade committee went further, asking how the EU could be accused of allowing for products created by forced labor “even though we have adopted the world's strictest rules against products from forced labor.”
As USTR pointed out, the European Union has indeed adopted those rules—but they have only adopted them. The actual regulations come into effect in 2027. While some stilted period of entry may be understandable, a period of three years is overly long. If the European Union deems such a period necessary, that does not mean the United States must arbitrarily rule their forced labor product ban “effective,” seeing as it so far amounts to nothing more than words on paper.
There is also a defeatist undercurrent in the defense of the European Union’s new mechanism. One such defender argued that the new rules “might” work, writing that “No-one expects this law to eliminate forced labour. The problem is too endemic and ingrained in working practices. However, it could be an important step toward reducing instances.” This is no defense: European defeatism makes little difference to rule-making in the United States.
Their rhetoric, however, reveals a larger issue which affects significantly more than just the European Union: the entire modern system of global trade. Free trade advocates and those who supported bringing developing countries like China into the system have argued for years that exposure to developed countries would democratize the newcomers and modernize their manufacturing laws. This “modernization theory” failed to achieve these goals, and, under the Trump Administration, the United States finally responded. As Ambassador Greer wrote earlier this month, “the gulf between theory and practice was too large to ignore.” After decades of exemptions and waiting, all that occurred was the offshoring of jobs to countries with poor labor, environmental, and human rights regulations. 301 tariffs will allow the United States to rectify these problems.
This has affected more than just labor law. The European Union as a case study is again telling here. In 2024, along with the forced labor import restriction, they also adopted rules demanding that medium-sized companies ensure that their products were produced in a climate-friendly manner. But those rules were quickly scaled back just a year later, as opponents argued that it would be virtually impossible to properly identify the amount of carbon emitted in the production of a given material, as doing so relied upon foreign companies – particularly, Chinese – to be honest about their manufacturing process.
Opponents of USTR’s findings in developed countries wish to have access to the massive, cheap labor pools of the “developing” world, but desire to not be penalized for accepting the cause of that cheap labor: poor conditions and oftentimes forced production. They must understand that it is not the job of the United States to water down its own strict forced labor import regulations, regulations which have stood for nearly 100 years, because certain developing countries wish to acquire plastic on the cheap.
Instead of critiquing the United States for upholding strict regulations banning the import of products made with forced labor, they should consider whether expanding trade into countries with histories of flagrant disregard for human rights was a worthy or useful endeavor—and should, like the United States, consider reversing course.
The Bull Moose Project fully supports USTR’s findings and urges the Trump administration to go forward with the planned tariffs in response.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Constantini
Policy Director
The Bull Moose Project
Washington, DC
