publications | April 6, 2026

USTR Section 301 Forced Labor Investigations: Tariff Risk, UFLPA Overlap, and What Companies Should Do Now

Key Takeaways

Section 301 elevates forced labor from a compliance issue to a trade policy risk. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s (“USTR”) use of Section 301 shifts exposure from shipment-level enforcement to potential country-wide tariffs and restrictions.
Layered enforcement will compound cost and disruption. Companies may face simultaneous exposure under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) actions, and new Section 301 tariffs tied to the same supply chains.
Immediate action is required to assess exposure and influence outcomes. With April 2026 deadlines, companies should map supply chains, align compliance strategy, and evaluate participation in the USTR process now.

The 2026 USTR Section 301 Forced Labor Investigations

On March 12, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register notice opening Section 301(b) investigations into whether the absence or weak enforcement of forced-labor import bans in 60 of the United States’ largest trading partners is “unreasonable or discriminatory” and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. The investigations cover major economies across North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

For each country, USTR will examine whether the country prohibits the importation of goods made with forced labor, whether any failure to adopt or effectively enforce such a prohibition is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and what responsive actions — including the level and scope of duties or other restrictions — may be appropriate.

This is a significant expansion of forced-labor trade enforcement. Until now, the primary U.S. tools have been the Tariff Act’s Section 307, which authorizes Withhold Release Orders and findings against specific products, and UFLPA, which creates a rebuttable presumption that goods originating in Xinjiang are made with forced labor. Section 301 operates at a different level: it targets the policies of foreign governments rather than the practices of individual producers, and it can result in broad tariff actions across entire product categories or countries.

Why This Matters for Importers and Global Supply Chains

Forced labor is now a core trade-compliance and commercial-strategy concern. Companies cannot treat forced-labor risk as a discrete “human rights” issue. The new Section 301 investigations mean that a company’s sourcing footprint in any of the 60 countries under review could become a tariff and detention risk factor, with direct implications for pricing, inventory, and long-term supplier relationships.
Enforcement scenarios escalate quickly. In practice, forced-labor concerns rarely stay confined to a single regime. A media report, non-governmental organization (“NGO”) submission, or whistleblower complaint can trigger CBP questions, EU scrutiny, and now potential USTR attention to a company’s sourcing profile. What begins as a targeted shipment detention or request for information can evolve into broader reviews of supply-chain controls, board-level engagement, and public disclosures. Companies should be prepared for multi-agency coordination, parallel proceedings, and the possibility that internal investigations, remediation plans, and external communications will be scrutinized by regulators, investors, and counterparties.
Two layers of exposure: Section 301 plus UFLPA. UFLPA and Withhold Release Orders already empower CBP to detain or exclude shipments with indicia of forced labor, especially those linked to Xinjiang or entities on the UFLPA Entity List. Section 301 remedies could add a broad tariff overlay, increasing landed costs on product categories that rely on inputs or processing in countries deemed non-compliant on forced-labor import bans. Companies may face both shipment-level enforcement and country-level tariffs on the same goods.
High-risk sectors should anticipate heightened scrutiny. USTR’s notice and related commentary emphasize sectors that already feature prominently in forced-labor and supply-chain debates, including textiles and apparel, footwear and consumer goods, agriculture and seafood, electronics, solar products and batteries, and auto parts and critical mineral inputs. Companies in these sectors should anticipate increased scrutiny and a higher likelihood of being caught in any eventual tariff package.

Key Deadlines and Process

Companies monitoring these investigations should track the following milestones:

April 15, 2026: Deadline for written comments on the investigations and requests for public hearing appearances.
April 28, 2026: Public hearings begin at the U.S. International Trade Commission on forced-labor-related acts, policies, and practices of the 60 trading partners.
Post-hearing: After reviewing the record, USTR may issue findings and recommend Section 301 remedies, which can include additional ad valorem duties on specified products, import restrictions or quotas, and other trade-related measures.

These investigations do not change existing U.S. law prohibiting imports made with forced labor under Tariff Act Section 307 or UFLPA, but they could concentrate enforcement on products from countries found to have weak forced-labor regimes, lead to duplicative or overlapping tariffs on products already facing UFLPA scrutiny, and encourage greater alignment between trade policy and customs enforcement.

How Companies Should Prepare

Companies should not wait for tariffs or detentions before acting. The Section 301 investigations create immediate incentives to understand and de-risk supply chains tied to the 60 economies under review. The following steps are practical starting points:

Map trade flows and Section 301 exposure. Companies should identify where their key products are manufactured, processed, or assembled and how those flows connect to the 60 countries under investigation. This mapping should be overlaid with existing Section 301 and UFLPA exposure to understand cumulative tariff and detention risk.
Strengthen forced-labor due diligence and documentation. Companies should ensure they have documented, risk-based procedures to detect and address forced-labor risks across Tier 1, Tier 2, and deeper tiers of the supply chain. Internal tracking should be aligned so that the same evidence base can support CBP inquiries, EU forced-labor expectations, and USTR engagement.
Consider participating in the USTR process. For companies heavily reliant on specific countries or sectors, submitting comments or testifying at the public hearings is an opportunity to explain compliance efforts and highlight potential unintended consequences of Section 301 remedies. Trade associations may play a key role, and companies should coordinate positions where appropriate.
Scenario-plan for tariffs and supply-chain shifts. Companies should model the financial impact of potential Section 301 tariffs across their product lines and explore alternative sourcing or routing options. These scenarios should be integrated into broader decisions about inventory, pricing, and long-term supplier relationships.
Coordinate with global forced-labor and ESG regimes. Companies should align their U.S. strategy with other emerging frameworks, including the EU Forced Labor Regulation, national due diligence laws, and modern slavery reporting regimes, so that one coherent governance system serves multiple legal requirements.
Prepare investigations and escalation protocols. Companies should establish clear internal escalation pathways for forced-labor red flags, including when and how to trigger a privileged internal review. Roles for legal, compliance, trade, and procurement teams should be defined so that responses to CBP inquiries, USTR requests, or NGO allegations are coordinated, documented, and consistent across jurisdictions.

How AGG Can Help

The firm’s International Trade team and Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice advise companies on forced-labor compliance, customs enforcement, and trade policy. Our team can assist with:

Section 301 Risk Assessments: Mapping product and country exposure to the new investigations and modeling potential tariff impacts.
Forced-Labor Due Diligence Frameworks: Designing and enhancing programs that meet UFLPA, EU, and emerging global expectations while supporting commercial realities.
Regulatory Engagement: Drafting USTR comments, preparing witnesses for public hearings, and coordinating positions with trade associations and industry coalitions.
Customs and Detention Response: Supporting clients facing UFLPA detentions or Withhold Release Orders with evidence packages, mitigation strategies, and supply-chain remediation.
Internal Investigations and Multi-Agency Response: Leading privileged internal investigations into forced-labor allegations, coordinating responses across CBP, USTR, and other regulators, and managing collateral civil and reputational risk.

For assistance assessing the impact of the new Section 301 forced-labor investigations on your business or developing a coordinated compliance and trade-risk strategy, please contact a member of AGG’s International Trade team.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 301, and how does it apply to forced labor?

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes USTR to investigate and respond to foreign government practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Here, USTR is using Section 301(b) for the first time as a systemic tool to target failures by trading partners to prohibit or enforce bans on imports of goods made with forced labor.

Which countries are covered by the investigations?

USTR has initiated investigations into 60 of the United States’ largest trading partners, including major economies across North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The full list is set out in the Federal Register notice published on March 12, 2026.

Does this change UFLPA or existing forced-labor import bans?

No. The Section 301 investigations do not alter the Tariff Act’s Section 307 prohibition on forced-labor imports, UFLPA, or any existing Withhold Release Orders. However, Section 301 remedies could layer additional tariffs or import restrictions on top of those existing tools.

What outcomes could result from these investigations?

If USTR finds actionable practices, it may recommend additional ad valorem duties on specified products, import restrictions or quotas, or other trade-related measures targeting products from countries deemed non-compliant on forced-labor import bans.

What is the deadline to submit comments to USTR?

Written comments and requests for public hearing appearances are due April 15, 2026. Public hearings are scheduled to begin April 28, 2026, at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

My company is not an importer. Should I still be concerned?

Yes. Section 301 tariffs, if imposed, would increase the landed cost of goods from affected countries regardless of where a company sits in the supply chain. Manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and other buyers that source from or through the 60 countries under investigation should assess their exposure.

What sectors are most at risk?

USTR’s notice and related commentary highlight textiles and apparel, footwear and consumer goods, agriculture and seafood, electronics, solar products, batteries, and auto parts and critical mineral inputs. Companies in these sectors should anticipate heightened scrutiny.

How does this interact with the EU Forced Labor Regulation?

The EU Forced Labor Regulation is moving toward enforcement in parallel with the new U.S. Section 301 investigations. Companies may face overlapping pressure across both jurisdictions, reinforcing the need for an integrated compliance framework that addresses forced-labor risk holistically rather than on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.

Can my company influence the outcome of these investigations?

Yes. Companies and trade associations can submit written comments by April 15, 2026, and request to appear at the public hearings beginning April 28, 2026. Participation is an opportunity to present compliance efforts, provide data on trade flows, and flag potential unintended consequences of proposed remedies.