President Trump imposed new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on 60 trading partners covering 99.4% of U.S. imports Thursday, citing their failure to enforce bans on forced labor — and the global establishment reacted as if protecting American workers from slave-made goods was unthinkable.

The duties replace a temporary 10% global tariff that expired Friday, which itself replaced the emergency-powers tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February. This time, the administration is using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a legal authority that has survived court challenges before. The howling from Brussels to Canberra tells you whose supply chains they're worried about: not ours.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated plainly: "The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it. It's well past time for our trading partners to do the same." A senior administration official called the move "the most sweeping international labor rights action the United States has ever taken, that any country has ever taken."

The tariffs hit China — accused of detaining Uyghur minorities in work camps, which Beijing denies — at 12.5%, alongside Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, and 38 other nations. Countries that have adopted or committed to forced-labor import prohibitions, including the UK, Canada, Mexico, and India, face the lower 10% rate. The EU, Japan, Taiwan, and Switzerland face levies calibrated to bring their total most-favored-nation rates to 10% or 12.5%.

Key exemptions: oil and gas, fertilizer, certain food items, electronics and chips, and USMCA-compliant goods. These carve-outs show the administration is balancing its tariff wall against real economic disruption — not blindly hammering every import.

The foreign reaction was immediate and telling. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas insisted: "You can't say that for the European Union. If you compare our labour laws to the ones of the United States, I mean, we have paid vacations, we have very good labour conditions." Conveniently, she didn't address whether the EU actually enforces bans on goods made with forced labor transshipped through its ports. Australia called the tariffs "unjustified" and insisted its anti-slavery measures are "among the strongest in the world." Brazil's Lula called them "arbitrary." New Zealand's prime minister said there was no "meaningful evidence" to support the claims.

China's foreign ministry opposed "all forms of unilateral tariff measures" — a predictable line from Beijing.

The establishment press framed the rationale as "bewildering" — The Guardian's headline literally used the word — and House Democrat Richard Neal called it "too convenient to be taken seriously." But convenience and truth aren't opposites. The question is whether these countries enforce their forced-labor bans, not whether the timing suits Trump's trade agenda.

The legal backstory matters. After the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act didn't authorize tariffs, the administration pivoted first to Section 122 (a 150-day stopgap) and now to Section 301, which requires an investigation but permits longer-lasting duties. More probes are coming: USTR has launched an investigation into whether 16 countries accounting for 70% of U.S. imports have overproduced goods, pushing down prices and undercutting American companies.

Markets reacted sharply in Asia — Hong Kong's Hang Seng dropped 11.4%, South Korea's Kospi fell 6.2% — but European indexes steadied, and several governments quietly noted the tariffs won't change much. The EU spokesperson said the outcome is "in line with the U.S. tariff commitments agreed under the EU-U.S. Joint Statement." Britain said there was "no negative change" for UK businesses.

The real test isn't whether foreign governments complain — they always do when America stops letting them set the terms. It's whether Section 301 holds up in court, whether voters accept the price tag that comes with a tariff wall, and whether forced-labor enforcement actually improves or just becomes another lever for trade pressure. The establishment is "bewildered" that Trump would use it. Working Americans might ask why it took so long.