The US has imposed new tariffs on 60 trading partners including the UK, China and the European Union, in the latest escalation of the trade war reignited by President Donald Trump when he returned to office last year. The levies, ranging from 10% to 12.5% on all goods, replace an identical levy that expires on Friday and are based on claims that key economic partners have failed to properly tackle forced labour.
But trade experts have cast doubt on that justification. Caroline Freund, dean of the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy, told the BBC’s Today programme the move is “not about forced labour” but that Trump is “looking for a legal reason to put the tariffs in”. Her remarks came after the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that many of the tariffs imposed globally under emergency powers were illegally enacted.
“US imposes 10% tariff on UK and 60 other nations, replacing expiring levies, citing forced labour but experts call it protectionism.”
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the action, saying: “Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere.” The new duties apply to the top 60 US trade partners covering 99.4% of US imports, the Office of the US Trade Representative said.
For the UK, the tariff rate is 10% – the same as the European Union – but the head of the British Chambers of Commerce, William Bain, told the BBC the UK had lost its comparative advantage against the EU as a result. He said the EU has a 10% all-inclusive deal for tariffs on its goods, while the UK is facing 10% universal tariffs on top of any duties imposed on individual goods. “So there will be some concerns in the business community this morning,” he said.
The levies are likely to raise costs for businesses and consumers, although their impact could be softened due to the number of exempted goods, said the Asia Society Policy Institute’s economic security expert Wendy Cutler. She added that most trading partners would be disappointed and were likely to focus on ways to “reduce their dependence on the US” by making deals with other countries.