A Global Forced Labor Import Regime Is Emerging—Can It Work?

Some of the world’s largest economies—those that can better afford to implement such prohibitions and that have had strong support from civil society for them, including Australia, and Japan—do not appear as willing to submit to U.S. demands.

Q2: Why should countries adopt these forced labor import prohibitions?

A2: While tariffs appear to be the ultimate motivating factor for this radical, seemingly overnight sea change in many governments’ positions toward forced labor imports, they are far from the real reason countries should adopt forced labor import prohibitions. A more compelling reason for them to do so is for the protections they provide for workers and the influence they can have on corporate behavior.

For years now, civil society groups have been advocating on behalf of import prohibitions, including Antislavery International and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. A global coalition of workers’ rights groups, trade unions, and antislavery organizations was developed in 2023 specifically to collaborate across jurisdictions to pass forced labor import prohibitions globally. There have been several recent lawsuits against companies that benefit from forced labor at the far reaches of their supply chains, suggesting more support for government intervention defending workers’ rights deep in our supply chains.

These organizations have supported forced labor import prohibitions because they support workers’ rights globally, and prohibitions make it possible to hold corporations that benefit from forced labor in their supply chains accountable. When a country allows forced labor–made goods to enter its borders, it allows companies to profit from forced labor. Admitting forced labor–made goods forces domestic companies to compete against the artificially deflated prices made possible by low labor standards. This puts downward pressure on workers’ wages and labor standards and has even led to the closure of factories and layoffs. Despite these negative consequences for both the workers directly affected and workers around the world who are indirectly harmed, most governments have allowed companies to import forced labor–made goods with impunity, lowering the price of goods, but also lowering labor standards globally. Trade law can play a role in addressing both the human rights and commercial consequences of forced labor.

Q3: Do import prohibitions work?

A3: The U.S. forced labor import prohibition has only been in full effect for 10 years, since a loophole was closed in 2016, and other economies are yet to enforce their own prohibitions, so there is only limited data to go by. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify signs that import prohibitions can improve working conditions and change corporate behavior.

The International Labour Organization recently published an assessment of forced labor import prohibitions that focused on a case of “substantial remediation action at the company-level for victims of forced labour” in the Malaysian rubber glove industry. Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforced its forced labor import prohibition against a bicycle manufacturing company in Taiwan, which has resulted in significant change: The company has returned recruitment fees to current and former workers, the bicycle industry in Taiwan has adopted new worker protections, and Taiwan’s government has addressed policy gaps.

Furthermore, CBP has reported that it has recovered $85 million in withheld wages and recruitment fees for workers of companies subject to the forced labor import prohibition. Since 2018, CBP has removed the prohibitions it imposed on 16 companies because it determined the companies had addressed their forced labor violations. Though not all of these removals (called “modifications” in CBP terminology) have been independently verified by third parties or CSOs and at least one is actively disputed by workers’ rights organizations, the successes in some cases suggest that the import prohibitions put significant pressure on otherwise recalcitrant companies to change their labor practices.

In places where forced labor is practically intractable because it is state imposed—such as in the Uyghur region of China, in North Korea, or in the cotton industry in Turkmenistan—forced labor import prohibitions typically will not change the experience of workers on the ground, but they do put pressure on companies to move away from suppliers known to be engaged in the forced labor. As of August 2025, companies in the solar, apparel, flooring, and automotive industries had diversified their supply chains to source untainted materials and parts in order to comply with the UFLPA. The more countries that deny entry to the products of state-imposed forced labor, the more demand there will be for alternatives. The UFLPA showed that corporations will quickly pivot to production outside of a region using state-imposed forced labor if there is a legal and financial cost for noncompliance.

These prohibitions are only as effective as their provisions and enforcement allow, and it is critical to remember that import prohibitions are only one tool the government and civil society have to move the needle on workers’ rights. Import prohibitions are a tool of last resort that kick in when corporate or state behavior is unchanged after significant worker and civil society engagement. For that reason, import prohibitions can only be effective if they are actually enforced.

To that end, this author developed a blueprint for forced labor import bans in consultation with dozens of workers’ rights and stakeholder organizations. Driven by both a worker-centered and practical approach, the blueprint proposes eight essential elements of an effective prohibition that is most likely to improve conditions for workers. Those elements include clearly designating legal authority and evidentiary standards that will make the prohibitions practically implementable, as well as requiring remediation, opportunities to make allegations, and transparency to assist the workers who most need the prohibitions to be effective. The eight elements are supplemented by recommendations on resourcing, international collaboration, and stakeholder engagement. USTR has adopted the eight elements as a benchmark for countries adopting import prohibitions, but the whole suite of provisions and engagements outlined in the blueprint are critical for the laws to effectively address worker exploitation.

Q4: Does the United States have the authority to compel countries to adopt forced labor import prohibitions?

A4: Many have argued that the United States is simply trying to replace the tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional, and that it has no authority to impose the tariffs through this investigation.

The motives for imposing these tariffs are certainly mixed. Under the Trade Act of 1974, however, the USTR is instructed by Congress to conduct investigations where there is suspicion that another country’s trade practices are discriminatory or that those trade practices represent a burden on U.S. commerce. USTR’s recent action is a fairly novel use of the law, with previous investigations being far more targeted and only very rarely applied to forced labor. If the United States can prove these conditions exist, however, it appears USTR has the right under the law to impose tariffs to address an unlevel playing field.

Violation of human rights should remain the central concern when it comes to forced labor. However, there is no question that forced labor, including low or no payment of workers and accompanying substandard labor conditions, is indeed an unfair trade practice. It deflates the price of goods sold into foreign markets such that U.S. exports are not competitive there. Indeed, the statute defines “unreasonable” behavior to include “a persistent pattern of conduct that …permits any form or forced or compulsory labor.” It is thus reasonable for USTR to broadly conclude that forced labor constitutes an unfair trade practice that could harm or burden U.S. manufacturing.

But two critical concerns have arisen about this investigation.

First are the legal questions as to whether the conditions for imposing tariffs under Section 301 are conclusively met. The government, in its report, has provided evidence of some specific unfair trade practices in specific sectors and countries, but has not done so for all 60 economies under investigation. ICountries under investigation have also challenged the USTR’s claim that forced labor in supply chains has created a burden on U.S. commerce. Twenty-two state attorneys general have written to USTR to oppose the tariffs, and just a day after the tariffs were announced, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of small businesses by a law firm that has successfully challenged the Trump administration’s tariffs in the past. In the end, it will likely be the Supreme Court that will determine whether these tariffs can remain.

Second, there are concerns regarding the potential consequences of the tariffs. Governments, organizations, policy experts, and businesses have raised legitimate questions about whether the United States should impose such blanket tariffs at all, especially since they could defeat the ostensible purpose of the investigations: to address forced labor itself. Indeed, blanket tariffs could ultimately harm workers and lead to further exploitation. A focus on the import of forced labor–made goods could redirect sorely needed funding for addressing domestic forced labor and other labor abuses. Furthermore, the rush to pass these laws does not allow the time for democratic consultation with affected communities of workers that would be essential to ensuring that worker protections are effective.

Many, including this author, have suggested that if eliminating forced labor imports is the legitimate goal, USTR should allow countries time to develop and implement laws before imposing tariffs or consider targeting specific products that are known to be made with forced labor instead of imposing blanket tariffs. The United States did not adopt these recommendations, and in fact, USTR has exempted from the tariffs many of the products that are known to be made with forced labor (including coffee, paprika, and many critical minerals), undermining the public perception of the credibility of the purpose of the tariffs.

Q5: Can potential negative consequences be avoided?

A5: Imposing forced labor import prohibitions—or any legislation—via tariffs that accelerate adoption outside of democratic processes and legitimate consultation can undermine support for laws, leave gaps in worker protections, lead to unenforceable laws, and further undermine confidence in democratic processes.

As both industry and workers’ rights group have indicated, imposing blanket tariffs could create ripple effects all down the supply chain, leading to massive layoffs and increased vulnerability of workers. Earlier Trump administration tariffs, for example, appear to have had negative consequences for workers in other countries. The fact that the United States has not established a transparent process for reducing or eliminating the tariffs is particularly concerning in this regard as they could represent an existential threat for many businesses, leaving workers vulnerable to layoffs and even more vulnerable to forced labor or human trafficking.

While the spread of forced labor import prohibitions will likely have a positive impact on corporate behavior and allow for important avenues for corporate accountability, it is critical that countries adopting these laws listen to workers, advocates, and unions to identify potential negative consequences of implementation. Those negative consequences could include so-called “cut and run” behavior, where corporations escape responsibility for forced labor in their supply chains by cutting off their suppliers instead of engaging in meaningful remediation. Politically or financially motivated investigations or decisions could harm businesses that uphold high labor standards but present competition for corrupt businesses that are close to government leaders. Governments could cherry-pick enforcement and apply the law only to adversary countries. Without accompanying due diligence requirements, evidence-based enforcement, and remediation requirements, most companies might simply forgo any effort to gain greater visibility into their supply chains and expect to win the gamble on not being caught.

Some of these risks have concrete solutions—meaningful remediation requirements and mandatory human rights due diligence would go a long way toward preventing some of these issues. But others will depend on domestic practice and will likely require multilateral oversight that can and should be developed in the coming years.

But these challenges are not reasons to make importing goods made with forced labor legal. No company should profit from forced labor. No country should allow forced labor–made goods into its market. Advocates have long demanded that governments hold companies accountable and eliminate the profits accrued from forced labor. They have demanded a way to raise the concerns of workers at the highest levels and penalize those companies that rely on the exploitation of others. A global forced labor import prohibition regime is a huge step in that direction.

Laura T. Murphy is a senior associate (non-resident) in the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.