Greer tells the Senate Finance Committee USTR found the failure to ban forced-labor imports "is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce"
Jamieson GreerU.S. Trade Representative, in a prepared statement to the Senate Finance Committee
In written testimony for a July 22, 2026 Senate Finance Committee hearing on the President's trade agenda, Greer said USTR's June 2 report found that the 60 trading partners' failure to adopt and effectively enforce a forced-labor import prohibition "is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce." He said he had proposed duties of 10 and 12.5 percent "to incentivize our trading partners to do more to combat the scourge of forced labor." He said the final action was expected as soon as the next day.
Responding to
USTR determined on June 2, 2026 that each of 60 economies' failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and on July 23, 2026, at the President's specific direction, imposed additional duties of 10% or 12.5% as the appropriate action under Section 301 to obtain the elimination of that practice.
“USTR has also investigated its top 60 U.S. trading partners for their failure to adopt and effectively enforce an import ban on goods produced with forced labor. On June 2, USTR published a report on this investigation, which found that these countries' failure to adopt, and effectively enforce, a forced labor import prohibition is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. I also proposed responsive action to incentivize our trading partners to do more to combat the scourge of forced labor, including the imposition of additional tariffs of 10 and 12.5 percent depending upon the strength of their existing measures to address this issue.”
Official statement
Original text
Where this statement fits
Are Trump's Section 301 "forced labor" tariffs a lawful remedy, or a pretext to revive struck-down global tariffs?
On July 23, 2026, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, at President Trump's direction, imposed additional tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The duties took effect July 24. USTR says each economy failed to impose and effectively enforce a ban on imports of goods made with forced labor, which it found unreasonable and a burden on U.S. commerce. Businesses and 25 states sued in the Court of International Trade. They say the forced-labor rationale is a pretext for re-creating the global tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February, and that USTR skipped the country-by-country findings the statute requires. The Justice Department says USTR made findings for all 60 economies on a record of data, testimony and public comments. A three-judge panel heard argument on September 30, 2026. As of that date, no court had ruled on the Section 301 tariffs. The disputed question is whether the tariffs are a lawful remedy under Section 301 or a pretext to revive the struck-down global tariffs.
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
Greer's prepared statement for the hearing the Senate Finance Committee held on July 22, 2026. Page 3 describes the forced-labor investigations and the proposed 10% and 12.5% duties. Page 1 says the specific authorities have changed but the trade strategy has not. The statement text is the PDF served at https://www.finance.senate.gov/download/07222026-greer-opening-statement&download=1; the archive copy captures only the download page. The committee's hearing page is https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/rescheduled-the-presidents-2026-trade-policy-agenda.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
The states' amicus brief in the sample case. It collects public statements by administration officials, including USTR's February 20 statement and Bessent's and Greer's remarks, as evidence that the forced-labor rationale is pretextual.
Before the quotation
Earlier in the same statement Greer said the 2025 trade policy "was defined by a national emergency," that the emergency "still exists" and that "The specific authorities this Administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not." The states cite that last sentence in their amicus brief as evidence that the Section 301 action continues the earlier tariffs.
After the quotation
USTR issued its final action the next day. The statement also describes a separate Section 301 investigation of industrial excess capacity. As of September 30, 2026, no court had ruled on whether the forced-labor action is lawful.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs, Greer states USTR's findings and describes the duties as a way to prompt other countries to act, which defends the action as a legitimate use of Section 301. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the same statement says the specific authorities have changed but the strategy has not, but that sentence adds no condition to his defense of the action.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseFormer trade officials Hills, Wolff and Maruyama tell the court the administration is turning "targeted authority" into "a sweeping power"
“This case concerns the Executive Branch's attempt to transform that targeted authority into a sweeping power to impose broad, economy-wide tariffs untethered from the statute Congress enacted. The text, structure, and history of Section 301 demonstrate that Congress intended the provision to address specific foreign acts, policies, or practices identified through a meaningful investigation and supported by findings of harm to U.S. commerce.”Read statement
Justice Department brief says USTR's actions are "consistent with the text, object, and purpose of the Section 301 statute"
United States Department of Justice
“The actions that USTR has taken at the direction of the President in this case are consistent with the text, object, and purpose of the Section 301 statute, as well as with the President's firm commitment to create a level playing field for U.S. workers, producers, and exporters by conditioning access to the U.S. market on concrete action to prohibit international trade in forced labor goods. The investigations and responsive actions under Section 301 are the culmination of decades of efforts by the U.S. Government to eradicate forced labor from international supply chains. USTR followed Section 301's "demanding procedural prerequisites" when taking those actions.”Read statement
Learning Resources and six other plaintiffs say the government's determinations are "pretextual and preordained"
Learning Resources, Inc.
“To be clear, Plaintiffs do not condone reliance on forced labor or forced-labor imports. But that is not the real issue here. Defendants' pretextual and preordained determinations do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 301 or the applicable Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") standards. The charade must stop.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Greer tells the Senate Finance Committee USTR found the failure to ban forced-labor imports "is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3955-in-written-testimony-for-a-july-22-2026
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Greer tells the Senate Finance Committee USTR found the failure to ban forced-labor imports "is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3955-in-written-testimony-for-a-july-22-2026