Peterson Institute's Cline says the forced-labor provision is not "a credible basis for replacing" the struck-down tariffs
William R. ClineSenior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a PIIE policy brief
In a policy brief published in August 2026 and revised in September, William R. Cline of the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that the 10% to 12.5% tariffs are at least 40 to 50 times what could be warranted by the U.S. exports lost and imports increased because of trade in goods made with forced labor. He said that, as a result, the forced-labor provision "does not constitute a credible basis for replacing the 'reciprocal' tariffs ruled illegal by the Supreme Court."
“As a consequence, the forced-labor provision does not constitute a credible basis for replacing the "reciprocal" tariffs ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.”
Original text
Analysis
Archived source
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
Original text
About this source
A brief by economists, among them American Enterprise Institute scholars Stan Veuger, Steven Kamin, Kyle Pomerleau and Alan Viard. It says it does not address the parties' legal arguments and argues that the tariffs are disproportionate to the effect of forced labor on U.S. commerce and large enough to raise a major question. Its signatories are listed with their affiliations in an appendix.
Analysis
About this source
A policy brief by PIIE senior fellow emeritus William R. Cline estimating that the tariffs are at least 40 to 50 times what the harm from forced labor to U.S. trade would warrant. PIIE revised the brief's estimates in September 2026; an August capture says "about 40 to 50 times" where the revised text says "at least 40 to 50 times." The quoted summary sentence is in the PDF; the web page and its August archive carry a shorter summary. The argument is economic proportionality, and the brief acknowledges that Section 301(b) does not repeat the proportionality clause found elsewhere in the statute.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Archived source
About this source
The Internet Archive's August 22, 2026 capture of the PIIE policy brief page. The summary then read "about 40 to 50 times." PIIE revised the brief's estimates in September 2026, and the live text now reads "at least 40 to 50 times."
Before the quotation
The August 22 version of the brief said the tariffs were "about 40 to 50 times" the warranted size; PIIE revised the estimates in September to account for trade among other advanced economies, and the current text says "at least 40 to 50 times." The brief rests on an estimate of the share of the global workforce in tradable sectors who are in forced labor, about 5.5 million of nearly 2 billion.
After the quotation
The brief acknowledges that Section 301(b) "does not repeat this proportionality clause" found elsewhere in the statute, and its argument concerns economic proportionality rather than the statute's text. A group of economists that includes American Enterprise Institute scholars filed a brief on September 11 arguing that the tariffs are disproportionate to the effect of forced labor on U.S. commerce. As of September 30, 2026, no court had ruled.
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, Cline criticizes them as vastly out of proportion to the harm cited and rejects the forced-labor provision as a credible basis for them, which meets the label's test. His argument is economic, not legal. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, because he disputes the justification, but he also concludes the tariffs are far larger than warranted.
- 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
- Peterson Institute's Cline says the forced-labor provision is not "a credible basis for replacing" the struck-down tariffs
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3965-in-a-policy-brief-published-in-august-2026
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Peterson Institute's Cline says the forced-labor provision is not "a credible basis for replacing" the struck-down tariffs". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3965-in-a-policy-brief-published-in-august-2026