China's commerce ministry calls the Section 301 action "a typical act of unilateralism and protectionism"
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of ChinaSpokesperson for the People's Republic of China's Ministry of Commerce, in published remarks answering a question about the final measures
In remarks released July 27, 2026, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce said China has always opposed forced labor and has a sound system of laws against it, and that the United States has not ratified the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 and has long manipulated the issue. The spokesperson called the Section 301 investigation and the unilateral tariffs, which the ministry said were imposed under the pretext of forced labor, "a typical act of unilateralism and protectionism, which China firmly opposes." The spokesperson also said the U.S. side had repeatedly indicated an intention to replace the IEEPA tariffs and the Section 122 surcharge with Section 301 tariffs, and urged the United States to abolish the tariffs.
“The latest move to initiate a Section 301 investigation and impose unilateral tariffs under the pretext of "forced labor" is a typical act of unilateralism and protectionism, which China firmly opposes.”
Official statement
Official statement
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
A question-and-answer statement by an unnamed spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce on USTR's final action. The answer also says the U.S. side had repeatedly indicated an intention to replace the IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs with Section 301 tariffs and reserves the right to take all necessary measures.
Official statement
About this source
The transcript of the foreign ministry's July 24 press conference. Asked about the 12.5% tariff on China, spokesperson Lin Jian restated China's opposition to unilateral tariffs and did not address whether the action is lawful.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The question asked for China's response to USTR's July 23 final measures, which include an additional 12.5% tariff on Chinese goods. China's foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian had said on July 24 that "We oppose all forms of unilateral tariffs."
After the quotation
The ministry said it reserves the right to take all necessary measures and is ready to continue consultations with the United States. USTR's July 23 release places China among the economies at 12.5%. As of September 30, 2026, no court had ruled on the tariffs.
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, the ministry rejects them as unilateralism and protectionism and demands their abolition, which meets the label's test of expressly rejecting the action. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, because it disputes the forced-labor rationale, but it also opposes the tariffs outright. The ministry speaks as a government affected by the tariffs and does not address whether they are lawful under U.S. law.
- 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
- China's commerce ministry calls the Section 301 action "a typical act of unilateralism and protectionism"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3967-in-remarks-released-july-27-2026-a-spokesperson
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "China's commerce ministry calls the Section 301 action "a typical act of unilateralism and protectionism"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3967-in-remarks-released-july-27-2026-a-spokesperson