William R. Cline
Role at the time: Senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a PIIE policy brief
Statement summary
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.”
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)Why we used 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.