'Weaponising Section 301': Strategic expert slams Trump's fresh tariffs despite India-US trade talks

The Trump administration has unveiled a fresh round of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, reviving its aggressive trade agenda just hours after temporary global import duties expired. The move has sparked fresh questions about the reliability of US trade agreements, with geostrategist Brahma Chellaney warning that Washington's latest strategy allows it to unilaterally alter the terms of trade. 

In a post on X, Chellaney argued that while the US Supreme Court may have struck down President Donald Trump's earlier global tariffs, the administration has simply found another legal pathway to continue its trade offensive. 

"The U.S. Supreme Court may have struck down Trump's global tariffs but he has found new ways to press ahead with his trade war. Trump's new Section 301 tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, replace the global duties that have just lapsed. More tariffs are on the way, as Washington is targeting India, the European Union, China and 13 other trading partners under Section 301 over alleged unfair manufacturing practices." 

He added that the development casts a shadow over ongoing India-US trade negotiations. 

"India is close to concluding a new bilateral trade agreement with Washington. Yet the weaponization of Section 301 — and Trump's habit of moving the goalposts — raises a fundamental question: What is the value of a trade agreement with Washington if its terms can be unilaterally rewritten at any time?" 

What the new tariffs mean 

The new tariffs, effective from 12:01 am Friday, replace the temporary 10% global import duty imposed after the US Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs introduced in April 2025. 

The latest action divides trading partners into two categories: 

• 10% tariffs: Countries that have adopted or committed to enforcing bans on imports made using forced labour. This group includes India, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka. 
• 12.5% tariffs: Countries that, according to Washington, have failed to adopt such prohibitions. This category includes China, Japan, Australia, Brazil and Israel, among others. 

The White House said India avoided the higher tariff after introducing forced-labour import prohibitions or making commitments to strengthen enforcement. 

Why India remains at 10% 

Although Trump had earlier threatened India with an additional 12.5% tariff over forced-labour enforcement concerns, the final order keeps India's tariff rate at 10%. 

According to the White House, economies including India, Cambodia, Guatemala, Honduras, Sri Lanka and Trinidad and Tobago have either adopted forced-labour import prohibitions or committed to doing so. As a result, they qualify for the lower tariff tier, although Washington said the levy is intended to encourage effective enforcement. 

US says tariffs are about human rights 

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the move, saying the United States has long enforced restrictions on imports made using forced labour. 

"The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it. It's well past time for our trading partners to do the same." 

He added: "Today's action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and a distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere." 

Section 301 becomes Trump's new trade weapon 

The latest measures are based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the US President to impose tariffs after investigations conclude that foreign trade practices unfairly affect American commerce. 

The shift follows the Supreme Court's decision that invalidated many of Trump's earlier tariffs. After that ruling, the administration temporarily relied on Section 122 of the same law to impose a 150-day global tariff, which expired as the new Section 301 measures came into force. 

Critics argue that the administration is effectively replacing one legal mechanism with another to preserve its tariff-first trade policy. 

The broader economic debate over tariffs continues. The New York Federal Reserve has estimated that around 90% of the cost of tariffs is ultimately borne by US consumers and businesses, challenging the administration's claim that the measures primarily hurt foreign exporters.