Trump's New Trade Tariffs on Indonesia and Others Challenged, Face Cancellation
The administration of US President Donald Trump faced a lawsuit within hours of its latest import tariffs on more than 80 countries (previously 60) taking effect. A number of trade law experts believe the policy could meet the same fate as the reciprocal tariffs previously struck down by the courts.
The new tariffs came into force on Friday under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This is one of the strongest trade instruments available to the US government, as it authorises the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and take action against countries deemed to engage in unfair trade practices or violate US trade rights.
However, Peter Harrell, a visiting researcher at Georgetown University Law Center, argues that the Trump administration’s use of Section 301 exceeds its original purpose. “Section 301 was never intended to allow a president to permanently rewrite the entire tariff structure,” Harrell said, expressing confidence that the policy will “almost certainly” be struck down in court, as reported by CNBC International on Monday (27/7/2026).
Trump invoked Section 301 on the grounds that dozens of countries had failed to effectively combat forced labour practices. The new tariffs are divided into three tiers for trading partners: a 10% tariff (which includes Indonesia), tariffs of 10% or 12.5%, and tariffs of 12.5%.
The US government has also signalled it may open a similar investigation into the European Union in response to the large fines imposed on several American technology companies. The tariffs came days after Trump imposed a 25% tariff on Brazilian imports and threatened 50% tariffs on a number of Canadian products.
Details of the Lawsuit
Shortly after Trump’s tariff rules took effect over the weekend, two small companies reportedly filed a lawsuit with the US Court of International Trade. The suit accuses the Trump administration of using Section 301 as a pretext to revive a “global tariff regime” previously struck down by the courts in a ruling on the use of the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
According to the court filings, the new tariffs essentially preserve “the same tariff scheme as the previous policy”, merely “wrapped up in the justification of combating forced labour”. The plaintiffs argue that Section 301 does not authorise the government to impose tariffs on nearly all imports from most trading partners simply to replace the IEEPA-based tariff regime that has already been invalidated.
The Trump administration denies the allegations. A senior administration official said forced labour has long been a concern of the president.
“Addressing forced labour is something that has been a focus of President Trump for many years,” the official said, adding that the measure was taken “to avoid complexity”.
The Liberty Justice Center, a non-profit law firm, has also filed suit. It argues the government cannot maintain a global tariff policy simply by swapping the legal basis it relies upon.
Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law at UCLA and senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), shares that view. According to Clausing, the forced labour justification is merely a pretext for reviving tariffs previously struck down.
“In my view, tariffs under Section 301 are clearly unlawful,” she said.
Could Be Struck Down Again
Another senior PIIE researcher, Alan Wolff, also expects the Supreme Court could strike down the policy. According to Wolff, Section 301 requires evidence that a country’s policies or practices genuinely burden or restrict US commerce.
“That requirement… is difficult to prove against the roughly 60 countries targeted by the tariffs,” he said.