You can search the content of this website using the search box below.
The United States Trade Representative has launched investigations into 60 major trading partners, with the stated aim of identifying if governments have enacted and are enforcing bans on goods made with forced labour.
The need for global action to tackle forced labour in supply chains is well overdue. However, for this process to have a tangible impact, the timing and scope must go beyond the current framing, which prioritises trade competition and economic nationalism above worker protection.
The United States Trade Representative has initiated 2 investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting more than 60 countries.
One examines whether governments are banning and enforcing restrictions on goods made with forced labour. The other focuses on structural overproduction in key sectors tied to global supply chains.
The reach is extensive, covering all major sources of imports to the US, including Australia, the European Union, China, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
Governments will be expected to explain why goods made with forced labour continue to enter national markets despite violating fundamental human rights that those same governments claim to uphold.
These countries do import goods at risk of being produced by forced labour. According to the Global Slavery Index, the world’s wealthiest countries, the G20, import nearly half a billion worth of goods at risk of forced labour each year.
The GSI also finds that no G20 government is doing enough relative to its capacity to address modern slavery.
Against the backdrop of an unpopular war, the Epstein files, domestic human rights concerns, and pushback on the administration’s tariff powers, the timing of these investigations invites cynicism. Yet they also focus attention on a policy gap that governments can no longer ignore.
US law has prohibited imports made with forced labour for decades, with enforcement expanding in recent years by closing loopholes in the 1930 US Tariff Act and through legislation such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
However, these investigations are not framed primarily as a human rights intervention, and region-specific bans can too easily become ineffective.
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act has also been criticised as disingenuously political and regularly circumvented by relocating workers outside the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
The US has instead positioned forced labour as a driver of unfair competition, arguing that exploitative production lowers costs and disadvantages domestic industries.
Forced labour continues in the US with 21,865 victims of labour trafficking, largely in the domestic work, hospitality, construction, and agriculture sectors, according to the 2024 National Human Trafficking Hotline.
State-imposed forced labour also still happens in the US, including the continued use of prison labour under the 13th Amendment, and inside ICE detention centres.
The investigations spotlight a key policy gap, but also risk treating a structural human rights crisis as a border problem with a single fix.
Import bans matter, but only as part of a system including corporate accountability, human rights due diligence, international coordination, and support for workers.
Walk Free’s Founding Director Grace Forrest said the impact of the investigations will depend on whether they drive genuine reform or short-term disengagement.
“While the motivations are murky, this global focus on how and what governments and businesses should be doing to end harm provides an opportunity for real change.
“Import bans alone won’t end forced labour, but with remediation requirements that keep buyers engaged rather than shirking their responsibilities, workers stand to benefit. However, if the result is optics and hasty divestment, it is workers who pay the price.”
Australia is among the countries under review, serving to highlight the gaps in its current approach to modern slavery.
High-risk goods still enter the country despite reporting requirements under the Modern Slavery Act, which have not driven consistent action or ended exploitation.
The Australian Government has an opportunity to act and close this gap. Statutory due diligence obligations are currently under consideration and should be introduced into the Modern Slavery Act as a next step.
Mandatory due diligence would require businesses to identify and address forced labour risks, shifting from disclosure to accountability.
Import bans must form part of a broader, coordinated approach that addresses both market access and root causes.
A credible framework would include:
The investigations could mark real progress if they are grounded in consistency, transparency, and focus on workers.
If the United States seeks to lead a credible global response to forced labour, it must extend its approach beyond external enforcement and strengthen accountability domestically.
This includes:
Without parallel action at home, the US’s global enforcement efforts risk being seen as selective rather than systemic.