US latest tariff salvo sparks condemnations amid trade uncertainty

The latest round of US tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from most trading partners, has triggered widespread criticism, with countries accusing Washington of unilateralism and warning that the measures could hurt American consumers and disrupt global trade.

In a statement on Friday, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide opposed a new 12.5 percent US tariff on its imports, saying, "We strongly disagree with the United States' unilateral use of tariffs against Norway and other countries. We also disagree with the justification for this new tariff."

Imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 – which empowers the US to combat unfair or discriminatory foreign economic practices – the United States has levied a new wave of tariffs on imports from 60 countries, accounting for 99% of US imports, alleging that these nations failed to adequately ban goods produced using "forced labor."

Norway called the tariff baseless, as clear rules are already in place to prevent trade in goods produced using forced labor, said the statement.

Anger, disappointment, lawsuit

Many US allies, trading partners, and the US itself have voiced condemnation and disappointment.

Condemning the US Trade Representative, lacking a legal basis under domestic law to support its protectionist ​trade policy, chose ​to manipulate an issue of great importance to workers' rights movement, Brazil said the tariffs were "arbitrary" and "unjustified."

Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell likewise called the tariffs "completely unjustified" and vowed to continue pushing for the removal of "all tariffs on Australian goods."

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said "it is regrettable that the measure imposes tariffs on the grounds of the non-existence of measures banning imports of goods made by forced labor, even though Japan's industry and trade are in line with international rules."

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the 12.5% tariffs on his country "extremely disappointing."

In the US, two small businesses, spice importer Burlap & Barrel and California watch retailer Collective Horology, jointly filed a lawsuit on Friday, arguing that the new tariffs require more detailed country-specific findings about unfair trade practices to be legally justified.

In the lawsuit, the small businesses said that Section 301 tariffs have historically been targeted at specific nations and industries, and that Trump's broad-brush approach has no historical precedent.

'One replaces the other'

Besides the condemnations, Canadian Minister of Internal Trade Dominic LeBlanc said the tariffs were "not unexpected," since they came just as a 10% global tariff Trump previously imposed expired.

Mexico's Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard similarly noted the timing of the new tariffs coinciding with the expiration of the others.

"One replaces the other, ​so tariff treatment is maintained," Mexico's Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said on social media.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, John Diamond, director of the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at the Baker Institute, said the US administration was looking for a new authority to replace the expiring tariffs and decided to use Section 301.

Ma Wei, an assistant research fellow at the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, also said the measure was intended to replace the now-invalid Section 122 tariffs, adding that it has little to do with the so-called "forced labor" issue.

"This was not a case of conducting an investigation first and reaching a conclusion afterward; rather, the decision to impose additional tariffs was made in advance, and a justification was sought afterward," Ma said.

Noting the tariffs cover 60 economies and include almost all imported goods, Ma said the measure is essentially a broad-based tariff increase imposed on the entire world, merely wrapped in the guise of a human rights concern.

Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, said the new tariffs would present another case of presidential overreach in a social media post.

A lose-lose scenario

Beyond criticisms, there are warnings that the tariffs could ultimately create negative consequences for both consumers and global trade. 

In a post on X, Economist and former International Monetary Fund (IMF) deputy managing director Gita Gopinath said that an IMF working paper suggests tariffs imposed by the United States in 2025 did little to force foreign exporters to lower their prices. Instead, US buyers increasingly shifted toward cheaper suppliers whose products were often of lower quality.

The result, according to the study, is that consumers may be paying higher tariff-inclusive prices while receiving lower-quality goods.

Uruguay President Yamandu Orsi said on Friday that the US tariff increase reflects a trend toward more protectionist global trade. "Protectionism is gaining ground; it is a daily fight around the world, and we have to be very smart and careful," he added.

Bank of France Governor Emmanuel Moulin told BFM Business TV that the US tariffs create "more uncertainty for world trade and clearly it's not favorable for growth."

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development released its latest Global Trade Update on Wednesday, identifying trade policy uncertainty, geopolitical tensions, and unilateral restrictive measures as the major risks currently facing international trade. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development had previously warned that a rise in protectionism would curb investment, slow productivity growth, and increase costs across global supply chains.

(With input from agencies)