The Trump administration announced new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on over 60 trading partners on the 26th (local time). The measures replace expiring temporary levies and cover more than 99% of US imports. University of Michigan Professor Justin Wolfers criticized the policy as a legal repackaging that will increase costs for American consumers. The announcement came hours before the expiration of a 10% global tariff previously imposed under Section 122 of trade law. The new framework invokes Section 301 investigative authority after earlier tariff attempts were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Trump Administration Implements Section 301 Tariffs on 80+ Countries
According to Benzinga on the 26th (local time), the Trump administration officially announced new tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on 60 trading partners to replace expiring temporary tariffs. When counting European Union member states individually, the number of affected countries exceeds 80. The new tariff structure applies to over 99% of all US imports. The administration based the measures on investigative authority granted under Section 301 of trade law. The announcement was made just hours before the expiration of the 10% global tariff that had been imposed under Section 122.
![]()
Wolfers Criticizes Legal Strategy Shift After Supreme Court Invalidation
Professor Wolfers described the new tariff framework as "new packaging on the same rotten policy," stating it may pass judicial review but will ultimately "deliver failure to America." Wolfers analyzed that the White House changed strategy after the Supreme Court invalidated tariffs previously imposed under emergency authority. He assessed that this third tariff attempt has "some chance of survival" not because it is smarter or more principled, but because it has a procedural framework more likely to be accepted by courts. Wolfers emphasized that even if the administration has appropriate legal grounds, it has still made an economically incorrect decision. He stated, "This tariff imposition may be justified in court, but ultimately it will bring no benefit to America."
Tariff Rates Differentiate Forced-Labor Compliance Standards
Under the new policy, countries judged to comply with forced-labor enforcement standards face a 10% tariff on imports, while trading partners that do not comply bear a 12.5% tariff. Wolfers dismissed the 2.5 percentage point difference between rates as "not diplomacy, just a rounding difference." He argued that targeting broad trade alliances weakens rather than strengthens US negotiating power. Wolfers stated, "What is happening now is so obviously malicious. It may be tolerated in court, but it will absolutely not be accepted by trade partners." He compared trade policy to a "zombie in a horror movie" that keeps reviving in increasingly ugly forms, warning that changing only the legal basis does not reduce fundamental economic costs. Wolfers concluded, "Ultimately the same trade war is repeating with the same opponents. The US administration has just mobilized better lawyers (only the legal response has become more thorough), but economically it will face worse results. In the process, we will all ultimately pay a higher price."
FAQ
What tariff rates did the Trump administration announce on the 26th?
The Trump administration announced tariff rates of 10% to 12.5% on over 60 trading partners (more than 80 countries when counting EU members individually). Countries complying with forced-labor enforcement standards face 10% tariffs, while non-compliant trading partners face 12.5% tariffs. The measures cover over 99% of US imports and are based on Section 301 investigative authority.
Why did Professor Wolfers criticize the new tariff policy?
Professor Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan criticized the policy as "new packaging on the same rotten policy," arguing it merely changed the legal basis after previous tariffs were invalidated by the Supreme Court. He stated that while the new framework may survive judicial review, it remains economically harmful and will increase costs for American consumers without delivering benefits to the US.
