Symbolic imageUS tariff wall widens to Switzerland and Mexico as Section 301 duties face court challenge
Washington's new Section 301 duties of 10% to 12.5%, imposed on some 60 countries over allegedly weak enforcement of forced-labour bans, are now in force and cover 99.4% of US imports according to the US Trade Representative. Switzerland has rejected the forced-labour accusations used to justify its levy, while the United States is pressing Mexico to copy its steel tariff wall aimed at China. The measures are being challenged in US courts, months after the Supreme Court struck down an earlier round of tariffs.
What happened
The United States has imposed duties of 10% or 12.5% on around 60 countries, justified by what Washington calls weak enforcement of bans on forced labour, according to a Reuters report carried on 26 July 2026. The measures rest on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the unfair-trade-practices statute used against China during the first Trump term, and they almost directly replace a temporary global 10% tariff that expired the previous Friday. The Office of the US Trade Representative says the new duties cover 99.4% of US imports into a market worth $3.4 trillion. They partially rebuild the earlier "Liberation Day" tariffs of 10% to 50%, which the US Supreme Court struck down this year as illegal because they were based on an untested national-emergencies law. Further actions are prepared: a Section 301 investigation into excess industrial capacity targeting 16 large trading partners including China, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Mexico and Vietnam; a probe into alleged intellectual-property theft by Vietnam; and national-security measures for semiconductors, robotics and industrial machinery. Switzerland has rejected the forced-labour accusations, the Wall Street Journal reports. Bloomberg reports that Washington is pressing Mexico to mirror its steel tariff wall directed at China, and that the Section 301 levies are being challenged in US courts, where, per the topic context, US small businesses are pressing their case while the duties continue to be collected.
The camps
Washington presents the duties as enforcement of existing law rather than improvisation: after the Supreme Court defeat, the administration is deliberately moving to traditional, court-tested trade statutes, and the USTR frames the forced-labour rationale as an unfair-trade-practice finding under Section 301. Switzerland rejects the forced-labour accusations outright, according to the WSJ, disputing the factual basis of its own tariff rate rather than only the level. Mexico is being asked to align its steel tariffs with the US wall against China, per Bloomberg; how Mexico City has answered is not stated in the available sources. China is named as a target of both the steel measures and the excess-capacity probe, but no Chinese response appears in these sources. US small businesses, plaintiffs in the litigation, argue the levies are unlawful; the government continues to collect them while the cases proceed.
The view from outside
The Turkish outlet Daily Sabah carried the Reuters account without amendment, framing the sequence as a shift from a chaotic opening phase to the construction of a more durable tariff wall. That reading stresses two effects at once: more clarity and certainty for businesses about the eventual tariff structure, and what the report calls dread in foreign trade ministries that they may have to offer further concessions to keep access to the US market. A trade lawyer quoted by Reuters described the moment as "the end of the beginning" of the tariff agenda, expecting large parts of the policy to be fully in effect by the end of the summer.
What's new
Until now the story was mainly about the regime as a whole — duties on more than sixty economies staying in force under Section 301 while the court challenge ran, with escalation concentrated on Canada. The new element is the widening to individual relationships beyond that: Switzerland publicly contesting the factual justification for its rate, and Mexico being pushed to replicate US steel barriers against China rather than merely absorb US duties. Reuters also lays out the pipeline of further actions — excess industrial capacity, Vietnam and IP, and strategic-sector national-security measures — indicating this is the first of several rounds, not the endpoint.
What could happen next
If the pipeline proceeds as described, the excess-capacity probe could extend duties to a further set of large trading partners and rebuild more of the structure the Supreme Court removed, with trade ministries weighing concessions against the cost of losing market access. The litigation is a separate track: courts could uphold the Section 301 basis, leaving the wall on firmer legal ground than its predecessor, or narrow it, raising questions about duties already collected. A third line runs through third countries: should Mexico align its steel tariffs with Washington's, the pressure would move to other partners to choose between the US market and their existing trade with China.
United States: Washington says the duties enforce forced-labour bans and unfair-trade rules under Section 301, and is rebuilding its tariff structure on statutes it considers court-tested.
Switzerland: Bern rejects the forced-labour accusations used to justify its new US tariff rate.
Mexico: Mexico is under US pressure to mirror Washington's steel tariff wall against China; its response is not stated in the available sources.
China: China is the declared target of the steel measures and of the excess-capacity probe; no Chinese reaction appears in these sources.
Also involved