While the tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration on 60 economic entities on the 23rd (local time) are justified under the pretext of forced labor, general assessments suggest their actual purpose is to replace the reciprocal tariffs previously ruled unlawful.

This reflects the Trump administration's determination to push forward with its tariff policy despite the braking action of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The mobilization of Section 301 of the Trade Act as the basis for the tariffs is also seen as a calculation to secure an advantageous position in legal battles.

Around 5 p.m. that day, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced the finalization of "forced labor tariffs" ranging from 10% to 12.5% on 60 economic entities, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act.

The USTR's logic is that 60 economic entities, including the European Union (EU), have failed to adequately block imports of products made with forced labor, thereby harming U.S. trade, which has enforced related regulations for nearly a century.

Enacted in 1974, Section 301 of the Trade Act grants the executive branch the authority to respond to unfair or discriminatory practices and policies of foreign governments through measures such as imposing tariffs.

Although the U.S. has put forward the lack of regulations on forced labor products as its justification, the prevailing view is that the real intent is to fill the void left by the reciprocal tariffs that were blocked and ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled the country-specific reciprocal tariffs imposed by President Trump unlawful last February.

The ruling was based on the premise that the imposition of reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was unjustified.

The Trump administration pulled out the card of a "10% global tariff" under Section 122 of the Trade Act—which can be levied for a maximum of 150 days—while preparing the "forced labor tariff" based on Section 301 of the Trade Act.

By finalizing the forced labor tariffs seven hours before the 10% global tariffs expired, the administration ensured that the tariffs would remain in place without interruption.

Although limited to 60 economic entities, considering that these countries account for 99% of U.S. imports, it is effectively the same as imposing new tariffs on virtually all of America's trade partners.

However, products such as steel, aluminum, and automobiles are subject to separate product-specific tariffs and are therefore exempt from this forced labor tariff.

Peter Harrell, a former official in the Joe Biden administration, pointed out to The New York Times (NYT) that "the USTR is using the forced labor investigation as a pretext to implement the tariffs President Trump wants," noting that forced labor is merely an excuse.

Interpretations suggest that invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act as the basis for the tariffs was done with legal battles in mind.

With lawsuits to invalidate the tariffs expected, the move is calculated to avoid defeat by utilizing Section 301, which has served as the basis for tariffs multiple times before and rests on a relatively clear legal foundation.

The Washington Post (WP) pointed out that "President Trump used a law considered less vulnerable to litigation than the hasty approach adopted last year (for imposing reciprocal tariffs)," adding that "he appears to want to mobilize every available trade power."

Critics also note that if the regulation of products produced by forced labor were truly the Trump administration's goal, it would be contradictory to impose a 12.5% rate on South Korea and other countries while applying the exact same rate to China, which has long faced international criticism regarding forced labor.

Furthermore, the Trump administration is evaluated as being less responsive to international human rights issues, including allegations of forced labor in China, compared to previous administrations.

President Trump is sticking to his signature tariff policy even as the armistice memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Iran has effectively become a dead letter and the situation spirals toward a major escalation.

Appearing before the Senate Banking Committee the previous day, USTR Representative Jamieson Greer previewed the imminent finalization of the forced labor tariffs, emphasizing, "While the specific authorities this administration is using have changed, our trade strategy has not. We will continue to utilize tariffs."

Ahead of the November midterm elections, the move appears intended to rally supporters by sticking to flagship policies across various fields, though it remains uncertain whether persisting with tariff policies will actually benefit plummeting approval ratings.

Concerns are rising that as the war with Iran causes oil prices and overall living costs to pressure American businesses and households, clinging to tariff policies could trigger rising prices for daily necessities and act as an additional inflationary factor.

"Overcapacity tariffs" based on Section 301 of the Trade Act are also expected to be announced before long.

Initially, the USTR launched investigations into two areas—forced labor and overcapacity—last March, and South Korea is a target for both.

Fears are also growing that President Trump could wield separate tariffs by mobilizing other tools.

President Trump recently slapped an additional 50% tariff on Canada using Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, prompting observations that he is testing a statutory provision that had not been used to impose tariffs for 96 years.

There are also several ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Commerce based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

Applying this provision would allow the president to impose a 25% tariff for reasons of national security.

The challenge lying ahead for South Korea is how to defend against America's aggressive tariff policies.

This is because the Trump administration's determination to levy tariffs using whatever means necessary has been confirmed on multiple occasions.

For now, the Section 301 forced labor tariff has been set at 12.5%, the expected level.

The remaining task is to skillfully manage South Korea-U.S. relations so that the upcoming overcapacity tariffs, when combined with the forced labor tariffs, do not exceed the 15% limit established through existing trade agreements with the United States.