Trump Hits 60 Countries With Forced-Labour Tariffs

Washington’s decision to impose tariffs of 10 to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 countries under Section 301 of the Trade Act ranks among the broadest trade moves of Donald Trump’s second term, and it is not a distant story for Serbia. The Serbian economy is tightly bound to European Union supply chains, and every new tariff wall between Washington and Brussels reshapes the terms under which goods produced in the region reach the American market. When the two largest trading blocs align their measures, the consequences are felt first on the periphery, and Serbia sits exactly there.

The new tariff structure took effect after a general 10 percent duty expired, and it is officially justified by products that Washington says were made with forced labour. According to the US administration, the measure covers 99.4 percent of imports from the targeted economies, meaning that almost no product from those countries escapes the new regime. Seventeen partners judged by Washington to have enforced stronger anti-forced-labour measures receive the lighter 10 percent rate, while most, among them China, the Philippines, Australia, Brazil, Thailand and Vietnam, pay the full 12.5 percent.

Why is Brussels speaking of both welcome and shock?

The European Union’s response reveals how delicate Brussels’s position has become. The European Commission gave a guarded welcome, arguing that the outcome is consistent with last year’s trade agreement between the two sides, and in doing so it avoided open conflict with the administration in Washington. That restraint is no accident: the European economy cannot afford a fresh trade war with its most important ally across the Atlantic, so the Commission chooses the language of cooperation over confrontation.

At the same time, the Union’s High Representative for foreign affairs, Kaja Kallas, called the measures a shock, showing that Europe’s institutions do not speak with one voice. The gap between the Commission’s technical assessment and the chief diplomat’s political reaction is not a contradiction but a reflection of the divide between those who read the letter of the agreement and those who see the tariffs as a geopolitical signal. For member states that depend on exports to the United States, every new duty is a question of jobs, not merely of statistics.

What is Beijing signalling, and what does it mean for the region?

China rejected the American findings and said the forced-labour claims were an excuse for political manipulation. For Beijing, which pays the top rate of 12.5 percent, the measure is strategic rather than commercial, part of a wider contest in which economic instruments serve political pressure. The Chinese response was predictable, but its tone shows that the space for dialogue is narrowing at the very moment global trade needs stability.

For Serbia and the Western Balkans, where Chinese investment has become a visible part of the economic landscape in recent years, this hardening between Washington, Brussels and Beijing creates a fragile balance. The countries of the region sit between markets that increasingly wield tariffs as a weapon, and every new measure shifts the ground beneath exporters’ feet. The geopolitical reality is that small economies rarely choose a side, yet they almost always pay the price of others’ decisions. Can Serbia hold its balance while the largest trading blocs collide over the rules of the game?