USTR launches Section 301 investigations of 16 trading partners

On 11 March 2026 the Office of the United States Trade Representative initiated Section 301 investigations into the trade practices of 16 economies: China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.¹ The investigations focus on “structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors,” covering 21 sectors named in the USTR notice — including steel, autos, aluminum, cement, semiconductors, batteries, chemicals, machinery, electronics, solar modules, robotics, and transportation equipment.¹ The investigations address whether sustained overproduction in those sectors constitutes an unfair trade practice under 19 U.S.C. § 2411.² USTR set the written-comment deadline at 15 April 2026, scheduled public hearings 5–8 May 2026, and targeted 24 July 2026 for action.¹ A parallel Section 301 investigation initiated 12 March 2026 covers forced-labour practices across approximately 60 economies on a separate schedule and with its own remedy proposals — including 10% and 12.5% rate tiers announced 2 June 2026 — and is distinct in country list and sector scope from the 16-economy excess- capacity action reported here.³

1. Section 301 authorises USTR to investigate foreign acts, policies, or practices that are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.² The investigation framework includes mandatory public comment, hearing, and consultation steps; completion within twelve months is the statutory baseline.

2. Operative tariff measures require a final determination by USTR plus presidential proclamation under 19 U.S.C. § 2411(b).² As of initiation, the excess-capacity investigation does not name specific proposed tariff rates; any rate schedule appears in the USTR final determination or in the subsequent proclamation.

3. Section 301 is the principal post-IEEPA pathway for administration tariff actions following Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, in which the Court held that IEEPA does not authorise the President to impose tariffs.⁴ Section 2411 expressly authorises tariff imposition; Section 301 actions nonetheless remain subject to procedural review under the Administrative Procedure Act and to constitutional challenges on major-questions and delegation grounds.⁵⁶