USTR expands investigation to dozens more economies

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced it has added 60 additional countries to its ongoing Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974. The move follows an earlier round of probes launched this week and extends the review into a much broader set of trading partners.

Markets included in the initial probe

The first tranche of investigations focused on a number of major manufacturing and trading jurisdictions. That initial list included:

• China
• European Union
• Singapore
• Switzerland
• Norway
• Indonesia
• Malaysia
• Cambodia
• Thailand
• South Korea
• Vietnam
• Taiwan
• Bangladesh
• Mexico
• Japan
• India

Reason for the expanded inquiries

USTR said the broader review aims to determine whether each country’s actions, policies or practices — particularly failures to impose and enforce bans on imports made with forced labor — are unreasonable or discriminatory and whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

USTR’s message on forced labor and competitive fairness

USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer framed the investigations as an effort to confront unfair competitive advantages tied to forced labor. He said:

“Despite the international consensus against forced labor, governments have failed to impose and effectively enforce measures banning goods produced with forced labor from entering their markets. For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor. These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts U.S. workers and businesses.”

Legal and tariff context surrounding the probes

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the legality of the Trump administration’s use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In response, the White House adopted a 10% tariff under Section 122 for a 150-day period, a measure set to expire in late July. The administration cited reasons including a serious international payments imbalance, a widening U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, a push to increase domestic manufacturing, and efforts to curb fentanyl flows across the northern and southern borders.

Industry views on legal challenges and enforcement

Pete Mento, Director of Global Trade Management Services at Baker Tilly, told LM that Section 301 tariffs—aimed at addressing unfair trade practices—are particularly difficult for companies to overturn in court and that the full force of these tariffs has not yet been seen by industry stakeholders.

Mento noted the data gathered in Section 301 probes can strengthen the government’s case on issues such as forced labor, unfair trade practices, currency manipulation and intellectual property concerns. In a LinkedIn post he added that if the USTR finds a country’s industrial policies unreasonable or distortive, the United States could respond with tariffs.

1. Investigation
2. Public comments
3. Hearings
4. Findings
5. Imposition of new duties (tariffs)

Procedural timeline and opportunities for comment

The USTR has scheduled a public hearing on these investigations for April 28. Written comments are due by April 15, providing stakeholders an opportunity to submit views before the hearing.

Analysts’ take on broader economic impacts

Chris Rogers, Head of Supply Chain Research at S&P Global Market Intelligence, wrote that the overall economic effects of recent trade policy moves may be limited. He argued that duty rates tied to IEEPA are likely to be replaced by other programs with similar effective rates, and that the global economy has so far shown resilience to tariffs. Rogers also pointed out that larger near-term risks include uncertainty from conflict in the Middle East and attendant effects on oil prices.

Overview of February results for the two Southern California ports

The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach each released February cargo data showing mostly positive movement in container volumes, with differences in monthly and year-to-date trends across import, export and empty container categories.

Port of Los Angeles February totals and historical context

The Port of Los Angeles recorded total February volume of 824,323 TEU (Twenty‑Foot Equivalent Units), a 3% increase from the same month a year earlier and 11% above the port’s five‑year February average. That total represents the second‑largest February throughput in the port’s history, exceeded only by the pandemic‑era surge in February 2022.

Port of Los Angeles cargo mix and year‑to‑date figure

POLA’s February breakdown and year‑to‑date figure were reported as follows:

• Imports: 433,812 TEU, up 5% year‑over‑year
• Exports: 116,633 TEU, up 7% year‑over‑year
• Empty containers: 273,878 TEU, down 2% year‑over‑year
• Through the first two months of 2026, total POLA volume: 1,636,324 TEU, reported as up 5% year‑to‑date

POLA executive commentary on flows and seasonal effects

POLA Executive Director Gene Seroka attributed part of February’s import strength to the annual pull‑forward before the Lunar New Year factory shutdowns in Asia, when importers bring in extra cargo. He described the export figure as an improvement from recent lows, while noting substantial work remains to rebuild U.S. agricultural and manufacturing exports.

Seroka also said February’s level of empty boxes matches current demand patterns as carriers reposition equipment back to Asia during the traditional slack season. On a recent POLA media call he summarized the opening two months of the year by saying the port had handled about 1.6 million TEU and described cargo movement as steady.

He further characterized that performance in two ways: while the port is slightly ahead of its five‑year average, he said the start of this year was 5% lower than last year’s elevated beginning, which was driven by pre‑tariff shipments. Looking ahead, he said he expects a March dip in volumes followed by a stronger April as retailers begin replenishment and spring/summer fashion shipments return to the docks. Seroka also noted that despite trade policy shifts and events in the Middle East, the first two months have been relatively predictable and the port is positioned with efficient operations, ample capacity and a capable workforce.

Port of Long Beach February totals and year‑to‑date update

The Port of Long Beach reported total February volume of 767,525 TEU, a 0.3% increase over February of the prior year. On a year‑to‑date basis through February, POLB’s total volume was 1,615,290 TEU, a 6% decrease compared with the same period last year.

Port of Long Beach cargo composition for February

POLB’s February category results were detailed as follows:

• Imports: 368,060 TEU, down 0.2% year‑over‑year
• Exports: 97,422 TEU, up 8.2% year‑over‑year
• Empty containers: 302,044 TEU, down 0.15% year‑over‑year

POLB leadership perspective on operations amid uncertainty

Port of Long Beach CEO Dr. Noel Hacegaba said cargo volumes remained positive in February despite growing uncertainty tied to the conflict in the Middle East. He told reporters that shipments continue to move smoothly, planned sailings remain on schedule, and the port has acted as a reliable harbor amid trade and geopolitical uncertainty.

Hacegaba added that the conflict has injected additional uncertainty into global trade and has prompted broad market reactions across the supply chain, but emphasized that cargo movement at Long Beach remains fluid.

Administration announces temporary waiver

The White House announced a temporary suspension of the Jones Act for a 60-day period, a move it says is intended to blunt an abrupt rise in energy costs tied to recent developments in the Middle East.

Context of recent strikes and stated objective

The waiver follows joint strikes carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran nearly three weeks earlier. Officials framed those actions as part of an effort to stop Iran’s progress on nuclear capabilities, and the Administration linked the military activity to a subsequent surge in energy prices.

What the Jones Act requires

The Jones Act governs domestic shipping between U.S. ports. Under the statute, cargo moved between American ports must be transported on vessels that are built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, registered under the U.S. flag, and crewed predominantly by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Administration rationale and official statement

Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on social media that President Trump places the American public first and that the temporary waiver is designed to keep oil and other energy supplies moving to communities across the country during disruptions. Wright added that the measure should help ease short-term upward pressure on oil prices as the Administration works to lower costs.

Recent market moves and official data

The Administration’s concern about price spikes is supported by Energy Information Administration figures released earlier in the week. The national average retail price for diesel reached $5.071 per gallon in the most recent week of reporting.

At the same time, the U.S. benchmark for crude, West Texas Intermediate, climbed by roughly $25 to $35 per barrel — an increase of about 30% to 50% — to trading levels between roughly $90 and more than $100 per barrel over the approximately three-week period since the Iran-related hostilities began.

White House intent to ease supply constraints

According to reporting from CNBC, the Administration told the network the waiver is meant to stabilize oil markets while the Iran conflict continues. Officials said the action will permit vital commodities — including oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and coal — to move freely to U.S. ports for the 60-day duration, and that the Administration remains committed to strengthening critical supply chains.

Maritime unions issue strong opposition

A broad coalition of U.S.-based maritime labor unions responded with a joint statement condemning the waiver. The coalition included the following organizations:

• American Maritime Officers
• American Radio Association
• International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots
• Marine Firemen’s Union
• Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association
• Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO
• Sailors’ Union of the Pacific
• Seafarers International Union
• Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Unions' national security and economic concerns

The unions argued the sweeping waiver undercuts national security, harms military readiness and shifts important maritime work to foreign operators. Their statement said Jones Act waivers are supposed to meet a strict legal standard and historically have been granted only for narrow, clearly defined national security emergencies when U.S.-flag capacity is demonstrably unavailable.

Economic critique from maritime labor

Maritime labor leaders said the waiver will do little to lower pump prices, noting that gasoline costs are driven primarily by the global crude market. They cited multiple analyses indicating domestic coastal shipping contributes less than one cent per gallon to retail fuel prices and warned that any small savings are unlikely to reach consumers and instead would benefit foreign shipping interests while displacing American maritime jobs.

Call for reversal and alternative solutions

The unions urged the Administration to rescind the waiver and to collaborate with affected parties on measures to tackle energy costs that do not compromise American employment, national security, or the long-term health of the U.S. maritime industrial base.

Expert view on practical barriers to the waiver

Jock O’Connell, an economist at the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association, described significant logistical and regulatory hurdles that could limit the waiver’s short-term effectiveness. He noted that finding or redeploying suitable vessels and hiring crews would be difficult within the 60-day window.

Specific operational and regulatory obstacles

O’Connell highlighted several practical impediments:

• Owners would need to identify or reassign ships from existing services.
• Crew hiring and deployment would be required for any non-U.S.-flagged vessels to operate on U.S. trades.
• The U.S. Coast Guard would likely inspect vessels and certify officers before they could carry cargo to U.S. ports.
• Environmental regulations may rule out the use of many older vessels and barges.

Potential timeline mismatch

O’Connell cautioned that by the time foreign owners and operators completed required inspections, certifications and compliance steps, the 60-day waiver period could already have expired, limiting any intended short-term relief.