The term “forced labor” has generally been associated with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (the “UFLPA”). Historically, most compliance programs without specified products in their supply chains considered the UFLPA as a relatively remote US legal risk.
This is a mistake. While UFLPA compliance remains critical, it is no longer sufficient.
The UFLPA
The UFLPA introduced a rebuttable presumption that any goods connected to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, or to entities on the UFLPA Entity List are made with forced labor and therefore prohibited from import into the US. The risk is not just the restriction itself, but the presumption. It shifts the burden to the importer to prove the goods, and all their underlying parts, are free from forced labor across potentially complex supply chains.
In practice, that is a high evidentiary bar. Importers must be able to trace their supply chains, respond fully to CBP inquiries, and provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. If they can’t, shipments may be detained, excluded, or seized. The result is that UFLPA compliance requires more due diligence and documented visibility into how and where goods are made.
Dramatic Enforcement Changes
On March 12, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative launched investigations into 60 trade partners under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, including China, the EU, India, and Mexico. The key question? Whether countries that fail to prevent forced labor are creating unfair trade conditions that harm US commerce.
Unlike traditional import bans under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 301 allows the US to impose forced labor-related tariffs on entire countries, not just specific goods. And with the Supreme Court recently limiting tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Section 301 is back in focus.
Why does This Matter?
This is risk expansion beyond where forced labor actually occurs to where governments fail to regulate it (including in key supply chain hubs like Mexico). It also signals a shift towards using trade controls to address labor risks more broadly, not just stopping problematic imports at the door.
What companies should do now:
- Reassess supply chains beyond China
- Evaluate country-level enforcement, not just suppliers
- Move beyond paper certifications to more defensible due diligence practices
- Prepare for potential tariff exposure tied to labor practices
The takeaway is simple: forced labor compliance is now a trade policy tool. Companies should adjust their risk frameworks accordingly.
Have questions or need help? Contact our team today!
