The Menacing 301 Tariffs Are Here!

On July 23, local time, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, using the pretext of so-called "forced labor" to impose tiered tariffs on 60 countries and regions worldwide.

From the "Liberation Day Tariffs" launched in April 2025, to Section 122 this past February, and now Section 301, the Trump administration has exhausted every means to prolong the effectiveness of U.S. tariff policies, delivering a fresh round of shocks and challenges to the global economic and trade order.

Announcement on the official USTR website.

Tariff Repackaging with a Seamless Transition

This U.S. tariff adjustment is meticulously designed, with a seamless transition between old and new policies—a clear sign that the White House has gone to great lengths to implement Trump's tariff agenda.

Precision Timing in Legal Transition

In February of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "reciprocal tariffs" imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unconstitutional.

On the very day of the ruling, the Trump administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing "balance of payments imbalances" to impose a 10% temporary tariff on all countries.

However, Section 122 grants the president tariff authority for only 150 days, with no possibility of extension. In other words, this temporary tariff would automatically expire on July 24.

To that end, the USTR initiated a replacement plan as early as March, launching two parallel Section 301 investigations: one targeting so-called "overcapacity," and the other directly aimed at "forced labor," covering the 60 economies in this round.

Ultimately, the "forced labor" investigation was completed in just five months—solely to ensure a seamless transition between the old and new policies.

At the same time, Section 301 has no statutory constraints on tariff rates or implementation duration, subject only to a mandatory review every four years.

This means the Trump administration can escape the "temporary" nature of high tariff barriers and legally pursue tariff policies over the long term.

On July 22, the U.S. Trade Representative testified at a hearing.

Precisely Calibrated Tariff Scope

This round covers approximately 99% of U.S. foreign trade volume, effectively bringing nearly all major trading partners into the tariff net, with differentiated rates based on unilaterally determined U.S. criteria.

• Tier 1 includes 17 economies—Canada, the UK, Mexico, and others—subject to a 10% tariff. The U.S. claims these economies have already implemented so-called "forced labor control measures," thus qualifying for lower rates.
• Tier 2 includes the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (China), and others. They are not subject to a standalone 12.5% tariff; instead, their Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) rates are stacked with Section 301 tariffs. As a result, the final applicable rates for these economies are capped between 10% and 12.5%.
• Tier 3 includes 38 economies—China, Brazil, Thailand, and others—subject to a 12.5% tariff. The U.S. alleges that these economies have not implemented "forced labor" bans, thus incurring higher rates.

This classification standard, determined at the USTR's sole discretion, is rash and absurd. "Forced labor" is nothing more than a veneer for the Trump administration's protectionist trade agenda.

 

Carefully Curated Exemption List

This tariff scheme also includes an exemption list, with all waivers concentrated in strategic goods indispensable to the U.S.

Minerals, pharmaceuticals, aviation components, and basic industrial raw materials are exempt from the new tariffs. This arrangement is heavily self-serving: by keeping upstream raw material imports tariff-free, the U.S. stabilizes domestic prices while shifting the entire tax burden onto foreign products.

Additionally, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh can receive tariff exemptions on apparel and textiles, up to the value of U.S. cotton and textile raw materials they import. This is designed to encourage these four countries to buy more U.S. textile materials for their garment processing industries.

The Trump administration's tariff plan may appear legally grounded, but in reality, it places domestic law above multilateral trade rules. At its core, it remains the same "America First" hegemonic logic.

Interlocking Interests and Calculations

By switching tariff legal instruments, the U.S. has transformed temporary tariff measures into institutionalized tariff weapons, underpinned by complex interests and strategic calculations.

Pressuring International Trading Partners

• For allies, the U.S. has not granted exemptions, merely setting relatively lower rates to maintain a semblance of unity within the alliance system. The tiered tariff structure allows the U.S. to both coerce allies into making concessions on market access, rules of origin, and geopolitical issues, and to reinforce its control over the alliance system through economic means. Moreover, for U.S. allies to secure lower rates, they must amend domestic laws to align with U.S. standards and submit to verification.
• For China, the timing of this new Section 301 tariff carries strong overtones of strategic maneuvering. Although recent China-U.S. economic and trade teams have maintained communication, differences persist on issues like market access. This comes as high-level talks between the two sides are scheduled to resume, making the U.S. move a clear bid to gain additional bargaining leverage.

Consolidating Domestic Electoral Support

With the U.S. midterm elections approaching and the manufacturing reshoring narrative heating up, tariffs have become a highly cost-effective political tool.

On one hand, during the implementation of Section 122 tariffs, the federal government collected approximately $8 billion per month—a significant incremental revenue source for the Trump administration. By extending tariff policies, the administration can sustain this revenue stream to support domestic fiscal spending.

On the other hand, Trump continues to showcase his "America First" toughness to voters, thereby shoring up support among conservative constituencies. The core message is unmistakable: no matter what judicial rulings may obstruct, the administration's resolve to maintain high-pressure tariffs and uphold "America First" will never waver.

A Prelude to Further Actions

This round of Section 301 tariffs under the "forced labor" pretext is only the beginning. Another Section 301 investigation targeting so-called "industrial overcapacity" is still underway, and more targeted tariff barriers in key industries—steel, automobiles, new energy, and others—cannot be ruled out in the future.

This U.S. tariff policy reveals two clear trajectories: for high-tech, new energy, and other industrial commanding heights, the U.S. will continue tightening imports to curb the industrial upgrades of major competitors; for consumer goods like apparel and home furnishings, exemption policies are designed to alleviate domestic inflation and create breathing room.

The Trump administration has changed tariff justifications time and again, but its essence—wielding tariffs as a weapon and pursuing trade protectionism—has never changed. Such unilateral actions that undermine the international economic and trade order cannot resolve its own deep-seated structural problems and will ultimately backfire.

In an era of deep global economic integration, a zero-sum game leads nowhere. Only through equal consultation and mutual benefit can trade differences be genuinely resolved.

Jiu Wan Li: The High Ground

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

On September 12, Dario Amodei, CEO of the leading American AI company Anthropic, released an open statement on social media calling for a coordinated global slowdown in artificial intelligence development. The initiative quickly drew support from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

However, beneath this proposal ostensibly framed around global AI safety lies a thick layer of containment provisions targeted directly at Beijing. In effect, Amodei has handed the U.S. government a comprehensive roadmap for AI strategy against China—and laid down a brazen geopolitical declaration of war.

Amodei published an essay titled "We Must Pace the Frontier."

An Open Declaration of AI War

In his essay, Amodei stated flatly that Western nations cannot afford to be "naive" when engaging with China on AI. He warned that if the U.S. unilaterally slows its R&D pace while China charges ahead, Beijing will leapfrog Washington in military AI and frontier applications, fundamentally shattering the existing technological balance.

To safeguard American AI hegemony, Amodei proposed a strategy of "containment first, negotiation later," built around three aggressive containment pillars:

First, choking off AI chip exports. Amodei urged Washington to tighten export licensing and aggressively crack down on covert channels, such as secondhand resales and third-country transshipments, to plug every loophole feeding hardware to China. Raising hardware barriers for Chinese foundation models would prolong their iteration cycles—a direct call for the U.S. government to double down on its strategy of technological bottlenecks.

Second, severing the path of model distillation. Model distillation—where a newer model learns from a mature, large-scale model to acquire near-frontier capabilities at a fraction of the cost—is a standard practice across the global AI industry. Yet Amodei argued that Chinese firms use distillation to dramatically compress iteration cycles, blunting the impact of U.S. chip sanctions. His proposal effectively seeks to cut off Chinese enterprises from accessing overseas APIs for low-cost algorithmic learning.

Third, guarding against model parameter leaks. Amodei called on U.S. AI labs to fortify internal security to prevent model weights from leaking overseas. He argued that if frontier weights fall into Chinese hands, developers in China could bypass immense training costs and rapidly replicate state-of-the-art performance, thereby undermining Washington's chip controls and anti-distillation policy investments.

Amodei made no secret of the end goal: if successfully executed, these tactics will severely handicap China’s AI industry, dramatically widen America’s competitive moat, and hand "democratic nations" immense leverage in future negotiations with Beijing.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.

A Geopolitical Play Beyond Pure Tech

Amodei projects that over the next 3 to 5 years, AI will fundamentally redefine global geopolitics. During this narrow window of strategic opportunity, he argues, U.S. tech giants must actively align with Washington to secure broader geopolitical advantages.

Consolidating Tech Hegemony Historically, the United States has dominated core pillars like general-purpose foundation models, AI chips, and foundational software, with firms like OpenAI and Anthropic serving as the industrial bedrock of American AI supremacy.

However, China’s AI sector has advanced at a blistering pace. Models like DeepSeek and Qwen have achieved breakthroughs in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and training efficiency, with key benchmarks closing in on the global frontier. This rapid catch-up has triggered deep anxiety across Silicon Valley and Washington.

Realizing that standard market competition may no longer suffice to halt China’s momentum, American industry leaders are now cloaking their commercial anxieties in the language of global safety risks. By lobbying for aggressive regulatory barriers, they aim to starve China of technology access, buying themselves vital breathing room to consolidate U.S. dominance.

Monopolizing the Rulebook On September 8, three U.S. security agencies issued a joint advisory naming six Chinese AI companies, accusing them of extracting U.S. frontier models on an "industrial scale." This unilateral charge dovetailed seamlessly with Amodei’s narrative.

Washington’s true calculus is to rebrand unilateral containment tools—chip embargoes, distillation bans, and weight lockouts—as "universal norms for AI safety." By placing safety audits and compliance authorizations firmly under U.S. jurisdiction, Washington can wield "compliance" as a geopolitical cudgel to police the global AI industry, converting a fleeting technical lead into long-term institutional privilege while denying other nations a fair shot at development.

Erecting a New Ideological Iron Curtain

Throughout his manifesto, Amodei relies heavily on ideological rhetoric, repeatedly contrasting "democracies" with "autocracies" to frame AI competition as a clash of rival governance systems and values. This framing completely politicizes what is inherently a technological issue.

In recent years, Washington has routinely drawn ideological lines in the tech sector—from placing Chinese firms on military-linked entity lists to curbing exports under the banner of "national security" and forging "democratic technology alliances."

Amodei’s call for "global coordination" is simply the latest attempt to weaponize corporate interests into policy and propaganda tools against China.

Amodei's "AI Cold War script" pushes containment under the guise of safety and enforces bloc confrontation under the pretext of global governance. It defies the fundamental laws of technological progress and runs counter to the shared interests of humanity.

As a new Iron Curtain accelerates its descent between China and the United States, the fierce contest over artificial intelligence has officially entered the fast lane.