The United States has proposed additional tariffs of 12.5% on imports from eight African countries, Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, and South Africa, following findings that these economies have failed to ban or enforce prohibitions on goods produced with forced labour, adding fresh pressure on a continent already struggling to hold its footing in a volatile global trade environment.
The proposal, unveiled on 2 June 2026 by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), is the outcome of 60 simultaneous Section 301 investigations that Washington launched in March this year to assess whether trading partners have legal frameworks in place to stop forced-labour goods from crossing into their markets.
According to the USTR’s findings, published in full at ustr.gov, 54 of the 60 economies investigated had neither imposed nor effectively enforced such a prohibition, while six others — Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan — had laws on the books but failed to apply them. All 60 now face proposed action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The eight African nations fall squarely in the first category. They would face a 12.5% additional duty on most goods entering the American market, compared with a lower 10% rate proposed for economies that have adopted at least a partial forced-labour prohibition or made commitments to do so under trade agreements with Washington.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement that the failure of trading partners to act was no longer something Washington would absorb. “The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” Greer said, as reported by CNBC Africa. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field. We will no longer tolerate this disparity.”
What makes this proposal different from Washington’s earlier tariff waves is its intent. The baseline 10% levy that President Donald Trump introduced earlier under his reciprocal trade framework was aimed at correcting trade imbalances and what his administration described as unfair market-access conditions. The new forced-labour tariffs are more specific. They target governance — whether a government has built the regulatory infrastructure to detect and block goods made through coercion from moving into international supply chains. That shift in framing matters, because it means the path to relief is not a trade deal or a deficit reduction but a legal and enforcement reform.
The proposal remains under review and has not taken effect. A public hearing is scheduled before 7 July 2026, giving affected governments and industries a window to submit comments. However, the direction the USTR has set is pointed. For African exporters, a 12.5% tariff layered on top of existing duties would raise the cost of doing business with one of the world’s largest consumer markets at a moment when many are already navigating the fallout from Trump’s earlier reciprocal tariff rounds.
Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, now faces this latest pressure even as it contends with a broader restructuring of its trade relationship with Washington. South Africa, a historically significant U.S. trade partner and a member of the African Growth and Opportunity Act framework, finds itself in a similar position. The proposal does carve out exemptions — energy products, certain metals, pharmaceuticals, coffee, and some agricultural goods are excluded — but for many exporters the scope of the proposed tariff is wide enough to carry real consequence.
For African governments, the USTR’s action frames a choice that is becoming harder to avoid: build the legislative and enforcement mechanisms to keep forced-labour goods out of supply chains, or accept a more expensive route into the American market. The investigation covered 60 economies and included consultations with 46 governments, meaning the process was neither sudden nor uninformed. The eight African countries named in the proposal had the opportunity to engage.
