US Section 301 Investigations: The UK Is in the Crosshairs on Forced Labour — Act Now

What Has Happened?

On 12 March 2026, the USTR self-initiated Section 301(b) investigations against 60 of the United States' largest trading partners, including the United Kingdom. The investigations will examine whether each economy's acts, policies, and practices relating to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on goods produced with forced labour are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

This action is taken under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, one of the most powerful unilateral trade tools available to the U.S. government. Crucially, these investigations were self-initiated by USTR under Section 302(b), which means they were not triggered by a complaint from an industry body or company, but reflect a deliberate policy priority of the current U.S. administration.

Ambassador Greer's statement frames the investigations explicitly in terms of competitive fairness: “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 labour.”

This signals that USTR views inadequate forced labour enforcement not merely as a human rights failing, but also as a trade distortion it intends to remedy.

Why Is the UK Included?

The UK's inclusion may come as a surprise to some, given that the UK enacted the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which was one of the world's first dedicated modern slavery statutes. However, USTR's investigation does not simply ask whether a legal framework exists; it asks whether that framework is effectively enforced and whether it includes a meaningful ban on the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

The Modern Slavery Act places disclosure and reporting obligations on large businesses, but it does not contain an import ban equivalent to the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) or the EU's forthcoming Forced Labour Regulation. USTR may therefore take the view that the UK's regime, whilst well-intentioned, lacks the enforcement teeth necessary to satisfy the standard under investigation.

Post-Brexit, the UK must now defend its position independently before USTR, without the support of EU-level coordination or collective bargaining power.

What Are the Potential Consequences?

If USTR makes adverse findings against the UK, the consequences could include:

• Tariffs on UK goods entering the US market — an additional trade burden on top of any existing measures, affecting UK exporters across sectors.
• Import bans or restrictions on specific categories of goods where forced labour concerns are identified — potentially devastating for affected industries.
• Reputational damage — an adverse finding would represent a formal U.S. government determination that the UK has failed to meet international standards on forced labour, with significant political and diplomatic consequences.

Even a preliminary negative finding would create uncertainty for UK businesses operating in or exporting to the U.S. market.

The Timeline — There Is No Time to Lose

Milestone	Date
Investigations initiated	Early March 2026
USTR consultation requests issued	Mid-March 2026
Deadline for written comments and hearing requests	15 April 2026
USTR Hearings	28 April 2026

These are hard deadlines. Missing the written comment deadline risks the UK's interests (both governmental and commercial) not being considered by USTR before findings are made.

What Should UK Businesses Do?

Conduct an urgent supply chain audit. Map your supply chains thoroughly and identify any exposure to jurisdictions already subject to heightened U.S. forced labour scrutiny. Where vulnerabilities are identified, gather and organise your due diligence documentation now, before any adverse findings are made. Demonstrating a proactive and robust compliance posture will matter both to USTR and to your U.S. commercial partners.

Review your U.S. contracts. Businesses should carefully assess whether adverse forced labour findings could trigger consequences under existing U.S. contracts — in particular, material adverse change clauses, compliance warranties, and termination rights that a U.S. counterparty might seek to exercise in the event of adverse USTR findings.

Consider making an independent submission to USTR. The written comment process, which is open until 15 April 2026, is an opportunity for businesses to place evidence before USTR. The written comment and hearing procedure is not a mechanism for challenging the legal basis or premise of the investigation itself. Rather, it is an opportunity for businesses, trade associations, and governments to submit factual evidence and representations to inform USTR's assessment, which, in effect, is a structured form of self-disclosure. Participants can set out the steps they have taken to address forced labour risks in their supply chains, highlight the strengths of the UK's existing regulatory framework, and provide commercial context that might bear on the scope or nature of any eventual measures. Companies with significant U.S. export interests should consider whether a submission, made individually or collectively through a trade body, would serve their interests.

Stay close to government and monitor developments. Engage with the Department for Business and Trade and relevant trade bodies to ensure you have early visibility of the UK Government's approach and any shift in USTR's direction of travel.

How We Can Help

Our firm has deep experience advising clients on both Section 301 proceedings and forced labour compliance, including supply chain due diligence, regulatory submissions, and engagement with USTR. We have assisted governments and private sector clients in navigating U.S. trade investigations and understand the procedural and substantive requirements of this process.

If you would like to discuss how these investigations may affect you, or if you wish to explore making a submission to USTR, please contact RWeekes@crowell.com and NPhillips@crowell.com.