Trade Act of 1974, Section 301

An act, policy, or practice is unjustifiable if the act, policy, or practice is in violation of, or inconsistent with, the international legal rights of the United States.

- Trade Act of 1974, § 301(d), , 19 U.S.C. § 2411(d)

What Is the Trade Act of 1974, Section 301?

Section 301 is the retaliation authority and it runs through the United States Trade Representative rather than the President directly. The statute splits into mandatory and discretionary tracks. If the Trade Representative determines that United States rights under a trade agreement are being denied, or that a foreign act is unjustifiable and burdens United States commerce, the Trade Representative shall take action. If the act is merely unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens commerce, action is discretionary but the Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action. The important structural point, and the reason Section 301 matters more after February 2026 than before it, is what the statute does not contain. There is no rate ceiling and no sunset clock. Compare Section 122, which caps the surcharge at 15 percent and expires in 150 days without congressional action. An authority with a record requirement but no numeric limit is slower to start and much harder to run out. As of July 2026 the Section 301 docket is broad. The Trade Representative has issued determinations in investigations of multiple economies over the failure to prohibit and enforce against imports produced with forced labor, taken action against Brazil over digital trade, preferential tariffs, intellectual property, ethanol market access and deforestation, initiated investigations into Germany over pharmaceutical pricing and Vietnam over intellectual property enforcement, and opened the second four-year review of the China technology transfer action. On August 3, 2026, Section 301 itself became a litigation target. Twenty-five states, led by Oregon, filed suit in the Court of International Trade challenging the Trade Representative's July 23 notice of action imposing worldwide tariffs of 10 and 12.5 percent, and requested a three-judge panel. The states frame the action as the administration's third tariff theory, after the IEEPA reciprocal tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February 2026 and the Section 122 surcharge, and plead in part that the Section 301 tariffs are ultra vires. It is the first case testing whether the durable, agency-record authorities can carry the tariff program the emergency authority no longer can.