U.S. expands Section 301 review to 16 economies, including Korea, overproduction concerns

The Trump administration is moving to deploy Section 301 of the Trade Act as a more potent, long-lasting tariff tool that could supersede the current global tariff, which is set at 10 percent and tied to a time limit. Under the existing regime, tariffs tied to a different provision (Section 122) can be capped at 15 percent and are limited to a maximum of 150 days unless Congress extends them; the 10 percent global tariff is scheduled to remain in effect only until July 24 unless renewed.

Section 301 investigations proceed through a formal process that includes research, consultations, and hearings. Once tariffs under Section 301 are imposed, they can be raised further, and there is no explicit end date defined in the statute. That makes 301 a potentially harsher and more flexible economic lever than the current emergency tariff authority.

Officials have indicated the administration will first rely on the Section 122 authority to impose tariffs in the near term and, before the July expiration, could add tariffs under Section 301 and, if appropriate, Section 232 on additional goods. The plan envisions using 301 and 232 as a way to expand the tariff toolkit beyond the existing framework.

Historically, Section 301 has been used chiefly against China. In 2018, the Trump administration imposed broad 301 tariffs on Chinese goods in response to alleged intellectual property infringements, with some rates reaching 25 percent in targeted sectors. The Biden administration later applied the 301 framework to Chinese electric vehicles, among other measures, effectively implementing high tariffs on certain Chinese-made EVs.

The current move would open formal 301 investigations into 16 economic actors, including Korea, China, Japan, and Taiwan, on the grounds of potential overproduction. The U.S. government says it will examine whether government subsidies, currency manipulation, wage suppression, or environmental and labor standards are contributing to excess production.

For Korea, the prospect of new or higher tariffs could have outsized consequences given its heavy export dependence on the United States, especially in autos and semiconductors. The USTR has already pointed to Korea’s large bilateral trade surplus and suggested there may be structural overproduction in sectors such as petrochemicals, which could be cited as justification for new duties.

The USTR has announced a formal timeline for the 301 review, inviting written comments from interested parties from April 17 to May 15, holding a public hearing on May 5, and allowing seven days for rebuttals before determining next steps. This process could shape negotiations and leverage in the broader U.S.-Korea trade relationship and potentially affect supply chains that cross the Pacific.

China rejected the framing of “overproduction” as a justification, calling it a false premise and opposing its use for political purposes. Chinese officials also signaled they would maintain communication with Washington about the broader U.S.-China relationship, including ongoing dialogue around the U.S. president’s planned visit to China. The developments come as the United States weighs how aggressively to use tariffs to influence global trade patterns and address concerns over subsidies and competition.