Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate foreign unfair trade practices—like intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, or discriminatory tariffs—and recommend tariffs or trade restrictions in response. Unlike IEEPA (an emergency authority) or Section 122 (a balance-of-payments tool), Section 301 requires a formal investigation and finding of unfair practices before tariffs can be imposed, giving it a more durable legal foundation.
The USTR conducts an investigation, takes public comments, and must make written findings that a country engages in unfair trade practices before recommending action. Presidents have used Section 301 to impose tariffs on Chinese goods since 2018, citing intellectual property violations and forced technology transfer. After the Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs in February 2026, the Trump administration began initiating new Section 301 investigations to replace lost tariff authority.
Section 301 is the most legally durable presidential tariff authority because it requires substantive findings and involves the USTR's institutional expertise. However, presidents have broad discretion in defining what constitutes "unfair" practices.
Section 301 determines whether presidents can unilaterally penalize countries for trade practices deemed unfair. It's the longest-lasting and most litigation-proof tariff authority, shaping decades of trade disputes.
People think all tariffs need congressional approval. Congress delegated Section 301 authority to the president, giving the executive unilateral tariff power within defined bounds.
Section 301 determines whether presidents can unilaterally penalize countries for trade practices deemed unfair. It's the longest-lasting and most litigation-proof tariff authority, shaping decades of trade disputes.
People think all tariffs need congressional approval. Congress delegated Section 301 authority to the president, giving the executive unilateral tariff power within defined bounds.