The United States is preparing to impose new tariffs on 60 trading partners, including Costa Rica, for failing to prevent forced-labor goods from entering their own markets and, by extension, the American one. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer signaled this week that the measures are nearing completion, sorting the targeted economies into two tariff tiers based on their legal infrastructure and enforcement records for labor-Compliance rules.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has determined that the majority of targeted nations have neither established nor effectively enforced a legal prohibition on importing goods produced with forced labor. That group, which includes Costa Rica, faces a proposed 12.5 percent tariff rate. A smaller cohort of economies that maintain at least a partial ban but enforce it inadequately-including Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan-would face a 10 percent rate instead.
For Costa Rica, the timing and level of the new tariff creates measurable economic stakes. Costa Rican goods currently enter the United States under a temporary 10 percent duty that the Trump administration imposed in February following a Supreme Court decision striking down an earlier round of tariffs. That temporary duty is scheduled to lapse on July 24. Costa Rica’s Ministry of Foreign Trade has stated that the proposed 12.5 percent rate would substitute for the expiring 10 percent rather than stack on top of it, although earlier U.S. filings have been read by some analysts as implying a combined burden closer to 22.5 percent-a discrepancy that remains unresolved pending final notice.
How The Investigation Moved From Statute to Proposed Tariff
The investigation advanced rapidly under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the same statute Washington has invoked to address what it regards as unfair trade practices in other disputes. The U.S. Trade Representative opened proceedings on March 12 and conducted consultations with involved governments, held public hearings in late April, and accepted hundreds of written submissions before publishing findings in early June.
Costa Rica lodged its objection on July 6, the final day of the public comment period. The country’s foreign trade minister submitted a formal defense asking Washington to exclude Costa Rican products and to preserve zero-tariff access negotiated under CAFTA-DR, the free trade agreement linking the United States, Central America, and the Dominican Republic.
The timing of the enforcement action reflects a broader regulatory shift. As attribution science has advanced in recent years, policy makers and judges have found themselves better equipped to link specific damages to identifiable sources of pollution or harm. In the forced-labor context, the U.S. Trade Representative’s approach uses tariff leverage to compel Compliance with domestic import prohibitions-treating supply-chain accountability as a matter of trade enforcement rather than purely labor diplomacy.
The Scale Of Costa Rican Trade At Risk
The stakes are considerable given Costa Rica’s export profile. The United States is Costa Rica’s single largest trading partner, absorbing roughly 47 percent of all national goods exports in 2025-a total valued at approximately $10.8 billion. Any change to tariff treatment directly affects the competitiveness of Costa Rican goods in the American market and, by extension, the country’s export revenues.
The distinction between a 10 percent and a 12.5 percent tariff may seem narrow on paper, but over a $10.8 billion export base it translates into material cost increases for Costa Rican exporters. Whether the new rate replaces or stacks with the expiring temporary duty remains a critical open question for trade planning.
Regulatory Compliance And Institutional Credibility
The tariff proposal reflects a pattern observed across sectors and jurisdictions: when regulators detect systemic failures to meet minimum standards, they face a choice between allowing continued operation under existing terms or escalating enforcement pressure. Effective regulation requires more than passive oversight; when institutions consistently fail to meet minimum standards, regulators face a choice between allowing continued operation or intervening with enforcement tools.
In this case, the tariff action itself serves as both a penalty and a compliance lever. By tiering nations based on labor-enforcement records, the U.S. Trade Representative is signaling that tariff relief depends on demonstrable legal and institutional change-not merely on promises or negotiations. That approach transfers the burden of proof from U.S. regulators (who must detect forced labor after goods cross borders) to trading partners (who must prevent it at the source).
The question facing Costa Rica and other targeted economies is whether the tariff threat will prompt legislative or enforcement reforms within their borders. On the American side, the question is whether tariff differentials will remain in place long enough to validate behavioral change, or whether trade negotiations will compress them before institutional reforms take hold.
Formal announcements of the final tariff rates could come within days. For now, the enforcement framework is clear: nations without functioning forced-labor import prohibitions face a 12.5 percent rate; those with partial frameworks but weak enforcement face 10 percent. The gap exists not as a fine but as a regulatory signal that supply-chain accountability is now a condition of preferred U.S. trade access.
