Key Takeaways
- Section 301 forced-labor tariffs of 10% to 12.5% took effect July 24, 2026, replacing the reciprocal tariffs the Supreme Court struck down earlier this year.
- Section 301 rests on an established congressional statute, the same authority used against China in 2018, which makes it far more resistant to legal challenge than the invalidated tariffs.
- Seafood was named a specific USTR target and received zero product-level exemptions, even though beef and coffee were exempted after making similar arguments.
- Canada, Mexico, Iceland, Faroe Islands, and Greenland face 0% tariffs. Vietnam, China, Norway, Chile, and Brazil face 12.5%. Ecuador and India sit at 10%.
- Chile and Norway, the two largest suppliers of US salmon, are now at a structural cost disadvantage against zero-rated Faroese and Icelandic salmon.
- Buyers are weighing four responses to the new cost structure: absorbing the tariff, reformulating with different species or origins, passing the cost through to price, or waiting out the uncertainty.
On July 24, 2026, a new US tariff regime took effect on seafood imports, and it looks nothing like the one it replaced. Where last year’s reciprocal tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court, the new Section 301 tariffs rest on a legal foundation the administration considers far harder to unwind. Rates run 10% to 12.5% depending on country, and seafood was one of the few categories denied any product-level exemption. For an industry that imports roughly 90% of what the US consumes, that decision reshapes the competitive map by country and by species.
A New Legal Foundation: Section 301 vs. the Old Reciprocal Tariffs
The tariffs announced this month are not a continuation of the reciprocal tariffs first introduced in 2025. Those were struck down by the Supreme Court, forcing the administration to pivot to a different legal mechanism: Section 301.
That distinction matters. Section 301 gives the US Trade Representative’s office authority to investigate whether a trading partner’s policies unfairly burden US commerce, and it rests on a specific congressional statute with decades of precedent. That includes the China tariffs imposed in 2018, many of which remain in place today. It’s why Section 301 tariffs carry a level of durability the reciprocal tariffs never had, and why they’re considerably harder to challenge in court.
The new tariffs are keyed to a single question: does a country have a law against forced labor that the US finds adequate, or has it committed to passing one? Countries that clear that bar face a 10% rate. Everyone else faces 12.5%.
This was discussed at length in our recent podcast:
Why Seafood Was Singled Out and Denied Relief
The USTR flagged seafood, alongside rice, as a specific target back in February. Two factors drove that decision: several seafood categories already appear on the Department of Labor’s list of goods produced with forced labor, and domestic shrimpers and groundfish harvesters lobbied hard that imports from countries with weaker labor standards gave foreign competitors an unfair cost advantage. Parts of the seafood industry pushed back, arguing that better enforcement of labor standards would be a more targeted fix than a blanket tariff. That argument didn’t move the needle. The USTR’s stated goal was to pressure exporting countries into changing their laws, not to protect domestic production.
The USTR received more than 1,600 public comments and heard testimony from over 100 witnesses during the investigation. Seafood made the same case for exemption that beef and coffee successfully made. It was denied on every count.
Which countries are exempt
Canada and Mexico are the major exemptions: USMCA-compliant seafood, including Canadian snow crab, lobster, salmon, and groundfish, faces zero additional duty. Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland weren’t part of the investigation at all, so their seafood exports face no Section 301 duty either.
The Brazil complication
Brazil sits across two separate Section 301 tracks. A different investigation, focused on digital trade, anti-corruption, and deforestation, carries a 25% tariff but includes exemptions that benefit Brazilian tilapia and rock lobster. Brazil’s seafood, however, is also named in the forced-labor investigation at 12.5%, and that rate stands regardless of the exemptions granted elsewhere. More Section 301 activity is already in motion, including standalone investigations tied to China and Vietnam and an upcoming excess-capacity investigation expected to cover a broader set of countries.
Winners and Losers by Species
Shrimp: a level playing field, but not a new one
Ecuador and India both land at the 10% rate, putting the two largest shrimp suppliers on equal tariff footing for the first time. That doesn’t widen Ecuador’s lead further, but it locks in a position built over the past year: Ecuador passed India in shipment volume in December 2025 and has out-shipped it in every month but one since, helped by geographic proximity to the US, a favorable exchange rate, and a strategic shift toward larger-count, premium product. Vietnam and other suppliers remain at a 12.5% disadvantage.
Salmon: the two biggest suppliers take the hit
Chile, which supplies over 40% of US salmon imports, and Norway, its closest rival, both sit at 12.5%, while smaller competitors Faroe Islands and Iceland face no tariff at all. That’s a structural disadvantage for the two premium fresh-fillet suppliers that dominate the category. A real shift toward Faroese or Icelandic volume is more likely to play out over months and years than days, though.
Whitefish: a possible opening for Alaska pollock
Norway and China both face 12.5% tariffs on whitefish, while Icelandic cod faces none. That gap could work in favor of wild Alaska pollock as buyers look for tariff-free alternatives closer to home.
Norway’s pivot toward China
Norway’s seafood industry has responded with open frustration, calling the tariff assessment unreasonable, a position it has held since tariffs first appeared last year. That frustration is already showing up in the numbers. China overtook the US as Norway’s second-largest export market in the first half of 2026, with volume up roughly 50%. Meanwhile, according to the Norwegian Seafood Council, US imports from Norway fell 28% year-on-year over the same period, even before the July 24 tariffs took effect. The Council’s CEO put it plainly: export values haven’t been this low since 2022.
How Buyers Are Responding
Food manufacturers and restaurant operators reliant on imported seafood are weighing four broad options:
- Absorption: eating the added cost to protect menu prices, though that gets harder to sustain if the tariffs stick around.
- Reformulation: switching species or country of origin, though supply specs, existing relationships, and labeling rules mean this rarely happens fast.
- Price pass-through: passing the added cost on to consumers.
- Wait-and-see: holding off on major changes given how much could still shift.
There’s early evidence of the fourth lever already showing up in demand: frozen shrimp prices rose 18% year-over-year in May, according to NFI data, while pound sales fell 11% over the same period. The bigger complication for buyers is contract risk. Because Section 301 tariffs carry more legal durability than the reciprocal tariffs that preceded them, they’re likely to stick. But legal challenges to Section 301 itself are already emerging, and for companies working on six- to twelve-month supply contracts, that combination of durability and unresolved legal challenge makes the tariff environment hard to plan around with any confidence.
What This Means Going Forward
The shift to Section 301 isn’t a technicality. It’s the difference between a tariff regime that could be unwound in court and one built to hold. With seafood denied any product-level exemption, buyers should treat the current rate structure, and the cost gaps it creates between Chile, Norway, Ecuador, India, and the zero-rated suppliers, as the baseline for planning rather than a temporary disruption. More Section 301 activity is already in the pipeline, so the country-by-country map could well shift again before the year is out.
Expana customers receive weekly Tariff Talks rundowns, examining tariff changes and their potential impacts on commodity markets. To find out more about our expert insights, speak to us.
Written by Ryan Doyle
