USTR's Section 301 Hearings: Reflections from a Witness

In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the president's trade policy agenda when it struck down the sweeping, worldwide tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration's pivot was immediate. The very same day, it imposed temporary tariffs under Section 122. Weeks later, it launched processes to implement more permanent replacement tariffs under Section 301. 

The headlines this week have focused on the Court of International Trade's invalidation of the administration's Section 122 tariffs. But another important trade policy event – one much less widely reported – also just concluded.     

For the past two weeks, my former colleagues at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) heard testimony from companies, trade associations and other stakeholders as part of Section 301 investigations of 60 countries. I was one of the 175 witnesses who testified. 

In this post, I share reflections on my experience and thoughts on why participation in these proceedings is (and perhaps might not be) valuable for stakeholders.

What Are These Hearings Like?

Section 301 hearings are held on the ground floor of the International Trade Commission in a hearing room roughly the size of a middle school gymnasium. The layout resembles a standard appellate courtroom, with a panel of eight or so U.S. government officials holding forth from behind an imposing, dark wood dais.

Panels of five to seven witnesses take turns delivering oral statements, after which the U.S. government officials question the witnesses. This week's witnesses ranged from well-known trade advocates like Ed Brzytwa of the Consumer Technology Association, to my former USTR colleague and data guru John Corrigan, to multiple representatives from artificial Christmas tree manufacturers. All were welcome, all voices were heard.         

Why Is Participation in Section 301 Investigations Worth Your Time?

The stakeholder engagement process is a critical aspect of Section 301 investigations.  USTR relies on the industry expertise, data and nuanced know-how stakeholders provide to develop the factual record on which it bases Section 301 findings.

Over the past two weeks, the government officials leading the Section 301 hearings were engaged and active, asking nuanced questions of each stakeholder witness. The questions were meant to elicit the specific types of evidence USTR will need to support its investigations – namely, information on industrial overcapacity and the importation of goods made with forced labor. USTR reviews the input it receives during these hearings and considers that information as it reaches its conclusions. 

This level of direct, face-to-face public participation in U.S. trade policy formulation is rare.  For example, when the administration imposed sweeping tariffs under IEEPA last year, no formal public input was solicited or required.   

But Why Might Participation in These Section 301 Investigations Be Less Worth Your Time?

The administration has been clear about the purpose and goal of the current Section 301 investigations: to levy new tariffs that replace, at least in part, the IEEPA tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February. If USTR follows this path, it would mean:

• USTR concludes that the forced labor- and overcapacity-related acts, policies and practices of the 60 countries under investigation are actionable under Section 301, and
• based on those determinations, the administration imposes broad Section 301 tariffs that resemble the now-defunct IEEPA tariff regime 

If the administration is determined to use Section 301 tariffs to replace much of the IEEPA tariff structure, no amount of stakeholder engagement is likely to change that basic, overall approach.

But that does not mean stakeholders have no voice in the current Section 301 processes. The nuance here is that USTR may feel compelled – perhaps in part to strengthen its legal position in anticipation of future litigation – to create some daylight between the old IEEPA tariffs and the new Section 301 tariffs. If so, USTR will likely look to stakeholder input (including the testimony it heard from me and others over the last two weeks) for guidance on how to structure any revised tariff regime to best serve U.S. interests.