# FACT-CHECK: Europe Wants Its Own "Section 301" Against China — What Is True, What Is Pending > At the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains in June 2026, French President Emmanuel Macron launched a proposal that captured the attention of chancelleries and economists alike: creating a European equivalent of the American Section 301, allowing the European Union to impose customs duties on Chinese imports produced with forced labor. According to Fortune, this proposal received suppo - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-06-29 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/fact-check-l-europe-veut-sa-section-301-contre-la-chine-ce-qui-est-vrai-ce-qui-e ## Introduction: Macron and Trade as a Geopolitical Weapon ### The June 2026 proposal at the G7 At the **G7** summit in Évian-les-Bains in June 2026, French President **Emmanuel Macron** launched a proposal that captured the attention of chancelleries and economists alike: creating a **European** equivalent of the American **Section 301**, allowing the **European Union** to impose customs duties on Chinese imports produced with forced labor. According to **Fortune**, this proposal received support from **Germany**, **Poland**, the **Netherlands**, and **Belgium**. This fact-check aims to disentangle what is documented, what is under development, and what remains at the level of stated intentions in this complex trade file. The stakes are considerable: the trade relationship between **Europe** and **China** represents hundreds of **billions** of euros annually, and tariff escalation would have significant economic repercussions for both parties. ### The American Section 301: what are we talking about? The **Section 301** of the American Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the US president to impose commercial **sanctions** against foreign trade practices deemed "unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory." The **Trump** administration used it extensively since 2018 to impose **tariffs** on Chinese imports — first in the context of Sino-American trade tensions, then in 2026 in the framework of specific investigations on forced labor and state subsidies. The European equivalent does not yet exist — and that is precisely what **Macron** is proposing to create. The EU has existing instruments (anti-dumping regulation, anti-subsidy regulation), but they are perceived as too slow and too limited to respond to Chinese practices quickly and effectively. A genuine "European **Section** 301" would give **Brussels** a faster and more flexible trade pressure tool. *The idea of Europe equipping itself with a trade tool as muscular as the American Section 301 would have seemed improbable to me five years ago. Europe preferred multilateral negotiation and WTO recourse. This change of mindset is the sign of a Europe that finally understands that trade naivety carries a real geopolitical cost.* ## What Is Confirmed: Support from Several G7 Members ### Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium: the "yes" bloc According to reports from **Fortune**, **Al Jazeera**, and **CNBC** on the June 2026 **G7** discussions, several members effectively supported the idea of strengthening European tools against unfair Chinese trade practices. **Germany** — whose economic dependence on **China** is well documented — surprised by supporting the proposal, reflecting a significant evolution in **Berlin**'s trade policy. **Poland**, in the context of its positioning as a model **NATO** ally and its historical wariness toward authoritarian regimes, naturally supports a hardening of the Western trade posture vis-à-vis **China**. The **Netherlands** and **Belgium**, highly trade-exposed open economies, paradoxically have an interest in fair trade rules even if **tariffs** carry a short-term cost for their industries. ### Data on forced labor in China The main justification for the **European** proposal is the documentation of forced labor in Chinese supply chains — notably in **Xinjiang**, where the repression of Uyghurs is documented by numerous independent organizations, Western governments, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Estimates of the number of persons detained in "reeducation" camps vary between 500,000 and 1.8 million depending on sources. Chinese companies producing solar panels, cotton, construction materials, and electronic components use or have used labor from this system. The American **USTR** proposals specifically targeting these sectors for additional **tariffs** of 12.5% are documented by **Dorsey & Whitney** and other law firms specialized in trade law. *Every product purchased from a supply chain that uses Uyghur forced labor is participation in that system. I don't say this to guilt consumers — I say it to hold governments to their responsibilities. Customs duties are sometimes a moral as much as an economic sanction.* ## What Is Contested: The European Commission's Position ### Brussels more cautious than Paris The fact-check must note an important nuance that sensationalist headlines tend to overlook: the **European Commission**, according to reports from **Fortune** and **Al Jazeera**, remains "more cautious" than the member states favorable to the proposal. This caution from **Brussels** is not cowardice — it reflects real constraints. The Commission must manage the divergent interests of 27 member states whose economic dependencies on **China** vary greatly. **Germany** exports massively to China (cars, machinery). **Hungary**, under **Orbán**, maintains close economic and political ties with **Beijing**. **Greece** sold its Piraeus port to a Chinese state enterprise. Achieving consensus on aggressive tariff measures in this context is a considerable political task. ### The threat of Chinese retaliation: real or rhetorical? The main fear expressed by opponents of a "European **Section** 301" is that of Chinese economic retaliation. **China** has demonstrated its capacity to use trade as a political weapon — as with restrictions on Australian imports after calls for a Covid-19 investigation, or threats on rare earth exports to the United States. These precedents are real and deserve to be taken seriously. However, analysts point out that **China** needs **Europe** as a market as much as Europe needs China as a supplier. A total trade war would harm both parties. Chinese retaliation would probably be targeted and calibrated rather than massive and generalized — painful enough to deter, not enough to sever fundamental trade ties. *The fear of Chinese retaliation paralyzed European policy for twenty years. This fear is legitimate but cannot be the sole driver of decisions. At some point, Europe must decide what it wants to be in the world: a passive market that endures unfair practices, or an actor that defends its rules and values. This choice can no longer be indefinitely deferred.* ## Existing Instruments and Their Limits ### What the EU can already do The **European Union** is not defenseless against unfair trade practices. It already has several instruments: the **Foreign Subsidies Regulation** (in force since 2023), anti-dumping and anti-subsidy procedures, and the **Regulation on Distortions Caused by Foreign Subsidies**. These tools have allowed imposing additional customs duties on Chinese electric vehicles (up to 48%) and other product categories. The limits of these instruments are their slowness (a standard anti-dumping **investigation** takes 9 to 18 months), their limited scope (they do not cover all types of unfair practices), and their inability to act as quickly as the American **Section 301**, which allows the president to act within months. These gaps are precisely what the **Macron** proposal aims to fill. ### The Foreign Markets Regulation: a partial advance An important development often overlooked in analyses of this file is the EU's **Foreign Subsidies Regulation**, adopted in 2022 and fully applied since 2023. It allows the Commission to investigate and sanction companies benefiting from foreign subsidies that disrupt the European single **market**. This is a **step toward** the capabilities of the American **Section** 301, but with longer procedures and less extensive powers. The proposal for a genuine "European **Section** 301" would go further: it would give the EU the **power** to investigate and sanction unfair trade practices — including forced labor — with shorter timelines and a broader scope. The challenge is to design an instrument fast enough to be dissuasive without being so broad that it triggers disproportionate retaliation. *European bureaucracy has its virtues — prudence, consensus, rule of law — but also its flaws: slowness in the face of crises requiring speed. A European Section 301 would only have value if it can act in months, not years. The question is not only to create the instrument, but to create it with the velocity necessary to be credible.* ## Context: A US-China Trade Truce Expiring in November 2026 ### The convergence of two countdowns The **European** proposal arrives in a particularly charged context: the US-China trade **agreement** concluded at the Trump-Xi APEC summit in **South Korea** provides for a suspension of reciprocal customs duties until **November 10, 2026**. Simultaneously, the American **USTR** launched a **Section** 301 **investigation** proposing additional **tariffs** of 12.5% on Chinese imports for forced labor, with a final decision before end of July. If Europe develops its own tariff instruments in parallel with the resumption of Sino-American commercial hostilities after November, **China** would face coordinated pressure from its two main trading **partners**. This convergence is potentially the most unfavorable situation for **Beijing** since **WTO** negotiations at the beginning of the 2000s. ### China and multilateralism: a division strategy Faced with this potential pressure, **China** has adopted its habitual strategy: attempting to divide Westerners by offering preferential bilateral concessions to certain EU members, while resisting collective pressure. Signals have been sent to **Berlin**, **Paris**, and Rome about potential preferential agreements in electric vehicles, green technologies, and infrastructure. This division strategy has worked with variable success in the past. It succeeds when national economic interests diverge enough to create fractures in the Western **coalition**. It fails when broader geopolitical files — such as Chinese support for **Russia** in the **war** in **Ukraine** — create a perception of common **threat** strong enough to maintain cohesion. In 2026, the Ukrainian file paradoxically reinforces anti-China cohesion in Europe. *China is simultaneously the EU's largest trading partner and the indispensable economic support of Russia in the Ukraine war. This contradiction — which Europe cannot indefinitely ignore — is transforming the perception of Beijing in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris. Europe is rediscovering that trade is never purely commercial.* ## The American Position: Section 301 as Precedent and Pressure ### Trump and Section 301: a massive weapon The decision of the **Trump** administration to use **Section** 301 extensively in 2026 — including forced labor investigations, additional **tariffs** of 12.5% on 60 economies, and a separate **investigation** on **Brazil** — creates an important international precedent. It normalizes the use of customs duties as a foreign policy instrument, reducing the protectionist stigma that had limited European use of these tools. From this perspective, the **Macron** proposal for a "European **Section** 301" follows in the wake of Trumpian trade policy rather than opposing it. Europe observes that the United States uses these instruments without catastrophic economic consequences — and draws conclusions for its own trade policy. That is a geopolitical irony: **Trump**, by reinforcing his commercial protectionism, encourages Europe to do the same. ### Transatlantic coordination as a multiplier Trade economists point out that American-European coordination in using these tariff instruments would have a considerable multiplier effect. **The United States and the EU** together represent nearly 40% of global **GDP** and a comparable share of international trade. A coordinated approach to Chinese unfair trade practices — rather than separate bilateral actions — would be far more effective and harder for **Beijing** to circumvent. This transatlantic coordination is one of the few areas where European and **Trump** administration interests naturally converge. Both parties want fairer trade rules in the face of Chinese practices. The difference lies in methods and aggressiveness level — but the direction is the same. A strengthened "European **Section** 301" could be the opportunity for coordination in this domain. *There is something healthy in the idea that Europe and the United States, often divided on tariffs, could coordinate their approach against Chinese unfair practices. This is not anti-Sinism — it is the defense of fair trade rules that China itself claims to support. If Beijing plays by its own rules, it must expect to face the consequences.* ## Fact-Check Verdict: True, In Progress, Uncertain ### TRUE: Macron proposed a European equivalent of Section 301 This is documented and confirmed by several sources. The proposal was indeed made at the G7 in Évian, it indeed received support from Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and the European Commission indeed expressed reservations. These facts are solidly established and not open to question. Also TRUE: **China** does use forced labor in its supply chains — documented by independent sources and acknowledged even by international organizations that generally avoid direct confrontations with Beijing. The factual basis for the Macron proposal on this point is solid. ### IN PROGRESS: The development of the instrument What is "in progress" is the development of the instrument itself. The Macron proposal is a political intention, not yet a formal legislative proposal submitted to the European Parliament or the Council. Moving from intention to instrument requires lengthy and complex negotiations among the 27 member states, with the European Commission, and potentially in coordination with the United States. The timetable is therefore uncertain. The **European Commission** would need to launch formal consultations, then impact studies, then a regulation proposal. This process can take two to three years under normal circumstances — though geopolitical urgency may accelerate certain steps. *Good political ideas often die in Brussels corridors. The European Section 301 could suffer this fate if member states' political will dissipates before the instrument is adopted. Europe has a window of opportunity today — with a public opinion more suspicious of China and more determined leaders. This window will not remain open indefinitely.* ## Legal and Institutional Challenges ### WTO compatibility One of the main challenges of a "European Section 301" is its compatibility with **World Trade Organization** rules. The American Section 301 has been challenged before the WTO — notably by China — but the United States has generally ignored unfavorable decisions by invoking national security clauses. Europe, traditionally more respectful of commercial multilateralism, would need to decide how far it is prepared to go in this logic. This tension between multilateralism and effectiveness is at the heart of the European debate. Some European trade lawyers believe it is possible to design an instrument compatible with WTO rules — by precisely targeting forced labor, already recognized as a prohibited practice in international agreements. Others think a truly effective instrument will inevitably violate some WTO rules, requiring an open **political debate** on this option. ### The EU consensus question Achieving consensus among the EU's 27 member states on aggressive commercial measures against China is a considerable challenge. Orbán's **Hungary**, which maintains close economic and political ties with Beijing, has already blocked European decisions on China on multiple occasions. **Greece**, dependent on Chinese investments in its Piraeus port, is also reluctant. One solution would be to use **qualified majority** rather than unanimity for trade decisions — which is already the case in certain domains but not all. This approach would reduce the blocking power of members like Hungary, but would raise questions about the political solidity of a trade agreement adopted against the will of important members. *Hungary is Europe's Achilles' heel in its relations with China and Russia. Orbán systematically uses the European veto right as leverage for his own interests — often benefiting Moscow and Beijing. This reality can no longer be ignored. Europe must decide whether it wants to remain prisoner of its unanimity rule or evolve toward more effective decision-making mechanisms on critical geopolitical issues.* ## What Europe Must Decide About Its Relationship with China ### Commercial dependence as a strategic vulnerability The debate over a "European Section 301" is in reality a broader debate about the nature of the relationship between **Europe** and **China**. Sino-European trade reached approximately 800 billion euros in 2025. This interdependence creates a strategic vulnerability that recent events — the war in Ukraine and Chinese support for Russia — make increasingly difficult to ignore. China is simultaneously the **main supplier** of many essential goods for European industry (rare earths, electronic components, generic medicines) and the **main economic support** of the Russian aggressor. This dual reality creates a strategic dilemma that Europe cannot resolve solely through trade instruments — it requires a broader geopolitical strategy that goes beyond the tariff domain. ### Reducing dependencies: an industrial priority In parallel with tariff instruments, Europe is developing policies to reduce its dependencies on China — "de-risking" — in strategic sectors: semiconductors (**European Chips Act**), batteries (**Battery Alliance**), critical raw materials (**Critical Raw Materials Act**). These industrial policies are complementary to tariff measures: they reduce the structural vulnerability that gives China its economic leverage. The combination of both approaches — tariff instruments to defend fair trade rules and industrial policies to reduce dependencies — constitutes a coherent and credible trade strategy. It takes time to implement, but it is more sustainable than a purely punitive approach that does not address underlying dependencies. *European de-risking from China is the real geopolitical revolution of our era — quieter than wars but just as determinative for the future. Every battery plant built in Europe, every lithium mine opened in Latin America with Western partners, every domestic semiconductor program marginally reduces the dependence Beijing uses as leverage. It is slow. It is necessary.* ## Complementary Analysis: Dimensions and Perspectives ### The structural factors often overlooked The analysis of this situation would benefit from integrating the structural dimensions operating in the background of immediate events. **Long-term dynamics** — economic, demographic, technological — shape the context in which political and military decisions are made. Ignoring these dimensions amounts to analyzing the surface without understanding what lies beneath. These structural factors are not theoretical abstractions — they translate into very concrete constraints for decision-makers. **Industrial defense capacity**, ammunition stocks, the availability of qualified human resources, the state of public finances: these are all material realities that determine the real options available, independently of stated intentions. ### What the broader geopolitical context reveals This situation is inscribed within a broader geopolitical context than the war in Ukraine alone. The great-power competition — between **the West on one side**, Russia, China, Iran, and their allies on the other — fundamentally structures the dynamics observed. Understanding this background is indispensable for assessing the real stakes. Decisions that appear tactical on the surface are often strategic in depth. **What is at stake today** in Western capitals, Ukrainian battlefields, and negotiating rooms concerns not only Ukraine — it concerns the global security architecture that will emerge from this period of turbulence. *In analyzing these complementary dimensions, I am struck by the density of overlapping stakes. This war is not a local crisis — it is a stress test for the liberal world order. The result of that test will determine the rules of geopolitical play for decades to come. That is not a metaphor. It is a reality that today's leaders carry on their shoulders.* ## Critical Synthesis: What We Retain and What We Anticipate ### The key lessons of this situation After traversing the various dimensions of this file, several key lessons impose themselves. **The first is the primacy of facts** over stated intentions — in a war as in a negotiation, what matters is not promises but concrete and verifiable actions. This principle guides every reading of geopolitical current events. The second lesson concerns the unpredictable nature of geopolitical dynamics. **The most significant events** of this period — Ukrainian strikes on Moscow, the Rutte chart, American Supreme Court decisions — were not all foreseeable a few months ago. Epistemic prudence is a virtue in crisis analysis. ### What the coming months could reveal The horizon of coming months contains several determining variables. The **American November midterms**, the resolution or escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, trade negotiations with China, implementation of the Iranian agreements — all elements whose evolution will restructure the geopolitical context in which all actors must navigate. Faced with this uncertainty, the best analytical posture is to remain attentive to weak signals while maintaining a solid structural perspective. **Underlying trends** — European rearmament, Ukraine's rising power, Sino-Western tensions — are more reliable than daily events for anticipating the general direction of developments to come. *I conclude this analysis with a certainty and a question. The certainty: Ukraine is fighting for something that concerns all of us, and that fight deserves every support we can give it. The question: will we do enough, fast enough, before the window of opportunity closes? That question keeps me awake. It should keep us all awake.* ## Complementary Analysis: Dimensions and Perspectives ### The structural factors often overlooked The analysis of this situation would benefit from integrating the structural dimensions operating in the background of immediate events. **Long-term dynamics** — economic, demographic, technological — shape the context in which political and military decisions are made. Ignoring these dimensions amounts to analyzing the surface without understanding what lies beneath. These structural factors are not theoretical abstractions — they translate into very concrete constraints for decision-makers. **Industrial defense capacity**, ammunition stocks, the availability of qualified human resources, the state of public finances: these are all material realities that determine the real options available, independently of stated intentions. ### What the broader geopolitical context reveals This situation is inscribed within a broader geopolitical context than the war in Ukraine alone. The great-power competition — between **the West on one side**, Russia, China, Iran, and their allies on the other — fundamentally structures the dynamics observed. Understanding this background is indispensable for assessing the real stakes. Decisions that appear tactical on the surface are often strategic in depth. **What is at stake today** in Western capitals, Ukrainian battlefields, and negotiating rooms concerns not only Ukraine — it concerns the global security architecture that will emerge from this period of turbulence. *In analyzing these complementary dimensions, I am struck by the density of overlapping stakes. This war is not a local crisis — it is a stress test for the liberal world order. The result of that test will determine the rules of geopolitical play for decades to come. That is not a metaphor. It is a reality that today's leaders carry on their shoulders.* *In concluding this analysis, one conviction imposes itself: the stakes described here exceed the chronicle of current events. They engage our conception of what the West wants to be in the world — and our willingness to defend that conception with the necessary means, not just good intentions.* ## Conclusion: A Solid Proposal on Substance, Uncertain on Form ### The verdict: TRUE but INCOMPLETE The verdict of this fact-check on the European "Section 301" proposal is: **TRUE** on substance — the proposal was indeed made, the support exists, the forced labor justification is factual. But **INCOMPLETE** on realization — the instrument does not yet exist, its precise content remains to be defined, political and legal obstacles are numerous. This two-part verdict is characteristic of major European geopolitical initiatives: intentions are often good, realizations often incomplete. What Europe must avoid is letting the Macron proposal join the graveyard of **good European ideas** that never came to fruition. The political window is open today. It may not be in 2027. ### What the coming months will reveal The proposal's credibility will depend on coming months' developments: will the European Commission launch a formal legislative proposal before end of 2026? Will the member states that supported the idea maintain their commitment in the face of Chinese diplomatic and economic pressure? Will the American November 2026 midterms affect transatlantic coordination on this file? These questions will remain open. What is certain is that the file is now on the table, supported by important governments, and backed by a **European public opinion** increasingly suspicious of Chinese practices. **The political momentum for a European Section 301 is more favorable today than it has ever been**. It is up to European leaders to transform it into reality. *I trust Macron to propose bold ideas. I trust European institutions less to rapidly transform them into decisions. This tension — between leaders' ambition and institutions' slowness — is the permanent challenge of European governance. The hope is that current geopolitical pressure accelerates things. Recent EU history in the face of Russia suggests it is possible when the threat is sufficiently tangible.* ## Critical Synthesis: What Europe and the West Must Remember ### The decisive importance of political will In synthesizing this analysis, one reality emerges with particular clarity: **political will** is the determining variable. The instruments described here — a **European Section 301**, tariff coordination with the **United States**, industrial de-risking policies — all exist or can exist. The real constraint is not technical or legal. It is political. It is the capacity of European leaders to maintain coherent positions over time, in the face of economic pressure, diplomatic lobbying, and internal political cycles. The lesson of June 2026 is that **European political will** can be mobilized when the threat is sufficiently concrete. The war in Ukraine did what fifty years of speeches about strategic autonomy had failed to achieve: it convinced European publics that security cannot be taken for granted. The Chinese challenge — more diffuse, less immediately visible — requires the same political clarification. **The window of opportunity for a European Section 301** will not remain open indefinitely. ### What the next twelve months will determine The period between July 2026 and mid-2027 will be decisive for all the files analyzed in this fact-check. The **USTR** decision on additional 12.5% tariffs before end of July, the expiry of the APEC truce in November, American midterm results, and the European Commission's legislative follow-up will collectively determine whether the momentum of June 2026 translates into durable structural changes or evaporates in the face of competing political priorities. What is certain is that the China file has reached a level of political salience in **Europe** that it had not previously achieved. Decision-makers who choose to look away from this moment will do so at their own risk — and at the risk of those they represent. **Geopolitical hesitation has a cost that democracies often discover too late**. *I want to say one last thing before the conclusion. What strikes me most about this entire debate is not the technical complexity — it is the moral clarity. Forced labor is wrong. Trading without conditions with regimes that practice it is wrong. And pretending we cannot act because it is economically complicated is the most dangerous kind of political cowardice. Europe can do better than that.* ## Conclusion: Trade Policy as a Geopolitical Front ### Trade is **never purely commercial** The proposal for a "European Section 301" against unfair Chinese trade practices illustrates a reality this fact-check wants to underscore in conclusion: trade is never purely commercial. Economic relations between nations are always intertwined with geopolitical, security, and moral considerations. **Europe** long preferred to ignore this reality, believing it could separate its economic relations with **China** from its political values and geopolitical choices. The war in Ukraine and Chinese support for Russia have made this separation impossible to maintain. The Macron proposal is the expression of this realization — late but real. ### What Europe must now do For this fact-check to prove optimistic rather than pessimistic in a year, **Europe** must rapidly transform political intention into concrete legal instrument. It must accept the economic frictions this will entail with **China**, knowing that the cost of inaction is higher in the long term than the cost of action in the short term. And it must coordinate with Washington so that this pressure is multilateral rather than fragmented. These three conditions are not easy to meet. But they are not impossible either. **June 2026 showed that Europe can surprise** — on defense, on Ukraine, on trade. The continuation of the story remains to be written. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Fortune — Europe, China, Trump: trade war and Section 301 — June 20, 2026](https://fortune.com/2026/06/20/europe-china-trade-war-trump-tariffs-section-301-dumping-subsidies/) - [Al Jazeera — How Trump is relaunching the tariff war citing forced labor — June 15, 2026](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/15/how-trump-is-relaunching-a-tariff-war-citing-forced-labour-concerns) - [CNBC — Trump tariffs, trade, China, forced labor — June 9, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/09/trump-tariffs-trade-china-forced-labor.html) ### Secondary sources - [Eastern Herald — US-China trade truce until November 2026, Section 301 tariff expiry — June 15, 2026](https://easternherald.com/2026/06/15/us-china-trade-truce-november-2026-section-301-tariff-expiry/) - [The Hardwire News — Supreme Court, Section 301, China tariffs, HVAC supply chain — 2026](https://www.thehardwirenews.com/supreme-court-section-301-china-tariffs-hvac-supply-chain-2026/) - [Dorsey & Whitney — New Section 301 tariffs — June 2026](https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2026/6/new-section-301-tariffs) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/fact-check-l-europe-veut-sa-section-301-contre-la-chine-ce-qui-est-vrai-ce-qui-e