The Trump administration proposed sweeping new tariffs on scores of countries this week, including top U.S. trade partners like Canada and China.
The move marks President Donald Trump's latest effort to reconstruct far-reaching levies struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
The new slate of tariffs would impose taxes on an array of imported consumer goods, threatening to raise prices at a time when inflation is surging as a result of the war in Iran.
Here's what to know about the proposed tariffs and what they could mean for your wallet:
What are Trump's new proposed tariffs?
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on Tuesday proposed levies of at least 10% on 60 trade partners, spanning from Costa Rica to Saudi Arabia to the European Union.
The measure would target countries over their alleged failure to prevent the import of goods produced by forced labor. Such labor arrangements, the USTR said, allow the nations to slash costs and attain an unfair competitive advantage against U.S. laborers.
Under the measure, 54 countries, including India and Brazil, would face a 12.5% tariff due to their alleged inability to prohibit the import of products made with forced labor. An additional six countries, including Canada and Mexico, would be slapped with a 10% tariff over their alleged failure to adequately enforce such prohibitions.
The finding of wrongdoing follows an investigation initiated by the Trump administration in March under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the USTR said. That measure allows the executive to invoke temporary tariff authority in response to an adverse trade policy taken up by another country.
"The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable. This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement.
What would the proposal mean for overall tariff levels?
The proposal would raise the level of overall levies, though it would remain below the heights attained prior to the Supreme Court's ruling against Trump in February, Jason Miller, a professor of supply-chain management at Michigan State University, told ABC News.
As of last week, the administration had issued roughly $20 billion in refunds on those tariffs, according to a court filing.
Trading partners affected by the potential round of tariffs account for about 99% of all U.S. imports, but a series of exemptions would significantly ease the measure's impact, investment bank Macquarie said on Thursday in a report shared with ABC News.
The proposed tariffs, for instance, would exclude imports covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, a free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Those goods account for about one in five of all U.S. imports.
Many agricultural, apparel and energy products would also be exempt, Macquarie said.
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. carried a weighted tariff rate of 14.5%, but it has since fallen to 8.2%, the Tax Foundation said.
"The Trump administration is raising tariffs from what we're currently at, but we are not going back to what we had before," Miller said. "The consumer will be better off than they were under the previous tariffs."
What's next for the proposed tariffs?
A public hearing for the proposed tariffs has been set for July 7, meaning the levies would likely take effect in the weeks after that, Macquarie said.
After the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year, Trump rushed to enact a fresh set of tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act. That measure allows him to impose levies of up to 15% on all imports for 150 days.
Those tariffs, which were struck down by a federal court but allowed to remain in place for most importers upon appeal, are set to expire next month.
The levies proposed by the Trump administration this week may also face a legal challenge, some analysts said.
Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, said in a blog post that he expects the proposed tariffs will fail to stand up to legal scrutiny. Under Section 301, Wolff said, lawmakers intended to give the president the authority to address one country at a time rather than issue a blanket tariff.
"There is no indication that the Congress meant 'one or more, or multiple foreign countries,' to be addressed all at once," Wolff said.
Economists at Macquarie, however, pointed to the court's willingness to uphold previous tariffs issued under Section 301.
"This means there is a higher probability that these tariffs would hold up to legal scrutiny should they be put into place," the Macquarie report said. "Despite this, it remains possible that courts may narrow the usage of them or require stronger justification than has been thus far provided by the USTR."
