Trade expert Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute has seen a lot of tariff drama in his day, but even he had to raise an eyebrow at the Trump administration's latest move. Last week, the administration announced tariffs on more than 80 countries, covering virtually all imports entering the United States. The official reason? Those countries haven't been tough enough on forced labor. But within hours, two small businesses - including Burlap & Barrel, the New York spice retailer that already won a Supreme Court battle over tariffs - filed lawsuits. Because nothing says 'we're serious about forced labor' like slapping tariffs on Norway and Kazakhstan at the same rate.

Lincicome, vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute, joined NPR's Scott Simon to break it all down. He noted that the tariffs are 'historically steep' - around 10 to 12.5 percent, a radical jump from pre-2025 levels. But he also pointed out that they're basically the same as the tariffs that expired a couple of weeks ago. So, economically, it's a big deal; logistically, it's déjà vu.

When asked about the forced labor justification, Lincicome was skeptical - and not just a little. 'If you actually read the report the government issued, it is extremely light on actual evidence,' he said. The report makes no connection between forced labor enforcement in those countries and any harm to the U.S., which is the legal bar for tariffs. It also fails to explain how tariffs will fix forced labor, or why good actors like Norway get the same treatment as Kazakhstan, which has 'serious forced labor issues.' Lincicome's conclusion? The administration has been promising these tariffs for months, so this is probably less about humanitarian concern and more about rebuilding that tariff wall.

But isn't forced labor a real problem? Sure, said Lincicome. The U.S. has banned imports made with forced labor since 1930. The enforcement has been spotty, and the Trump administration has been even laxer than Biden's. So yes, fighting forced labor is noble. But the question is whether these tariffs are actually going to improve anything - or just make a political point.

As for the legal fate of these tariffs, Lincicome says it's 'an open legal question.' The previous tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court were different because they used a law that didn't clearly allow tariffs. This time, Section 301 explicitly permits the executive branch to impose tariffs. So the court would have to question the grounds and analysis - something courts are notoriously reluctant to do. 'The report and findings are so weak' that there's a case, Lincicome said, but it's not the slam dunk the emergency tariffs were last winter.

And what about the precedent? Lincicome is worried. If this weak report is enough to justify tariffs, then 'any issue' could become a blank check for the president to impose tariffs - even though tariffs are Congress's constitutional power. 'If the president can do this, he can really impose tariffs for any reason and effectively take over Congress' tariff powers,' he warned.

So, as the lawsuits begin and the tariffs take effect, Lincicome leaves us with a thought: the administration's reasoning is about as convincing as a soggy napkin. But hey, at least the spice retailer is back in court - maybe they'll get a free seasoning out of it.