Forced Labour and the Mirror Washington Won't Look Into

On March 12, 2026, the United States Trade Representative launched Section 301 investigations into 60 of its largest trading partners — Canada, China, the European Union, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and dozens more — to determine whether they have failed to ban imports produced with forced labour. The announcement was framed as a moral stand against exploitation. It may be the most revealing act of selective outrage in recent trade history. Because the country pointing the finger has never turned it on itself.

60 Countries in the Dock — One Missing

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer framed the investigations in blunt terms: foreign governments have "failed to impose and effectively enforce measures banning goods produced with forced labour," and that failure "burdens or restricts US commerce." The list of targets spans every region of the globe — from geopolitical rivals like China and Russia to close allies such as Canada, Australia, and Norway. The message was unmistakable: no one gets a pass.

Except, of course, the United States itself.

Forced labour is not a distant problem that arrives at American ports in foreign shipping containers. It is embedded in American fields, slaughterhouses, detention centres, and prison facilities — generating billions of dollars in goods and services that move through supply chains and, in some cases, across borders. Any serious reckoning with forced labour in global trade must eventually confront what is happening on American soil. Washington has shown no appetite for that conversation.


The Prison Workforce Behind the Supply Chain

Nearly 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States, and roughly three-quarters of them are required to work. Across federal and state prison systems, incarcerated workers generate an estimated 11 billion US dollars in goods and services each year — everything from agricultural products and auto parts to textiles and electronics components. The wages they receive for this labour are often a few cents to a few dollars per day. Refusing to work is rarely a neutral choice: prisoners who decline assignments can face solitary confinement, loss of parole eligibility, transfer to more dangerous facilities, or denial of basic necessities.

Under any standard application of the International Labour Organization's forced labour indicators — which the ILO updated in 2025 to sharpen the definition of coercion, deception, and abuse of vulnerability — this arrangement is difficult to distinguish from forced labour. Workers cannot meaningfully withhold consent when the consequence of refusal is punishment and prolonged incarceration. Goods produced in this system enter domestic supply chains and, in documented cases, cross into export markets — including markets that Washington has placed under Section 301 scrutiny for their own forced labour practices.


Detention Centres and the Fiction of Voluntary Work

The picture inside immigration detention is no less troubling. Across more than 200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities — many operated by private corporations like GEO Group and CoreCivic, which collectively receive over 1.2 billion US dollars annually from ICE — migrants awaiting immigration proceedings are drawn into so-called voluntary work programmes. Detainees clean, cook, and maintain facilities for stipends as low as one dollar per day.

Advocates and former detainees have consistently described conditions in which the word "voluntary" is a legal fiction. Workers who decline face isolation, loss of privileges, or denial of basic goods. ICE detainee numbers surged more than 30 percent above late-2024 levels as the current administration expanded detention capacity, meaning this system is growing — not shrinking — at the very moment Washington is lecturing 60 other governments about forced labour in their supply chains.


Fields, Slaughterhouses, and the Guestworker Trap

Beyond the carceral system, forced labour in the United States extends into the open economy — into the fields, processing plants, and worksites that produce the food Americans eat and the goods they consume. The H-2A and H-2B visa programmes bring hundreds of thousands of temporary workers into the country each year for agricultural and non-agricultural seasonal jobs. On paper, these are legal employment pathways. In practice, a structural design that ties workers to a single employer creates the conditions for systematic exploitation.

A 2025 report by Business and Human Rights Resource Centre found that the United States accounted for the highest number of tracked cases of migrant worker abuse globally in 2024 — 94 documented cases — with 49 percent of them involving farmworkers. Employer-tied visas, the report noted, exacerbated migrants' risk of abuse by making workers dependent on their employer's approval to change jobs, and enabled companies to push migrants into undocumented status through wrongful dismissal or failure to renew visas. Workers who complained faced intimidation, deportation threats, and dismissal.

Documented abuses in the guestworker system include illegal recruitment fees that leave workers in debt bondage before they even arrive, confiscated passports and identity documents, failure to reimburse visa and travel costs, unsafe housing, and wages that fall below what was promised in recruitment materials. In one high-profile case, a South Carolina labour contractor was convicted and ordered to pay over 500,000 US dollars in restitution for exploiting H-2A agricultural workers. In another, hundreds of Indian H-2B workers recruited after Hurricane Katrina were lured with promises of green cards and decent housing, then found themselves living in overcrowded camps, trapped by debt to recruiters, and threatened when they tried to organize.

A 2025 Economic Policy Institute analysis of the H-2B programme found that certified H-2B wages are legally undercutting national wage standards across major occupational categories — meaning the programme is not just vulnerable to abuse, it is structurally designed to suppress wages for both migrant and domestic workers alike.


Children on the Slaughterhouse Floor

The exploitation of vulnerable workers in the U.S. food system is not limited to adults. In January 2025, two of the largest meat processing companies in the United States — Perdue Farms and JBS USA — agreed to pay a combined $ 8 million following Department of Labor findings that both companies had employed migrant children in hazardous overnight cleaning jobs in slaughterhouses. JBS, the nation's leading meatpacker, agreed to a 4-million-dollar settlement that included restitution to affected individuals and communities.

These settlements came at the end of the Biden administration. The companies involved are multinationals with export operations that reach into many of the same markets Washington is now investigating under Section 301. The irony is precise: the U.S. is threatening trade penalties against countries that fail to block goods made with forced or exploited labour, while its own meatpacking industry was, until very recently, operating with child labour in conditions a federal agency deemed unlawful.


Fear as a Management Tool

The current administration's aggressive immigration enforcement has added a new and particularly dangerous dimension to labour exploitation in the United States. ICE worksite raids — which expanded dramatically in 2025 — have created a climate of fear across agriculture, meatpacking, food processing, and construction. When workers are afraid that raising a complaint will result in deportation rather than redress, exploitation thrives.

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre's 2025 data noted a sharp and unprecedented rise in cases where migrant workers were arrested or deported while simultaneously experiencing labour rights violations at the hands of their employers. Workers became more isolated, working conditions declined, and employers gained greater leverage precisely because enforcement was pointed at workers rather than at the companies exploiting them. The National Human Trafficking Hotline received reports of 11,999 potential human trafficking cases in 2024, referencing nearly 22,000 potential victims — figures that reflect the surface of a much larger problem that fear and precarity keep submerged.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins declared in 2025 that the U.S. farm workforce would soon be entirely American. Yet the Department of Labor simultaneously introduced H-2A rule changes that, by its own admission, are likely to push domestic farmworkers out of the sector — creating conditions for deeper reliance on temporary migrant workers, precisely the population most vulnerable to exploitation. The administration is engineering the conditions for forced labour while simultaneously prosecuting other countries for tolerating it.


The Standard Washington Won't Apply to Itself

The United States is not wrong to push for stronger global enforcement against forced labour. The ILO's indicators are clear, the moral case is compelling, and the economic distortion created when forced labour undercuts production costs is real. Section 301 is a legitimate trade instrument, and there are genuine abuses in the supply chains of many of the 60 economies now under investigation.

But legitimacy requires consistency. When USTR Representative Greer says that American workers and firms "have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labour," he is describing exactly what happens when American companies use prison labour at cents per hour, guestworkers trapped by debt and employer-tied visas, undocumented migrants silenced by deportation threats, or migrant children cleaning slaughterhouses at night. Each of those arrangements confers a cost advantage. Each of them involves a workforce that cannot meaningfully refuse. Each of them would fail the ILO's own forced labour test.

The real measure of Washington's commitment to ending forced labour is not the length of its investigation list. It is whether the standard it applies to Bangladesh and Brazil is one it is willing to apply to Alabama and Arizona.

Until that happens, these Section 301 investigations will function as they always have: as trade pressure dressed in the language of human rights, selectively deployed against competitors and allies alike, while the most structurally embedded abuses at home remain invisible — not because they are hidden, but because no one in power has any interest in finding them.


Previously on The Collective Brief:
If Jesus Were Alive Today, They Would Call Him a Communist
Three Tyrants and a War: Don’t Let Trump and Netanyahu’s Attack on Iran Fool You
The Deportation Lie: How Trump Turned Immigrants into a Detention Economy

— The Collective Brief | March 2026 | Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

If Jesus Were Alive Today, They Would Call Him a Communist

Imagine a man walking into the financial district of Toronto or the streets of Kingston, feeding crowds without charge, healing the sick without billing them, and telling the wealthy that their riches are a barrier to God's kingdom. Now imagine the headlines. Not "Miracle Worker Transforms Community." More likely: "Socialist Agitator Disrupts Economy" — or worse, "Communist Infiltrator Threatens Social Order." That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth. And the tragedy is that the loudest voices defending those headlines would likely be sitting in church the very next Sunday.


The Radical Economics of the Sermon on the Mount

Strip away two thousand years of stained glass, institutional hierarchy, and theological debate, and what you find at the core of Jesus's ministry is profoundly disruptive to the economic and political order of any era — including our own.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." "Sell what you have and give to the poor." "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." These are not gentle pastoral suggestions. They are structural critiques of wealth concentration, power hoarding, and imperial domination.

The early Christian communities described in the Book of Acts practised a form of radical resource sharing: "All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need." In today's political vocabulary, that is not charity — it is collective ownership. And collective ownership, we are told repeatedly, is the first step toward communism.

Jesus challenged both the political empire of Rome and the religious establishment of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He centred women, lepers, foreigners, sex workers, and the destitute — the very people that systems of power routinely exclude. He overturned the tables of money changers in the temple, confronting those who had turned a sacred space into a profit engine. Today, that same man would likely be dragged out of the stock exchange in handcuffs and his actions labelled "class warfare."


How Empire Learned to Wear the Cross

Here is the central paradox: the same political and economic system that would persecute a modern Jesus has spent centuries using his name to justify itself.

European colonial powers framed conquest and extraction as a Christian duty. Missionaries followed soldiers. The enslavement of Africans, the theft of Indigenous lands, and the brutal plantation economies of the Caribbean were all wrapped in the language of civilization and divine providence. Christianity was not incidental to empire — it was empire's most powerful ideological tool.

Over time, this theological architecture evolved. By the 20th century, particularly in the United States, a new doctrine had taken root: the prosperity gospel. Wealth became evidence of divine favour. Poverty became a spiritual defect — a failure of faith, not a consequence of wages, debt, structural adjustment, or colonial extraction. The prosperity gospel did not emerge from the margins; it was amplified by televangelists with private jets, megachurch pastors with multiple homes, and political allies who understood that a congregation trained to see poverty as personal failure would never organize against the system producing it.

"The prosperity gospel turned structural injustice into a personal spiritual problem — and in doing so, it handed elites the most effective shield imaginable: the poor defending their own exploitation in the name of God."


The Power of a Label: From "Heretic" to "Communist"

Every era has a word that does the work of silencing without requiring argument. In Jesus's time, it was "blasphemer" or "troublemaker." In ours, it is "communist," "socialist," or "leftist." The mechanism is identical: attach a stigmatized label, trigger a visceral reaction, and watch the conversation collapse before it even begins.

Polling in the United States consistently shows that even people who support specific progressive policies — universal healthcare, public education, social security, minimum wage increases — recoil at the word "socialism." The label carries decades of Cold War conditioning, media narratives, and religious framing that associate it not with policy but with atheism, dictatorship, and moral failure. Elites do not need to debate the merits of feeding the hungry or healing the sick. They simply need to say the word "socialist," and the conversation ends.

This dynamic is not accidental. It is engineered. Right-wing media and religious leaders have perfected the art of turning Jesus's economics into a political taboo. A low-wage worker who tithes faithfully to a megachurch pastor with a private jet, yet rages against universal healthcare as "socialist handouts," is not acting against his own interests out of ignorance alone — he has been taught, deliberately and systematically, to identify those interests with the continued dominance of the wealthy.

If Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount in front of a legislature today, the attack ads would write themselves.


The Caribbean: Where Empire Baptized Capital — and Resistance Was Born

Nowhere is the collision between the Christianity of empire and the Christianity of liberation more vivid than in the Caribbean. The same ships that brought enslaved Africans to the islands brought priests and crosses. Colonial powers presented domination as divine mission. Plantation capitalism was sanctified from the pulpit.

And yet, colonized and enslaved people did not simply accept this. They reshaped Christianity from below, blending it with African spiritual traditions — SanterĂ­a in Cuba, VodĂșn in Haiti, Obeah across the Anglophone Caribbean — turning it into a theology of survival, resistance, and dignity. Caribbean Christianity has always contained both currents: the theology that blesses empire and the theology that resists it. That tension has never been resolved. It lives in every Sunday service across the region today.

Neo-Pentecostal and prosperity gospel movements have since spread rapidly across the Caribbean and Latin America, carrying the same message that took root in the United States: strong faith brings personal wealth; poverty reflects weak faith. A domestic worker in Port of Spain or Santo Domingo may be materially poor but spiritually invested in a theology that explains her poverty as personal failure rather than as the predictable outcome of wages held down by global capital, debt restructured by IMF conditionality, or colonial histories that stripped her island of its resources.


Cuba as Scarecrow: When Healing the Poor Becomes a Crime

If you want to understand how a label shuts down moral reasoning, look at how the word "Cuba" functions in Caribbean political discourse. For decades, it has served the same purpose as "communist" in the broader ideological toolkit: a single word that ends conversations, triggers visceral disgust, and protects the status quo from scrutiny.

The irony is profound. Whatever one thinks of the Cuban state's political system — and there are genuine, serious critiques to be made — Cuba has also spent decades doing something that looks, by any reasonable reading of the Gospels, remarkably like what Jesus actually told his followers to do.

Cuba established the Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM), one of the largest medical schools in the world, explicitly designed to educate students from low-income backgrounds — many from the Caribbean, Africa, and the Global South — on full scholarships, with a commitment to return and serve in underserved communities. Since the 1960s, Cuba has trained more than 80,000 international doctors, sent tens of thousands of medical personnel to disaster zones, remote villages, and impoverished regions that wealthier nations routinely ignore. When Haiti was devastated by the 2010 earthquake, Cuban medical brigades were among the first on the ground. When West Africa faced the Ebola crisis, Cuban doctors volunteered in numbers that shamed the wealthy world.

"Heal the sick. Freely you have received, freely give." — Matthew 10:8. If a country practises this literally, at scale, across decades and borders, what do we call it? Apparently, we call it forced labour.

The United States and allied actors have mounted a sustained campaign to dismantle Cuban medical missions, branding them "forced labour" and pressuring Caribbean and Latin American governments to cancel or restrict these programs. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the OAS have launched investigations. U.S. officials have imposed visa bans and threatened consequences for governments that host Cuban doctors. Some Caribbean governments have pushed back, defending the missions as vital to their strained health systems and insisting that labour standards are respected — and that cutting off Cuban doctors would directly harm their most vulnerable populations.

One can acknowledge legitimate debates about working conditions and wage structures within these missions without ignoring the obvious: these concerns are deployed selectively. There is no comparable U.S. or OAS pressure campaign against private hospital chains that exploit underpaid nurses, against multinational corporations that underpay Caribbean workers, or against the structural adjustment programs that gutted public health systems across the region in the first place. The target is not labour abuse. The target is Cuba — and by extension, the idea that a state might organize resources around human need rather than profit.

A Caribbean or African peasant trained as a doctor at ELAM, serving in a community clinic that would otherwise have no physician — that is not a talking point. That is a life changed. Call it what you want. Jesus called it ministry.


Who Is Really Out of Step with Jesus?

Let us be precise about what is happening here. Across North America and the Caribbean, a large portion of the people most harmed by concentrated wealth, structural inequality, and the privatization of essential services are also the people most likely to defend those systems — because they have been taught, through a combination of prosperity theology, Cold War propaganda, and deliberate political messaging, that any challenge to those systems is an attack on God, family, and freedom.

The rich and powerful do not need to engage the substance of Jesus's teachings about economic justice. They simply need to label anyone who raises those teachings as a communist, a socialist, a leftist — and watch their own followers do the rest. The label performs the work of silencing. The visceral reaction does the work of discrediting. And Jesus's radical, inconvenient economics disappear behind a fog of conditioned outrage.

This is not a critique of faith. It is a critique of how faith has been weaponized to protect power. The Christianity of the plantation owner and the Christianity of the enslaved person read the same text and arrived at opposite conclusions — because power always shapes interpretation.

The real question is not whether Jesus's teachings sound like socialism. The real question is why, in a world of obscene inequality, the loudest defenders of that inequality so often do it in his name.

If Jesus walked into the Caribbean today — feeding without charge, healing without billing, training the poor to serve the poor, and telling the wealthy that their riches are a barrier to the kingdom — the attack ads would already be running. The OAS would open an investigation. The cable news chyron would read: "Communist agitator disrupts regional stability."

And somewhere, in a gleaming megachurch with a private jet parked outside, a congregation would nod along and say: "Good. Someone had to stop him."


— The Collective Brief | March 2026 | Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Featured Post

Forced Labour and the Mirror Washington Won't Look Into

On March 12, 2026, the United States Trade Representative launched Section 301 investigations into 60 of its largest trading partners — Cana...

Please subscribe

Name

Email *

Message *