Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act

Long title	"An Act to ensure that goods made with forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China do not enter the United States market, and for other purposes."
Enacted by	the117th United States Congress
Effective	December 23, 2021
Citations
Public law	Pub. L. 117–78 (text)(PDF)
Statutes at Large	135 Stat. 1525
Legislative history
Introduced in the House asH.R. 6256 byJim McGovern(D–MA) on December 14, 2021 Committee consideration byHouse Foreign Affairs,House Ways and Means, andHouse Judiciary Passed the House on December 14, 2021 (voice vote) Passed the Senate on December 16, 2021 (unanimous consent) Signed into law by PresidentJoe Biden on December 23, 2021

TheUyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (H.R. 6256) is aUnited States federal law that changed U.S. policy onChina'sXinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR, or Xinjiang) with the goal of ensuring that American entities are not fundingforced labor among ethnic minorities in the region. It was signed into law in December 2021 and starting from June 21, 2022, any company that imports goods from the Xinjiang region needs to certify that those goods were not produced using forced labor in order to avoid penalties.^[1][2]

Between 2014 and 2018, the cotton industry in Xinjiang saw a massive increase in output and employment.^[3][4]: 46

According to an August 2019 book by Han Lianchao, Vice President ofCitizen Power Initiatives for China, forced labor is so commonplace in Xinjiang that it is difficult to separate the forced labor economy from the regular economy. Han estimates that there are 500,000 to 800,000 people held in the more than seventy prisons in Xinjiang and that these prisoners are used for forced labor in numerous industries. Han further suspects that the million Uyghurs in theXinjiang internment camps are likely also used for forced labor in a similar manner.^[4]: 5 Han says that because Xinjiang supplies nearly 84 percent of China's cotton, any cotton, textile or garment products from China are likely tainted with forced labor.^[4]: 46 Han's study concludes that products of this forced labor system have entered into international commerce, including the US and Europe, and that governments, companies and consumers should assume that any cotton products sourced from China are the product of forced labor in Xinjiang (XUAR).^[4]: 5 The report recommended banning certain imports from Xinjiang to the United States.^[4]: 58

In September 2019,Nury Turkel, aUyghur American lawyer and human rights advocate, testified to Congress thatUyghurs were being swept into a vast system of forced labor. Turkel said persons in theXinjiang internment camps are often moved to factories and recommended bans on cotton and textile products from Xinjiang until internment policies are abolished and conditions for due diligence are established.^[5]

In November 2019, Nathan Ruser, researcher at theAustralian Strategic Policy Institute said

You can't be sure that you don't have coerced labour in your supply chain if you do cotton business in China ... Xinjiang labour and what is almost certainly coerced labour is very deeply entrenched into the supply chain that exists in Xinjiang.^[6]

According to an August 2020 piece inThe New York Times (NYT), it was estimated that roughly one in five cotton garments sold globally contains cotton or yarn from Xinjiang. It also reported that investigations byNYT,Wall Street Journal, andAxios found evidence connecting the detention of Uyghurs to supply chains of major fashion retailers.^[7]

On September 17, 2020, China'sState Council Information Office rejected claims of forced labor in Xinjiang, saying that ideologically biased international forces have applied double standards to Xinjiang and denied recognition of local efforts to protect human rights.^[8]

On October 21, 2020, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights (SDIR) of theCanadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development called on the Canadian government to condemn Beijing's policies against the Uyghurs, which the subcommittee said included forced labor.^[9][10][11]

Since 1930, all goods made withforced labor have been banned in the United States under theSmoot–Hawley Tariff Act. Under current rules, goods are banned if there is reasonable evidence of forced labor in the creation of the goods.^{[citation needed]}

On September 14, 2020, the U.S.Department of Homeland Security blocked imports of products from four entities in Xinjiang: all products made with labor from theLop County No. 4 Vocational Skills Education and Training Center; hair products made in the Lop County Hair Product Industrial Park; apparel produced by Yili Zhuowan Garment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Baoding LYSZD Trade and Business Co., Ltd; and cotton produced and processed by Xinjiang Junggar Cotton and Linen Co., Ltd.^[12][13][14]

On December 2, 2020, citing forced labor concerns, the U.S.Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Trade issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) directing personnel at all U.S. ports of entry to detain all shipments containing cotton and cotton products originating from theXinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC).^[15]

On May 15, 2024, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security blocked cotton imports from 26 Chinese companies under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Though many of the cotton companies were based outside of Xinjinag, the DHS stated that they source their goods from the region. In response to the DHS's action, the Chinese embassy in Washington D.C. said that "The so-called 'Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act' is just an instrument of a few U.S. politicians to disrupt stability in Xinjiang and contain China's development."^[16]

This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(January 2025)

The bill was first introduced in the116th Congress and on September 22, 2020, the bill passed theHouse by 406–3 votes.^[22] The three no votes were cast byJustin Amash,Warren Davidson, andThomas Massie.^[22] The bill died in committee in theSenate.

The bill was reintroduced in the117th Congress (S. 65) and unanimously passed the Senate on July 14, 2021.^[23][24] On December 8, 2021, a similar bill (H.R. 1155) passed the House by a 428–1 vote.^[25][26] Thomas Massie was the sole no vote. A revised version (H.R. 6256) that eliminated differences between the House and Senate bills passed the House on December 14, 2021,^[27] and the Senate on December 16, 2021, unanimously (100–0). It was signed into law by PresidentJoe Biden on December 23, 2021.^[2]

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act made it U.S. policy to assume (a "rebuttable presumption") that all goods manufactured in Xinjiang are made with forced labor, unless the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection certifies that certain goods are known to not have been made with forced labor. The bill also calls for thePresident of the United States to impose sanctions on "any foreign person who 'knowingly engages'" in forced labor using minority Muslims. The bill further requires firms to disclose their dealings with Xinjiang.^[28][29] A list of Chinese companies that have relied on forced labor is mandated to be compiled.^[30]

In September 2023, theDepartment of Homeland Security banned imports on three Xinjiang-based companies including the wool textile manufacturerXinjiang Tianshan Wool Textile.^[31] In May 2024, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security banned imports from 26 Chinese textile companies under the UFLPA.^[32] In July 2024, the U.S. government added aluminum, seafood, andpolyvinyl chloride to its priority list for UFLPA enforcement.^[33] In October 2024, the department also banned two Xinjiang-based companies including the steel makerXinjiang Ba Yi Iron and Steel and an artificial sweetener maker.^[34][35] In November 2024, textile supplierEsquel Group was banned from importing into the United States.^[36] In January 2025,Huafu Fashion and subsidiaries ofZijin Mining were banned from importing to the United States.^[37]

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) commissionersGary Bauer,^[38]James W. Carr,^[39] and Nury Turkel^[40] have called on Congress to pass the act. TheAFL–CIO andEthics & Religious Liberty Commission of theSouthern Baptist Convention have supported theUyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.^[41][42][43] Sophie Richardson, then China director ofHuman Rights Watch, said in April 2020 that the bill was unprecedented and could put pressure on companies seen as having some sway with Chinese authorities.^[44]

The president of theAmerican Apparel & Footwear Association said that blanket import bans on cotton or other products from Xinjiang from such legislation would "wreak havoc" on legitimate supply chains in the apparel industry because Xinjiang cotton exports are often intermingled with cotton from other countries and there is no available origin-tracing technology for cotton fibers.^[45] On September 22, 2020, theUnited States Chamber of Commerce issued a letter stating that the act "would prove ineffective and may hinder efforts to prevent human rights abuses."^[46] Major companies with supply chain ties to Xinjiang, includingApple Inc.,Nike, Inc., andThe Coca-Cola Company, have lobbied Congress to weaken the legislation and amend its provisions.^[47]

In January 2024, theUnited States House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party called for more aggressive enforcement of the UFLPA, including criminal prosecutions.^[48]

In 2023, academics Zhun Xu and Fangfei Lin called sanctions against China "baseless" and "imperialist responses to the crises of global capitalism." Lin wrote that the allegations of forced labor in Xinjiang cotton production made by the United States as grounds for sanctions are insufficiently supported.^[49] They cite the historic significance of Uyghur agricultural workers as a long-standing labor force for manual cotton harvesting and staffing companies' widespread recruitment of Uyghur workers due to lower travel costs and is therefore a case a market-driven employment and not forced labor.^[49] In their view, "[T]he labor demand of Uyghur seasonal cotton pickers in south Xinjiang is largely decided by its relatively low degree of agricultural capitalization, not due to the 'special treatment' towards labor migrants of a certain ethnic minority."^[49] Xu and Lin also contend that the U.S. sanctions implemented by the Act adversely impact Uyghur farmers.^[49]

The stance of theChinese government and its rulingChinese Communist Party on this as taken fromPeople's Daily: "The U.S. act fabricates the so-called "forced labor" issue in China's Xinjiang and grossly interferes in China's internal affairs under the pretext of human rights," said a statement issued by the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's Congress. "Should the United States choose to go down the wrong path, China will take resolute and forceful countermeasures," said the statement.^[50]

• United States foreign relations legislation
• Acts of the 117th United States Congress
• Uyghurs
• Sanctions legislation
• Human rights legislation
• China–United States relations
• United States sanctions
• Sanctions against China

• CS1 uses Chinese-language script (zh)
• CS1 Simplified Chinese-language sources (zh-hans)
• CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list
• Webarchive template wayback links
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use American English from June 2024
• All Wikipedia articles written in American English
• Use mdy dates from June 2024
• Articles containing Chinese-language text
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from September 2020
• Wikipedia articles in need of updating from January 2025
• All Wikipedia articles in need of updating