How tariff wars are reshaping migration and raising the risk of human rights abuses in supply chains

The tariff wars between the US and its trade partners have rarely been out of the news since the US president, Donald Trump, revealed his plans for sweeping “liberation day” levies back in April. The uncertainty that followed for businesses worldwide has now morphed into a battle over global supply chains, as the US and China seek dominance over resources and manufacturing.

At the same time, the subject of migration has been high on many countries’ news agendas. In the US especially, there has been growing anger over federal immigration raids and controversial deportations to “third countries”.

Yet it appears that many policymakers and economists aren’t joining the dots. Tariffs are reshaping migration patterns and, as a result, raising the risk of human rights abuses to workers across global supply chains. This is captured by risk-management platform EiQ, which gathers supply chain intelligence to help businesses reach their environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals.

Its data is drawn from 30,000 onsite audits annually across more than 100 geographies (countries and provinces). When taken alongside our research on migrant labour, it raises serious welfare concerns.

The US is playing a key role in the shift of global supply chains through “Made in America”, one of its initiatives to bolster the US manufacturing sector. While some American companies are responding by reshoring certain functions to the US, most are taking a different approach. Rather than bringing production to US soil, they are reconfiguring their supply chains in a bid to avoid the highest tariffs or to open up new markets.

One strategy is “China +1” – in which companies maintain some manufacturing presence in China but expand this to alternative locations such as Vietnam, Indonesia and Mexico.

As a result, new global supply chain corridors are forming rapidly. While south-east Asia continues to rise as a manufacturing hub, Latin America is experiencing a surge in global supply chain investments as companies look to minimise their tariffs. For example, Mexico’s proximity to the US, low labour costs and lower tariffs than those imposed on goods made in China will appeal to many businesses.

Not only American but also Chinese firms are accelerating their foreign direct investment (FDI) across the region – most notably in Mexico. Yet these shifts in supply chains are not without consequences.

The surge in investment in Mexico is fuelling demand for labour, but Mexico’s domestic workforce is not unlimited. As a result, the tariff wars are accelerating Mexico’s demographic transition from a country of emigration to one where immigration is on the rise.

This is part of a broader phenomenon known as “replacement migration”, in which labour migration follows a cascade pattern. Workers from middle-income countries migrate to high-income economies, while companies in these middle-income countries fill labour shortages by recruiting migrants from poorer nations. This means much of today’s migration flows from lower to middle-income economies – “one level up” on the development ladder.

The human cost

One of the consequences of this growing global mobility of labour is the rise of “human supply chains”: the systems and practices that multinationals use to manage migrant workers within global supply chains. The implications are profound.

Labour migration relies on complex transnational recruitment networks. In most migrant-receiving countries, visa programmes require companies to hire workers while they are still in their country of origin (Nepali workers recruited to Malaysian factories, for example). Yet few multinationals manage recruitment in-house. Instead, up to 80% of legal, international lower-skilled hires are arranged by labour agencies.

This growing reliance on agencies is increasing workers’ exposure to risk. Migrant recruitment agencies often operate by charging workers for job placements – essentially selling jobs to those seeking employment abroad. Beyond the high upfront fees, many intermediaries have been linked to corruption, including passport confiscation and replacing promised contracts with poorer terms and lower wages upon arrival.

EiQ has uncovered more than 850 major or critical violations, including unlawful salary deductions and recruitment fees that were not reimbursed. According to its CEO, Kevin Franklin: “There are no longer any ‘safe’ or ‘easy’, cost-effective options for supply chain sourcing. We have entered an era of intense and nuanced trade-offs.”

Moving operations from China to India, for instance, increases exposure to the risk of forced and child labour. Likewise, shifting production to Bangladesh raises serious health and safety concerns. And migrant workers in Mexico face heightened risks relating to labour rights, workplace safety and wages – all of which have worsened over the past year.

Even the US has moved from a medium to a high-risk category for all workers, according to EiQ. The Trump government’s Made in America push has driven up demand for labour, but the US workforce is both insufficient and costly, and mass deportations of migrants are only worsening the shortages.

Tighter immigration policies contribute to an atmosphere of fear, discouraging migrant workers from reporting abuse or seeking legal support. And with fewer workers available, those who stay face greater vulnerability. EiQ audits have uncovered forced overtime, serious injuries, hospitalisations and even amputations after people have been injured at work.

Around the world in 2025, more than 45% of geographies slipped down the humane treatment index which EiQ compiles.

As global trade evolves rapidly, businesses must rely on evidence-based insights to navigate this complex landscape. They should map risk, use AI to help them assess trade-offs when they move into new regions, and engage with and train their suppliers. And when they find out things have gone wrong, there must be action plans – including compensation for affected migrant workers.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Milda Žilinskaitė, Vienna University of Economics and Business and Aida Hajro, University of Leeds

Read more:

• I’ve worked in precarious jobs for more than 10 years – here’s what unions should do to support migrant workers
• Venezuelan migrants are boosting economic growth in South America, says research
• Four myths about ‘low-skilled’ migration busted

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.