infoJustice

Sean Flynn, Lokesh Vyas and Luca Schirru

The first Special 301 Report under the Trump Administration was released last month: 2025 Special 301 Report (final).pdf. The report always gives insight into the administration’s trade priorities¹. How the Trump Administration will approach intellectual property matters is a bit of a mystery with its trade policy positions in the campaign taking conflicting approaches to the issue.² The first Trump Administration Special 301 Report suggests that copyright policy is returning to its norm at USTR, with complaints about overbroad copyright exceptions, including for the circumvention of technological protection measures, raised against many of the countries on its warning lists.

Countries Named and Blamed

Twenty-six countries are named on in the report, with no country being listed as a Priority Foreign Country — which is the level at which direct threats of trade retaliation are raised. But the Report keeps the threat alive, stating: “Over the coming weeks, USTR will review those developments against the benchmarks established in the Special 301 action plans for those countries”.³ If countries fail to address U.S. concerns, the USTR may take actions, including enforcement measures under Section 301 of the Trade Act or dispute settlement procedures under the WTO or other trade agreements.

Eight countries are on the Priority Watch List: Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela. Eighteen countries are on the Watch List: Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, and Vietnam.

 Of the countries listed in the report, two countries on the Priority Watch List (India and Indonesia) and four countries on the Watch List (Canada, Ecuador, Thailand, and Vietnam) are subject to complaints about “overly broad exceptions”: 

Priority Watch List

India: The Report alleges that Section 31d of the Copyright Act, 1957, which governs statutory licensing for the broadcasting of literary and musical works, as well as sound recordings, could be interpreted to allow statutory licensing for interactive online streaming, which, according to the report, “would have severe implications for right holders who make their content available online.” The report also rebukes “overly broad exceptions for certain uses” that raise “concerns about the strength of copyright protection in India”. However, the report does not name those exceptions. Finally, it complains that India has not made sufficient amendments to its Copyright Act to to protect technological protection measures and rights management information to comply with the WIPO Internet Treaties (i.e., WCT and WPPT).⁴ 

Indonesia: The report complains of “overbroad exceptions to provisions that prohibit the circumvention of technological protection measures” and urges Indonesia to consider amendments to its copyright law.⁵

Watch List

Canada: The Report states that stakeholders reported issues with a “broad interpretation of the fair dealing exception for the purpose of education, which was added to the copyright law in 2012, as well as the relevant case law on the subject, has significantly damaged the market for educational authors and publishers”.⁶

Ecuador: The Report raises “concerns raised by the U.S. Government and various stakeholders on issues related to overly broad or vaguely defined copyright exceptions and limitations”.⁷

Thailand: The report urges Thailand to consider reviewing its copyright law to address several issues, including what is called “overly broad exceptions to provisions that prohibit the circumvention of technological protection measures”.⁸

Vietnam: Concerns were raised about “overly broad exceptions to copyright” and the implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties, “including protections against circumvention of technological protection measures and certain acts affecting rights management information”.⁹

1. The report has a long history in pressuring countries to change their laws in the US’ interest. (See generally, Analysis of Special 301 Listings, 2009-2020 by Michael Palmedo) ↩︎
2. See What Project 2025 Says About Intellectual Property Policy in the Second Trump Administration (reporting that Project 2025 opposed including intellectual property in trade agreements as “trade-unrelated”; but also urged the US to restore suspended IP provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement as a condition to joining). ↩︎
3. Pages 4-5. ↩︎
4. See pages 54-57. ↩︎
5. See pages 57-58. ↩︎
6. Page 72. ↩︎
7. Page 74. ↩︎
8. See page 80. ↩︎
9. See page 85. ↩︎