<p>This paper presents a philosophical critique of the Rebuttable Presumption (RP) embedded in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), scrutinizing its internal inconsistency when applied to complex global supply chains. The UFLPA presumes that all goods linked to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) or to firms on the designated Entity List involve forced labor unless importers provide “clear and convincing evidence” to the contrary. By modelling a bounded-rational, norm-compliant “idealized importer” and invoking an empirical, practical defeasibility criterion, the argument isolates an empirically irrebuttable non-empty subset of goods: those that (i) undergo processing transformations that erase traceable origins (the “Melting Pot” scenario) and (ii) involve non-cooperative upstream suppliers who withhold critical information. Referencing the empirically irrebuttable subset of goods, the paper demonstrates that rebuttal is infeasible even for the idealized importer; consequently, the law violates the principle of non-contradiction insofar as it simultaneously asserts universal rebuttability yet encompasses goods for which rebuttal is impossible. To resolve this tension, the paper outlines targeted statutory revisions—delimiting scope, rendering the presumption irrebuttable for specified goods, or mandating structured upstream transparency—that would restore logical coherence without compromising the Act’s ethical objectives.</p>