In brief
A coalition of 25 mostly Democratic states has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s new 10‑12.5% tariffs on goods from 60 countries, citing a breach of U.S. trade law. The states argue the tariffs—imposed in July and targeting nations such as the UK, China, and the EU over alleged forced‑labour practices—are too broad and exploit a loophole in the Trade Act. Trump’s administration defends the tariffs as lawful use of Section 301 to protect American workers, but opponents contend they are a pre‑text for politically motivated trade sanctions. The suit comes amid a series of legal challenges to Trump’s tariff agenda, many of which the Supreme Court has already overturned, and could set a precedent for further trade disputes. The move is a rare instance of state governments taking direct legal action against federal trade policy, signalling growing concern among some in the U.S. about the impact of such tariffs on domestic businesses and families.
A coalition of 25 states—predominantly Democratic in the Midwest, Northeast and West—filed a federal lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump’s newly imposed tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5% on goods imported from 60 partner nations. The tariffs, which took effect in July, target countries such as the United Kingdom, China and the European Union over allegations that they have failed to address forced labour.
The states contend the tariffs are "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law," and argue that the Trump administration is using forced‑labour concerns as a pretext for an illegal trade policy. The lawsuit also claims the duties cover 99.4% of U.S. imports, a figure cited by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), making the measure so broad that it defeats the statute’s purpose.
White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the tariffs, saying the U.S. is using its lawful authority to address practices that burden American businesses. "Any country that fails to address the importation of goods produced with forced labour is unreasonable and must be addressed," Desai said.
The suit is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges to Trump’s trade initiatives. In April the administration announced a wide‑ranging “Liberation Day” tariff that was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which also forced a refund of tens of billions of dollars for companies that had paid the levies. The court’s decision has now left a temporary 10% levy on all global imports in place, with the tariffs expiring in July.
State officials highlighted the economic fallout. New York Governor Kathy Hochul described the tariffs as "nothing more than a tax on hardworking families," while Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield warned that "we’re all paying the price for these unlawful tariffs, not foreign governments."
Foreign governments have also reacted. Brazil and Japan called the measures "unjustified," while China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning called the tariffs an "excuse for political manipulation," exacerbating an earlier trade standoff that is currently on hold.
Analysts have expressed doubt about how affected countries can demonstrate they have properly addressed forced‑labour claims, pointing to the complex nature of supply chains and the stringent requirements set by the USTR. The lawsuit underscores rising concerns that blanket tariffs may be misapplied, affecting global trade and U.S. businesses alike. Future tariffs are also conceivable as the administration investigates 16 countries over alleged manufacturing overcapacity.
