US states sue to halt Trump’s forced-labour tariffs on 60 nations
Developing story first seen 4 hours ago
Twenty-five Democratic-led US states have sued the Trump administration in an attempt to block new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% imposed on goods from 60 trading partners, arguing in a legal filing that the levies are "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law". The tariffs, which took effect in July and affect countries including the UK, China and the European Union, were imposed under Section 301 of the 1974 US Trade Act on the grounds that these partners failed to properly tackle forced labour; the lawsuit claims this justification is merely a "pretext" to continue an unlawful tariff scheme, echoing the Supreme Court's earlier rejection of Trump's broader "Liberation Day" tariffs.
The duties cover 99.4% of US imports, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative, and hit major partners such as Japan, Brazil and Taiwan, several of which have called the measures "unjustified", while China's foreign ministry branded them "political manipulation". The White House defended the tariffs as a lawful response to unaddressed forced labour practices, with spokesman Kush Desai saying countries' failure to act was "unreasonable". New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield accused Trump of imposing an unlawful tax on working families, noting the administration has already lost similar legal challenges; further tariffs may follow, with the US currently investigating 16 countries over alleged manufacturing overcapacity.
- 25 US states sue to block new 10-12.5% tariffs on 60 countries
- States call tariffs unlawful "pretext"; White House says they're lawful
- Tariffs cover 99.4% of US imports; more probes ongoing
New here? Start with this
US states are taking Donald Trump's administration to court over a fresh round of tariffs, which are taxes charged on goods imported into the country. The states argue the tariffs, applied to imports from 60 different trading partners including the UK, China and the EU, were brought in unlawfully and unfairly raise costs for ordinary households and businesses. The Trump administration says the tariffs are a justified response to trading partners failing to tackle forced labour in their supply chains.
Tariffs have become a defining feature of Trump's second term, used as a tool to pressure other countries on trade and other policy goals. Courts have already pushed back on some of his earlier tariff measures, including a separate set known as "Liberation Day" tariffs, so this case is being watched as another test of how far a president can go in imposing them without approval from Congress. The states bringing the lawsuit are largely led by Democratic politicians, setting up a political as well as legal dispute with the Republican administration.
The outcome matters well beyond America's borders, since the tariffs affect the vast majority of goods the US imports and touch major economies such as Japan, Brazil, Taiwan and the EU. Businesses that trade with the US, and consumers who buy imported goods, could see costs rise or fall depending on how the case is decided, and other countries are watching closely as they weigh their own responses.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the tariffs argue that trading partners have had ample opportunity to address forced labour in their supply chains and that Section 301 gives the executive lawful authority to act when trade practices are deemed unreasonable. They contend that consistent, broad-based tariffs create leverage to compel meaningful reform abroad, protect American workers from goods made under exploitative conditions, and that courts should defer to the executive's judgement on foreign trade and national economic strategy. From this view, the lawsuits are seen as an attempt by political opponents to obstruct a legitimate and overdue enforcement tool.
The case against
Opponents argue that the tariffs amount to an unlawful and arbitrary tax that raises costs for working families and businesses without clear, consistent justification, given that they sweep in 99.4% of US imports and partners with varying human rights records alike. They point to the Supreme Court's earlier rejection of similar tariff actions as evidence that the administration is exceeding its statutory authority under the guise of forced-labour enforcement, using it as a pretext for a broader protectionist agenda. From this perspective, the states' lawsuits uphold the rule of law and the separation of powers by insisting that sweeping economic measures affecting ordinary consumers require proper legal grounding and congressional oversight rather than unilateral executive action.
More coverage
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by BBC World as “US states sue to block Trump tariffs impacting dozens of countries”.