25 States Sue Trump Administration Over Forced-Labor Tariffs

Twenty-five states are challenging tariffs that now apply to nearly all goods entering the United States, raising the cost of imports from 59 countries and the European Union. The duties, set at 10 percent or 12.5 percent, took effect July 23 under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and cover economies responsible for 99.4 percent of U.S. imports, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Plaintiffs argue the measures exceed statutory authority and serve mainly to replace revenue lost after the Supreme Court invalidated earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The states filed their complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade on August 4. They contend the administration completed investigations into 60 trading partners in roughly two and a half months, skipped required country-specific consultations, and failed to explain how the chosen rates would reduce forced-labor practices. One internal inconsistency cited in the filing is the exemption of Brazilian frozen beef, a product the administration itself identified as linked to forced labor. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the tariffs amount to an illegal attempt to raise taxes on families and businesses after the earlier legal defeat.

The White House maintains the action rests on lawful authority. Spokesman Kush Desai stated that a foreign country’s failure to block goods made with forced labor burdens U.S. commerce and that Section 301 has withstood prior court review, including tariffs on China during Trump’s first term. Those earlier duties survived challenges after an eight-month investigation; the current probe lasted two months. Two separate lawsuits by small businesses, also filed in the Court of International Trade in July, raise similar procedural objections.

The new tariffs replaced temporary duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act that had themselves been struck down, though that ruling remains on appeal. The states seek a declaration that the Section 301 tariffs are unlawful, an order halting collection, and refunds of duties already paid. The case turns on whether the administration satisfied the statute’s procedural requirements and whether the forced-labor rationale meets the law’s standards for addressing unfair trade practices.