25 States Sue Trump Administration Over Forced-Labor Tariffs

A coalition of 25 states filed suit Monday in the Court of International Trade against the Trump administration's new tariffs on imports from 59 countries and the European Union. The duties, ranging from 10 to 12.5 percent, took effect last month under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act and apply to goods representing 99.4 percent of all U.S. imports.

The states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, argue the tariffs represent an illegal workaround after the Supreme Court struck down earlier duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. They claim the forced labor justification lacks proper investigation and amounts to a pretext for reviving protectionist measures struck down earlier this year. The complaint alleges the administration bypassed required consultations and failed to explain how the rates would curb forced labor practices abroad.

White House officials counter that the tariffs address a genuine problem. Trading partners including China, the UK, and the EU have not done enough to keep goods made with forced labor out of their supply chains, they say. Spokesman Kush Desai described the move as a lawful exercise of authority under existing trade law, noting that similar Section 301 actions survived court challenges during Trump's first term.

The timing of the new duties, imposed one day before temporary tariffs expired, drew particular scrutiny from the plaintiffs. James said the administration was attempting to raise taxes on American families and businesses through the back door. The lawsuit seeks to halt collection of the duties and refund those already paid.

Section 301 allows the United States to respond to unfair foreign trade practices. The current tariffs cite widespread failures to police supply chains for forced labor, an issue long documented in Chinese manufacturing and other regions. During the first Trump term, comparable duties on China withstood legal challenges despite similar complaints from opponents.

The states involved include New York, California, Illinois, and several others that lean heavily Democratic. Their action follows separate challenges brought by small businesses in July. Administration defenders note that broad tariffs have historically pressured foreign governments to change practices, even when initial legal fights drag on.

Critics of the suit point out that American manufacturing has struggled for decades under trade rules that favored low-cost imports over domestic production. Forced labor concerns are not abstract. Reports from multiple agencies have detailed coercive labor practices in key export sectors of several trading partners. The administration maintains that allowing such goods to enter unchecked undermines U.S. workers who compete against artificially cheap products.

The case will test how far courts will allow the executive branch to use trade statutes to address labor and supply chain issues. Previous Section 301 actions focused narrowly on China after lengthy probes. The current effort covers a much wider group of countries in a shorter timeframe, which the states say violates procedural rules.

Trump has long argued that high tariffs can revive U.S. factories by making foreign goods less competitive. The latest lawsuit represents another front in the ongoing legal and political battle over whether such tools fall within presidential authority or require new legislation.