25 US States Sue Administration Over Tariffs Citing Forced Labour Pretext
On Monday, a coalition of 25 US states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging a sweeping series of tariffs imposed on goods from dozens of countries. The states argue that the tariffs are unlawful and exceed the authority granted to the executive branch under trade law.
The tariffs, which range between 10% and 12.5%, were introduced in July under Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. The administration has justified the measures as a necessary response to what it says is the failure of trading partners—including the United Kingdom, China, and the European Union—to adequately address the use of forced labour in their supply chains.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, led by Democratic state attorneys general, described the tariff decision as "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law." They contend that the administration has used forced labour as a pretext for an illegal tariff scheme. The legal filing further states that the tariffs are so broad in scope that they "defy the USTR's own stated aims and make a mockery of the statute used to justify them."
The White House has defended the tariffs. Spokesman Kush Desai said the US is "using its lawful authority" to address practices that burden American businesses. He added that any foreign country failing to prevent the importation of goods produced with forced labour is acting "unreasonably" and must be held accountable.
The tariffs, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), cover 99.4% of all US imports. This near-universal application has raised concerns among trade partners and economic analysts, who point to the potential for higher consumer prices and retaliatory measures from affected nations.
Section 301 grants the USTR broad powers to investigate and respond to unfair trade practices. However, the plaintiffs argue that the current tariffs go far beyond the statute's original intent, which was to target specific, proven instances of unfair conduct rather than to impose blanket duties on entire economies.
The lawsuit represents a significant legal challenge to the administration's trade policy. It also underscores a growing divide between state and federal authorities over the conduct of international trade and the enforcement of labour standards.
Legal experts expect the case to proceed through the federal courts, with possible implications for US trade relations and the future use of Section 301. The outcome could shape how the US balances economic interests with its stated commitments to human rights and fair labour practices.
