25 US States Sue Administration Over Tariffs on 60 Trading Partners
Dragon Media News Desk
A coalition of 25 US states has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new tariffs on most goods imported from 60 trading partners, arguing that the president exceeded his legal authority.
The states, most of which are led by Democratic administrations, filed the case with the US Court of International Trade on August 3. They asked the court to block the tariffs, declare them unlawful and order the administration to refund duties already collected under the measures.
The Office of the US Trade Representative announced on July 23 that additional tariffs of 10 percent or 12.5 percent would be imposed on goods from 60 economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The measures took effect on July 24.
The tariffs were introduced following US investigations alleging that the affected economies had failed to prohibit imports of goods produced through forced labour.
Goods from several economies, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom, were subjected to a 10 percent tariff. A 12.5 percent tariff was imposed on most goods imported from China and several other economies.
Certain products from the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan were subjected to tariffs ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative.
In their complaint, the states argued that the administration had failed to provide sufficient legal or factual justification for imposing nearly uniform tariffs on economies with widely different labour and trade policies.
They maintained that there was no rational connection between the stated objective of combating forced labour and the imposition of broad tariffs covering almost all imports from the affected economies.
The states also alleged that the Office of the US Trade Representative had rushed its investigations and failed to conduct the country-specific consultations and assessments required under US trade law.
The trade representative’s office, however, said it had conducted two rounds of public hearings, received more than 2,100 public comments and held consultations with more than 45 governments during the investigations. It also said it had received around 1,600 additional written submissions and heard testimony from more than 100 witnesses on the proposed measures.
The lawsuit follows a similar legal challenge filed by a group of small US businesses on the day the tariffs took effect.
The administration turned to Section 301 after the US Supreme Court ruled in February that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorise the president to impose sweeping tariffs.
He Weiwen, a senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, told the Global Times that another domestic legal challenge to the administration’s tariff policy was hardly surprising.
He said that using allegations of forced labour to impose tariffs on most goods from entire economies represented an excessive expansion of Section 301.
According to He, measures genuinely intended to address forced labour should target specific products or companies supported by clear evidence rather than applying blanket tariffs to entire economies.
He warned that higher tariffs on imported raw materials, intermediate goods and components would increase production costs for American companies, with much of the burden ultimately being transferred to US businesses and consumers.
He also argued that previous tariff policies had failed to achieve their stated objectives of reducing the US trade deficit and creating more manufacturing jobs.
China’s Ministry of Commerce said on July 27 that the United States had not ratified the International Labour Organization’s Forced Labour Convention of 1930 but had repeatedly used the issue as a justification for trade restrictions.
The ministry described the Section 301 investigations and unilateral tariffs as acts of unilateralism and protectionism.
China said it would continue to monitor and assess subsequent US actions and reserved the right to take all necessary measures. It also urged Washington to reverse its approach and completely remove the unilateral tariffs.
