Twenty-five U.S. states filed a lawsuit against the administration over tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners, including the United Kingdom, at rates ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent.
The duties began in July under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, a law intended to target countries that use forced labor. The administration justified the tariffs by claiming that partners such as the UK, China, and the European Union had not adequately addressed forced‑labour practices.
According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the tariffs cover 99.4 percent of U.S. imports and were finalized after 60 investigations completed in July.
The states’ legal complaint called the decision “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” arguing that the administration cannot use forced labour as a pretext for an illegal tariff scheme.
It further contended that the tariffs are too broad, undermining the stated aims of the statute and reducing the measure to a mockery of its legal basis.
The lawsuit highlighted the difference in investigation timelines: the 2018 China case took eight months, whereas the current probe into 60 partners lasted only two months, a duration that is atypically short for a Section 301 inquiry.
A White House spokesperson said the U.S. is exercising lawful authority to address practices that burden American businesses and that countries failing to eliminate forced‑labour imports are unreasonable and must be addressed.
The spokesperson added that Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a durable tool since the first term and remain effective today.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul described the tariffs as a tax on hardworking families, while Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield criticized the measures for inflicting chaos on working families and domestic businesses, stating that Americans are paying the price.
Several affected trading partners expressed disappointment; Brazil and Japan called the measures unjustified, and China described them as a political manipulation tactic.
The United Kingdom duty adds to existing U.S. trade measures that have already lowered the value of British goods sold in the American market, following earlier steel and aluminium duties.
Analysts question how countries could demonstrate that they have adequately addressed forced‑labour claims.
A business lecturer noted that the lawsuit would present a formidable challenge to the levies, citing a lack of credible evidence supporting the claims that countries have harmed U.S. firms through forced‑labour violations and predicting that carve‑outs and walk‑backs will gradually reduce the tariffs.
