25 US states are challenging Trump's new tariffs in court

A coalition of 25 states, almost exclusively Democratic, filed a lawsuit Monday against the tariffs that took effect on July 24, accusing the White House of misusing a 1974 federal law to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling.

This is the third legal action of its kind since the return of Donald Trump at the White House. California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated it bluntly: "This is the third time President Trump has attempted to illegally impose tariffs that increase the cost of living for American families and small businesses, and the third time we have sued the government for misuse of its powers."

The tariffs in question, ranging from 10% to 12,5% ​​depending on the country, took effect on July 24. They replaced temporary measures adopted in February, after the Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs imposed by Trump upon his return to office. Approximately sixty countries, as well as the European Union, are affected, covering nearly 99% of US imports. Unlike the initial tariffs, these apply only to a selection of products in each country.

To justify the tariffs, the White House cited a 1974 federal law, following a 150-day investigation—the exact duration of the temporary tariffs. The investigation aimed to determine whether the countries in question were effectively combating the presence of products made with forced labor in their supply chains. Countries whose legislation was deemed insufficient were hit with a 10% tariff, while those accused of having no prohibitions were subject to a 12,5% ​​tariff.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer presented these measures as a way to "encourage trading partners to join the United States in eliminating forced labor from the global supply chain." White House Press Secretary Kush Desai, for his part, asserted that Washington was using "its legal authority to eliminate unreasonable policies, actions, and practices that harm U.S. trade."

The 25 plaintiff states, 23 of which are governed by Democrats and two, Nevada and Vermont, by Republicans, contest this interpretation. According to their complaint, reviewed by AFP, the investigation was merely a pretext to reinstate the tariffs struck down in February. They point out, in particular, the absence of any mechanism allowing sanctioned countries to have the surcharges lifted if they cease the practices in question, which contradicts the very letter of the law being invoked.

The plaintiffs also rely on statements made by Greer himself: when the proceedings were announced, "there was no mention of forced labor," they emphasize. The USTR reportedly stated, on the contrary, that the investigation would be conducted in a way that "ensures continuity" with the previous tariffs. Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings denounced the move as aimed at "reaching an inevitable conclusion, in order to impose tariffs similar to those" that had been overturned.

Tariffs are one of the central pillars of Donald Trump's economic policy, which he sees as a lever to encourage companies to relocate their production, protect certain industrial sectors and finance tax cuts.