25 Democratic-led US states sue Trump administration over new tariffs on 60 trading partners
How left and right are reading this
- Both agree
- The duties are sweeping — 10% or 12.5% on partners supplying about 99% of US imports — and their legality now rests with a court rather than with either side's assertion.
- The split
- Left and right split: a workaround for tariffs courts rejected, or federal leverage states shouldn't undo?
This isn't a fight about 10% versus 12.5% — it's about who decides when a fresh legal theory is a genuine authority or a detour around a ruling.
The Facts
- Twenty-five Democratic-led US states filed a lawsuit on Aug. 3, 2026, at the US Court of International Trade in New York challenging the Trump administration's latest tariffs.
- The contested tariffs, set at 10% or 12.5%, apply to imports from 60 trading partners, including the European Union, and took effect on July 24 under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
- The administration justified the duties by saying the affected countries and the EU had not done enough to curb exports of goods produced with forced labour.
- The states allege the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the forced-labour investigation was a pretext to reimpose tariffs courts had already rejected.
- The coalition asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, block them, and order refunds of duties already paid.
- The lawsuit is led by the attorneys general of California (Rob Bonta), Arizona (Kris Mayes) and Oregon (Dan Rayfield), and includes states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado and Minnesota, plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
- The states say the tariffs will raise prices for consumers and businesses; the 60 affected trading partners account for about 99% of US imports, and the affected countries include Brazil, the United Kingdom, China, India and EU members.
- This is the third legal basis the administration has used for broad tariffs; the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's earlier emergency-powers tariffs in February 2026, and the new duties took effect just as the temporary 10% global tariff used after that ruling was expiring.
- Separate legal challenges to the same July tariffs were filed by US small businesses before the states acted.
Context
What is Section 301 and why did the administration use it?
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 lets the US Trade Representative act against foreign practices it deems unfair. After the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers in February 2026, the administration in March opened Section 301 investigations into 59 countries and the European Union over forced labour in supply chains, then used those findings to impose the 10%–12.5% duties in July as the earlier temporary global tariff was set to lapse infobae,EL PAÍS,Terra.
How has the administration responded to the lawsuit?
White House spokesman Kush Desai said the United States is 'using its legal authority' to address the issue BBC. The administration has maintained that the tariffs are grounded in trade practices of other countries La Nacion.
What happened to the money collected under the tariffs the Supreme Court struck down?
The government collected roughly $165 billion under the tariffs the Supreme Court ruled illegal in February 2026 and has refunded about $100 billion — around 60% — according to figures customs officials reported to the Court of International Trade Guardian,National Post. Canadian exporters alone are owed roughly $10 billion, according to National Post National Post.
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.
View all 100 sources
Wire services (3)
Independent coverage (50)
About these frames
See this differently than someone you know would? Two ways to keep it going.
The dial works on any URL — paste an article you read elsewhere this week.