Japan Economy Minister Downplays Inflation Risks Despite BOJ Warning 
UK Economy Faces 2027 Recession Risk if Strait of Hormuz Stays Closed, EY Warns 
FCC Moves to Ban Imports of Foreign Military-Grade Drones Over Security Risks 
California ICE Detention Center Found to Have Inadequate Medical Care, Court Monitor Says 
Gold Price Holds Above $4,050 as Fed Rate Outlook, Middle East Tensions Keep Markets on Edge 
Judge Approves Anthropic’s $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement With Authors 
UK Stock Market May Outperform if AI Bubble Bursts, Capital Economics Says 
Trump Orders Section 301 Probe Into EU Tech Fines, Signals New Tariffs 
Asian Stocks Rise as AI Optimism Returns, Australia Hits Record High Ahead of RBI Decision 
White House: No Weaponized Drones Seized at FIFA World Cup Venues Despite 700 Recoveries 
U.S. Treasury Joins Japan in Yen Intervention as Currency Nears 40-Year Lows 
Citi Says Sharp TOPIX Drop Could Push USD/JPY Lower as Yen Gains Momentum 
China Defends Industrial Policy Ahead of Key U.S. and EU Trade Talks 
Trump Administration Monitors OpenAI Incident as Lawmakers Push AI Kill Switch Bill 
Trump-Backed Russia Sanctions Bill Faces House Hurdles Over Tariff Powers 
Capital One Says AML Review Led to Closure of Trump Organization Accounts 
Trump Gaza Peace Plan Faces Setback as Israeli Strikes Continue, Hamas Disarmament Dispute Deepens 
A coalition of 25 Democratic-led U.S. states has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s latest round of global tariffs, arguing that the administration exceeded its legal authority by imposing broad import taxes on goods from 60 trading partners. The case, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, marks the latest legal battle over Trump’s aggressive trade policy.
The lawsuit follows similar legal challenges from small U.S. businesses that sought to block the tariffs when they took effect last month. Previous court rulings have already struck down several of Trump’s sweeping tariffs during his second term, yet the administration has continued introducing new trade measures despite repeated legal setbacks.
The tariffs, announced on July 24, impose duties of 10% and 12.5% on imports from 60 trading partners, including the European Union. The Trump administration justified the move by claiming those countries had failed to adequately prevent exports linked to forced labor. The measures replaced an earlier 10% global tariff that had expired.
States including Oregon and New York, all led by Democratic attorneys general or governors, argue the administration is misusing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. While Section 301 has been used by previous presidents to address unfair trade practices, the plaintiffs contend it has historically targeted specific countries or industries—not nearly all U.S. imports.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield criticized the policy, saying the administration continues to create uncertainty for businesses and consumers despite multiple court defeats. The White House defended the tariffs, arguing they are a lawful response to unfair trade practices and necessary to protect American workers from goods produced with forced labor.
The lawsuit also claims the administration is using forced labor concerns as a legal pretext to revive tariffs that courts previously ruled unlawful under different authorities, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the states, broad tariffs affecting more than 99% of U.S. imports are unlikely to address global forced labor issues and instead impose higher costs on American businesses and consumers while creating additional legal uncertainty over U.S. trade policy.
