California sues Trump to block latest tariffs, sharing of needy families’ data with ICE
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- One suit challenges tariffs of up to 12.5% on more than 80 countries, including key U.S. allies.
- The other targets a plan to share Temporary Assistance for Needy Families data with Homeland Security.
California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.
Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.
Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.
Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.
The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.
Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.
Tariff lawsuit
Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.
“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.
The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.
The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.
Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.
Data-sharing lawsuit
California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.
The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.
A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.
The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.
Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.
“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.
During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.
“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”
He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.
“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.
The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.
California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.
California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.
Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.
Facts Only
* California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration on Monday.
* One lawsuit challenges the latest tariffs of up to 12.5% on more than 80 countries, including U.S. allies.
* The second lawsuit challenges the sharing of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families data with Homeland Security.
* California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated the lawsuits aimed to rein in policies threatening American families.
* Bonta alleged the tariffs constitute a "failed and illegal economic policy."
* Bonta alleged the data sharing was part of a broader, illegal "mass surveillance effort" targeting political opponents.
* The administration defended the policies as part of an "America first" agenda.
* Trump and administration officials defended the data sharing as a way to reduce waste, fraud, and identify undocumented individuals consuming benefits.
* The tariff lawsuit targets tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on over 80 countries.
* The data-sharing lawsuit challenges the sharing of recipient data from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program with Homeland Security.
* California has filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.
Executive Summary
California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration, one challenging the latest round of tariffs imposed on over 80 countries and another challenging the sharing of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families data with Homeland Security. California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated both suits were intended to curb policies perceived as threatening American families. The tariff lawsuit claims the tariffs are part of a "failed and illegal economic policy," while the data-sharing lawsuit alleges it is part of a broader, illegal "mass surveillance effort."
The administration has defended both policies as essential components of a "America first" agenda aimed at improving family economic standing and reducing waste or fraud. Supporters contend that the data sharing is a necessary measure to identify and remove illegal presence and ensure funds are used appropriately for American families. Despite these defenses, opponents argue that the tariffs contribute to inflation and economic pain, and that the data sharing mechanism exploits social programs designed to aid needy families. The legal challenges represent ongoing disputes over the use of federal authority regarding international trade, economic policy, and the privacy of public benefit recipients.
Full Take
The conflict highlights a fundamental tension between executive authority in foreign and domestic economic policy versus constitutional and legal rights concerning privacy and the administration of social welfare programs. The juxtaposition of tariffs and data sharing reveals a consistent pattern where broad administrative actions are defended by framing them as necessary for achieving an overarching, unilateral political agenda—whether that agenda is framed as economic protectionism or security enforcement.
The narrative suggests a systemic challenge to the concept of legitimate governance when agencies seek to consolidate power through information access. The argument shifts from specific policy outcomes (tariffs, benefit distribution) to the methodology of data collection itself, suggesting that the mechanism for implementing policy—data control—is as contested as the policy's content. This structure invites scrutiny of whether stated administrative justifications align with established legal and ethical principles governing public trust and individual autonomy. The involvement of multiple state attorneys general indicates a decentralized resistance against federal policy implementation, establishing a pattern of collective jurisdictional friction.
This dynamic forces an inquiry into where the line is drawn between legitimate executive action aimed at national interest and actions that constitute an overreach, particularly when relying on social safety nets as leverage. The consequence involves determining who bears the cost of these expanded surveillance and economic measures: the beneficiaries of the policy, the taxpayers, or the data subjects themselves.
Sentinel — Human
The article functions as a compilation of specific legal challenges layered over broader political critiques, exhibiting the complexity and focused argumentation typical of human investigative journalism rather than pure synthetic output.