The Consumer Product Safety Commission is supposed to protect consumers from real dangers, but in practice, it has repeatedly harmed small businesses and limited parents’ ability to make informed choices.

In 2022, it launched a case against Leachco, a small Oklahoma company that makes baby loungers, threatening to put the family-run business out of existence even though millions of families had used its products safely for decades. Two years later, in 2024, the commission was again in the headlines, this time not for enforcing a law or passing a regulation, but for one commissioner’s unilateral decision to target an entire product category of weighted infant swaddles and blankets. By the end of that year, the commission’s tactics had drawn congressional scrutiny and national criticism, and now, a major lawsuit was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of Dreamland Baby Co. and other plaintiffs.

Recommended Stories

• Education returns to center stage in Virginia gubernatorial race
• Measuring Trump’s deportation success
• Red states lean into cost-cutting brand with DOGE copycats

IN FOCUS: CALIFORNIA’S MARIJUANA MARKET: FROM HIGH HOPES TO ‘COMPLETE FAILURE’

The suit names not only the CPSC and Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr., but also the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services. NCLA argues that these parties conspired in an unconstitutional campaign to destroy a lawful and popular product line by coercing retailers into submission rather than following the procedures required by law. Instead of playing by the rulebook, Trumka substituted press releases and letters for rulemaking. In short, the plaintiffs say, this was not regulation but bullying.

On April 15, 2024, Trumka issued a public statement titled Beware: Weighted Infant Swaddles and Blankets Are Unsafe for Sleep. In it, he declared, “CPSC has a clear warning for safe infant sleep: ‘Don’t use weighted blankets or weighted swaddles’ for your babies. This matches the warnings from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that weighted products ‘can pose dangers for babies,’ and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that ‘[w]eighted products such as weighted sleepers, weighted swaddles, weighted sleep sacks, and weighted blankets are not safe for infants.’ There are multiple infant deaths in these products.”

He went further, telling companies, “We do not have to wait for a federal rule to start protecting babies. Retailers could take precautions today—they have the power to stop sales. In the interest of public safety, I’ve asked retailers nationwide to reflect on this question: with all the advice out there cautioning against their use, are weighted infant swaddles really what you want to be selling to your consumers? I expect many responsible retailers, armed with this knowledge, will say ‘no.’” 

On that same day, he privately sent letters to Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, and Babylist, writing, “Considering these serious safety concerns, I would like to speak with a representative of your company to discuss a simple question: does [your company] really want to continue selling these products to its consumers? Your consumers place a great deal of trust in your hands.” When those letters became public on April 26, it was clear they had been crafted not as part of a commission vote or official rulemaking, but as a one-man campaign to eliminate a product line.

Trumka then amplified his campaign through media and social channels. On Instagram, he posted a graphic of an infant with dumbbells, a grotesque image designed to terrify parents into thinking weighted swaddles were akin to strapping gym equipment onto a newborn. In interviews, he suggested the industry was writing its own rules and putting babies at risk, even though no definitive scientific evidence supported such claims. Within days, the retailers had capitulated, announcing they would no longer sell weighted infant sleep products. No law had been passed. No scientific consensus had been reached. No vote of the commission had taken place. Yet one commissioner had, through a mix of pressure and public shaming, accomplished what amounted to a nationwide ban.

He was proud of it. At a July 2024 oversight hearing, Trumka boasted, “They stopped selling product categories like water beads and weighted infant swaddles when they learned of CPSC warnings for consumers not to use them. And they’ve lightened that load.” In those words, he all but admitted to what the lawsuit now charges: He sidestepped procedure and substituted intimidation for rulemaking. 

When former Rep. Jeff Duncan (D-SC) pressed whether he had consulted the commission’s lawyers before sending those retailer letters, Trumka replied only, “In general, it is my typical practice to seek legal advice.” That nonanswer confirmed what was already clear: this was an end-run around the law.

After the hearing, Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, wrote to Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric of the CPSC regarding actions taken by Trumka that he believed possibly violated the Consumer Product Safety Act. Williams issued the following statement, which read in part, “Commissioner Trumka failed to take ‘reasonable steps’ to meet the requirements of the statute before he disclosed the identities of the manufacturers of the weighted blankets. First, he failed to assure that the information is accurate. Next, he made allegations without the information being backed up by scientific research. For example, in the letters to the retailers, Commissioner Trumka stated, ‘I am aware of multiple infant deaths involving weighted infant.’ However, there is no citation to prove this very serious claim. Third, his assertions go directly against the CPSC’s decision and thus ‘disclosure of the information is’ not ‘reasonably related to effectuating the purposes of the CPSA.’” 

The science is not on his side either. The CPSC and its allies suggested that weighted products could cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS. No one knows the cause of SIDS, and attributing it to any product without evidence is reckless and misleading. No study has ever demonstrated that weighted swaddles increase the risk of infant death. Yet parents were told in stark, categorical terms that these products were unsafe. 

The problem with such alarmism is that it unfairly destroys businesses and undermines trust in the very agencies tasked with public safety. When regulators conflate conjecture with certainty, families stop listening.

The fallout has been enormous. For Dreamland Baby, the sudden loss of major retailers was devastating, wiping away years of investment and growth. For parents, options evaporated. Products sold abroad and trusted by many families were suddenly unavailable in the United States, not because Congress banned them, not because the science proved them unsafe, but because one unelected commissioner decided he knew better. The federal government effectively outlawed a lawful product line through coercion and fear, depriving parents of the ability to choose what is right for their families.

The pattern is familiar. Just as Leachco was nearly destroyed through baseless allegations, Dreamland Baby has been sidelined through coercion. The CPSC acts less like a watchdog and more like an attack dog, sinking small businesses and leaving parents with fewer options. What makes this case particularly egregious is the naked self-promotion behind it. Trumka’s Instagram stunts, his press appearances, and his eagerness to claim credit before Congress all suggest that this was less about safety than about ego. Trumka pursued a personal crusade, leveraging his office not to advance science or lawful rulemaking, but to aggrandize himself through media attention and political theater.

It is no surprise, then, that the CPSC has been undergoing a major leadership overhaul. After years of criticism over its heavy-handed tactics, the agency’s leadership structure was challenged in court. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld that overhaul, ensuring that the commission’s leadership could be more directly accountable to the president and Congress. As I wrote at the time, that ruling was “a win for everyone” — a check on an agency that had too often used its powers far outside its mandate, and a reminder that administrative bodies are not free-floating monarchies. That shift in leadership was long overdue, and it now looks even more necessary in light of the Dreamland Baby case. When regulators pursue personal vendettas instead of lawful policy, reform is not optional. It is urgent.

That is why the case names not only Trumka and the CPSC, but also the NIH, HHS, and the CDC. These institutions lent his campaign the appearance of legitimacy, providing citations and statements that created the impression of consensus where none existed. Together, they built an echo chamber that gave Trumka cover as he pressured the nation’s biggest retailers. But as the plaintiffs contend, “The Constitution does not permit government officials to bypass lawful procedures and destroy lawful businesses through coercion.”

The courts now have a chance to draw a line. If a single commissioner can intimidate companies into dropping lawful products, then due process means nothing. Any product could be next, targeted not by evidence or regulation but by an ambitious official chasing headlines. That is not government by law but government by fiat.

WHO IS LISA COOK, THE FED GOVERNOR TRUMP IS TRYING TO FIRE?

This lawsuit is about more than swaddles. It is about whether unelected bureaucrats can continue to rule by intimidation, weaponizing public fear to achieve policy ends they could never secure through law. Parents deserve the truth, not propaganda. Businesses deserve fair treatment, not coercion. And our constitutional system deserves respect, not disregard.

Dreamland Baby is fighting for its survival, but the stakes extend far beyond the company itself. This case will determine whether the administrative state can continue to operate by press release and personality cult, or whether courts will restore the limits that the Constitution demands. For the sake of small businesses, parents, and our system of government, it is time to put an end to ego-driven bureaucratic bullying.