When States Go Rogue: Is California Conducting Its Own Foreign Policy?
Before 2025, I’ll be honest, I didn’t really know much about what tariffs were, but my goodness, they have been flooding the news over the past few weeks!
In case you missed it, President Trump has implemented a series of aggressive tariffs on many other countries, escalating trade tensions with major U.S. partners. A tariff is a tax imposed by the government on imported goods, typically to protect domestic industries or raise revenue. Trump is using tariffs to encourage American-made goods and make prices more equal between what the U.S. buys from other countries and what it sells to them. [1] Trump’s tariffs include a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports and a 25% tariff on most Mexican goods. Additionally, a 10% universal tariff was briefly imposed on all imports but was quickly scaled back due to market volatility.[2]
Internationally, these tariffs have prompted retaliatory measures from trade partners. The European Union approved new tariffs on $23 billion in U.S. goods in response to the tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.[3] The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has urged global leaders to resolve these trade tensions swiftly, warning that the conflict poses threats to global economic stability.[4] Economists are warning that these escalating trade conflicts could dampen investment and consumer confidence, potentially leading to a slowdown in U.S. economic growth heading into 2026.[5]
Now, what you may NOT have seen is that California is, of course, positioning itself right at the front of the conversation, and so THAT is what we need to talk about today!
California’s Responses to the Trump Tariffs
So, just how is California getting involved in the current tariff situation? Well, to no one’s surprise, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in federal court on April 16th challenging the powers that President Trump is using to enact his tariffs on countries across the globe.[6] Twelve other states have followed California’s lead, with states like Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, New York, and 8 others filing a similar lawsuit together one week after California on April 23rd.[7] What are these lawsuits contending? The California lawsuit contends that President Trump unlawfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval. Specifically, the administration's tariffs include a 10%[8] baseline on most imports and up to 245%[9] on goods from China. The lawsuit argues that the IEEPA does not grant the President authority to unilaterally enact tariffs, which is a power reserved for Congress in the Constitution. The lawsuit is seeking to have the tariffs declared void and to halt their implementation.[10]
What is the reason that Newsom and Bonta give for California specifically getting involved in this fight? They argue that California, as the world's fifth-largest economy, is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of these tariffs. The state’s agriculture and technology sectors heavily rely on international trade, and so they face significant risks if tariffs are imposed on this trade, thus driving up the costs or disincentivizing trade from happening. For instance, Newsom cites that 43% of California's almonds, pistachios, and dairy products are export-dependent, and the tariffs threaten these markets.[11] The tariffs have arguably disrupted supply chains, increased consumer prices, and inflicted damages on California’s economy. So, essentially, Governor Newsom is getting involved in the tariff fight because he believes Trump’s new tariffs are hurting California’s economy, especially its farmers and exporters, and that the president is using powers he doesn’t legally have to impose them without approval from Congress.
But that isn’t all that he has been doing since the passage of these tariffs. Governor Newsom has taken proactive steps to engage directly with international partners, so that he can mitigate these potential adverse effects on California's economy. He has reached out to foreign governments, requesting that California-made products be exempted from retaliatory tariffs. He emphasized in these discussions that "California is not Washington, D.C.," and that we have distinct economic interests from the United States as a whole.[12] His administration has initiated these negotiations with countries like China, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. He is aiming to protect California’s industries, like agriculture and technology, from the negative impacts of the federal tariffs.[13] Basically, our Governor seems to be conducting his own foreign policy outside of the foreign policy of the Trump Administration and the United States as a whole.
Obviously, these actions raise a lot of questions on issues that I think it’s important we need to be informed on. Questions like:
1. What is a Governor’s responsibility in terms of suing the federal government and holding the President accountable?
2. What is a state allowed to do when it comes to liaising with foreign governments and other countries? And,
3. What is the ultimate goal of California’s actions on this issue?
By answering these questions, we can be equipped to think clearly about the issues facing our state, our government, and our country. It’s important that regardless of our conclusions, like what you think about tariffs, we still cut through to the motivations at play and that we ask these questions in order to hold our leaders in government accountable.
Governors vs. the Federal Government
Let’s start with the first question – What is a governor’s responsibility in terms of suing the federal government and holding the president accountable?
A governor’s primary duty is to protect the rights, interests, and well-being of their state’s people — and yes, sometimes that might look like suing the federal government. But I would argue that it’s not something to do lightly.
A governor may consider bringing a lawsuit against the federal government if:
Federal policies harm the state’s residents. This would give them standing to sue, as they can argue they represent a state that has suffered direct harm. Now, it’s fuzzy on what qualifies as harm, because your definition of something being “harmful” to residents might differ depending on your values or policy positions. But in this case, Gavin Newsom is making the argument that if tariffs cause disproportionate damage to California's agricultural exports, then federal overreach is hurting local jobs or businesses and therefore warrants his response.
A governor may also sue the federal government if federal actions violate the Constitution or overstep Congress. The Executive Branch of the government was never intended to have unchecked power. The Constitution guarantees state sovereignty, and so governors of those states do have the ability to push back on the federal government if they are overreaching. Again, in this situation, Gavin Newsom is arguing that President Trump is abusing emergency powers in ways not intended by law and is therefore challenging his actions to defend constitutional balance.
Lastly, a governor may sue the federal government if the state is being denied resources or rights. This scenario doesn’t directly apply to the tariff situation, as resources and rights are not being denied, but there are some who are arguing that tariffs are a form of taxation without representation. When a president unilaterally imposes tariffs without congressional approval, opponents argue it sidesteps the people’s representatives — violating the spirit, if not the letter, of how taxation is supposed to work in a constitutional republic. This is allowed in certain emergency situations for the good of the country, but if a President abuses that power to exercise it when not in a real state of emergency, then it is no longer seen as being in the people’s interests, but in the interests of those in power.
In these three cases, suing the federal government could be seen as part of a governor’s role as a defender of the state’s legal and economic autonomy, and that is how our governor is currently framing his pushback on President Trump.
But we have to recognize that there are other times when this type of response by a governor or state isn’t justified. For instance, a governor crosses a line when lawsuits are clearly politically motivated, more about making headlines than solving real problems. A governor may also be overstepping if his actions are explicitly designed to undermine federal authority, especially in areas like foreign policy, which are clearly under federal control. And of course, a governor’s actions become abusive when used as a tool for national ambition, like building a presidential résumé. Ultimately, any lawsuit brought by a state against its federal government should be about in some way defending the people of the state, not scoring points in the national spotlight.
This gets really tricky with Gavin Newsom, because you could argue that the unjustifiable motives ARE his true motives behind this lawsuit. How do we know that? Well, there are a few hints that give it away.
First of all, this isn’t the first time that he has sued the President, specifically the Trump Administration. California sued his administration 123 times and spent $10 million per year on these legal battles just during his first term alone. The lawsuits spanned various topics like immigration, environmentalism, and health care.[14] Are we really supposed to believe that all 123 of these lawsuits were genuinely defending the people of California from governmental overreach and harm? Or, is it more likely that it seems like Newsom and his administration are eager to fight this Republican President for political expediency and will gladly find excuses to do so? Now, maybe you’re thinking, well, we don’t know that for sure, and maybe he really is acting in good faith and not playing partisan politics. So then, that would mean that he most likely sued the Biden Administration for something, right? After all, Joe Biden facilitated:
- $400 billion in student loan forgiveness even after the Supreme Court ruled he did not have the authority to do so,[15]
- COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal employees and contractors, healthcare workers, and businesses with more than 100 employees, which was ALSO struck down by the Supreme Court,[16]
- A nationwide eviction moratorium during COVID so that landlords could not evict tenants who weren’t paying their rent, even after the Supreme Court ruled Biden needed Congressional approval to do so,[17]
- Mass weaponization of the Department of Justice to target pro-life activists,[18] parents at school board meetings who were deemed “domestic terrorists,”[19] Donald Trump on a million different charges, all while slow walking investigations into his son,[20]
- Unilateral regulatory overreach through the reinterpretation of Title IX to include gender identity[21] and to impose aggressive climate and energy restrictions without congressional approval,[22]
- Widespread tech censorship by pressuring companies to suppress information about COVID, vaccines, and other issues,[23]
- And, for just the icing on the cake of his authoritarianism, the declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment was officially the 28th amendment to the Constitution and was the “law of the land,”[24] even though the deadline to ratify the ERA expired in 1982 and has never been revisited.
SURELY, with such a long list of governmental overreach, Governor Newsom must have sued the Biden Administration about something, right?
Wrong. Newsom’s Administration and our Attorney General didn’t sue the federal government under the Biden Administration even once. How does that make sense? Did the COVID-19 vaccine mandates not affect Californians? Were parents not thrown out of California-based school board meetings due to differences in ideology? Did the Title IX reinterpretation not apply to our state? Of course not, all of these authoritarian, unconstitutional, overreaching decisions affected the residents of California just as much as other citizens of the United States, the only difference was that they most negatively impacted conservatives in California rather than Democrats. It was a deliberate choice on part of our government leaders not to intervene on our behalf. When the President’s actions harmed conservative Californians, Gavin Newsom chose not to speak up for us. So, do we really think that Newsom is such an impartial character, always speaking out where he sees injustice, danger to the constitution, and federal overreach? Absolutely not. He’s a political actor through and through.
What’s my point here? The point I want to make to you is that the leadership in our state parades around as if they are so righteous, so morally clear, so above bending, twisting, or breaking the rules for their own gain. That is a giant lie. I don’t really care what you think about tariffs – personally, I don’t like them! I don’t like any taxes, and a tariff is essentially a tax since it passes through to consumers, so if it isn’t being used to pressure a foreign adversary into helping the Unites States, then I’m generally not for it. But your opinion on tariffs is not what matters here – it matters that you remain clear eyed and honest about the intentions, actions, and inaction of leaders like our Governor and our Attorney General. They’re screaming about tariffs and how much it hurts the economy while they continue to lead a state with the HIGHEST TAXES IN THE NATION and propose economic policies like raising the minimum wage or spending literal billions on homeless initiatives that just further spin out the cost of living without giving us real results. Gavin Newsom is literally in charge, in power, TODAY – he could change the direction of our state economy and work to bring down the cost of living right now, as we speak, and yet he chooses to divert the attention onto Donald Trump, blaming tariffs for the disaster that our economy is, and banking on the public opinion having the memory of a goldfish in order to wash his hands of the actions he has taken to get us to this point. It is absolutely unacceptable, and we will NOT forget that it is HIS leadership that has put us in this situation – not a Trump Presidency.
This matters because we can’t demand real and effective change if we get distracted with blame shifting. So, we need to keep the main thing the main thing – regardless of what President Trump is doing, our government leaders still have so much room for change – change that could make YOUR life better today.
Governors vs. Foreign Leaders
What about our government leaders going outside of our President and the foreign policy he has set for our country and working to negotiate with countries like China and the EU to keep California from being affected by retaliatory tariffs? Is this allowed, should this be the route that California leaders take, and what is the ultimate goal here?
Well, once again to no one’s surprise, there are serious problems with this approach.
First, this represents a violation of the Constitution’s Foreign Affairs Doctrine. Only the federal government has the power to conduct foreign policy.[25] Under the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent, states are prohibited from making independent deals or diplomatic efforts with foreign nations. If California is seen as negotiating or pressuring foreign leaders, it risks overstepping constitutional boundaries.
It also undermines national unity in trade policy. Foreign policy — including trade — requires a unified national front. If California tries to form separate trade relationships or negotiate tariff exemptions, it sends mixed signals to international partners, weakening the U.S. position. It could encourage foreign governments to “play states off each other” or bypass federal negotiations.
Then it creates legal confusion and potential international incidents. Other countries may not know whether a state’s outreach is binding or merely symbolic. This can lead to diplomatic confusion, especially if California promises something that contradicts federal law. Retaliation against U.S. federal policies could be misdirected or escalated based on state-level messaging.
Which may provoke further federal retaliation or sanctions at home, because if California appears to be undermining federal authority, the White House or Congress could respond with legal action, funding restrictions, or regulatory clampdowns. This could hurt California industries more in the long run and spark a political showdown.
And lastly, this sets a dangerous precedent for state-led foreign policy. After all, if California can do it, what’s to stop Texas, Florida, or New York from doing the same? Allowing states to develop their own foreign policy stances threatens the coherence and credibility of U.S. foreign relations. So, while California might claim it's protecting its economy, reaching out to foreign leaders is not the governor’s job. It crosses a constitutional line, weakens the nation’s global posture, and opens the door to chaos in how America conducts foreign policy. The solution to these situations isn’t for states like California and Governors like Gavin Newsom to just go rogue — it’s for Congress to rein in any potential presidential overreach the right way.
Final Thoughts & Action Items
I hope that by covering these topics together today that you feel as though you have just a bit more clarity about what is going on between our state and the federal government, and whether we should support or oppose our state leadership’s actions. Whether you support or oppose Trump’s tariffs, we owe it to ourselves to look beyond the headlines and honestly examine the motivations at play. This lawsuit isn’t really about protecting Californians from economic harm — it’s yet another political stunt aimed at opposing Trump, no matter the cost. But while state leaders posture and point fingers, real issues at home go unaddressed. There is far more our elected officials could be doing right now to support working Californians — from easing the regulatory burden on small businesses to improving energy policy and actually trying to improve affordability. We should brace for the economic fallout of global tariffs – that is real and isn’t to be ignored or downplayed – but we must not fall into the trap of blaming one man for every hardship. Instead, let’s keep our focus where it belongs: holding our own state leaders accountable, demanding real solutions, and refusing to be distracted by political theater.
References:
[1] Clarke, Jennifer. “What Are Tariffs, How Do They Work and Why Is Trump Using Them?,” April 23, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93e12rypgo.
[2] Taylor, Kelley. “What’s Happening With Trump Tariffs? New Rates and Trade Talks.” Kiplinger, April 9, 2025. https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/whats-happening-with-trump-tariffs
[3] Hayes, Kelly. “Trump Limits Tariffs on Most Nations for 90 Days; Raises Chinese Import Tax Rate to 125%.” FOX 5 Atlanta, April 9, 2025. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/trump-tariffs-live-updates-plan-takes-effect-china-april-9-2025
[4] Wearden, Graeme. “IMF Urges Global Leaders to Resolve Trade Tensions Rapidly, as China Tells US to ‘Cancel All Unilateral Tariffs’ – as It Happened.” The Guardian, April 24, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2025/apr/24/us-trade-war-uk-growth-bank-of-england-governor-tesla-sales-business-live-news?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[5] Wearden, “IMF Urges Global Leaders to Resolve Trade Tensions Rapidly, as China Tells US to ‘Cancel All Unilateral Tariffs’ – as It Happened.”
[6] Governor of California. “Governor Newsom Files Lawsuit to End President Trump’s Tariffs | Governor of California,” April 16, 2025. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/04/16/governor-newsom-files-lawsuit-to-end-president-trumps-tariffs/.
[7] Associated Press. “A Dozen US States Sue to Stop Trump’s ‘Reckless and Insane’ Tariff Policy.” The Guardian, April 23, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/23/us-states-sue-trump-tariff-policy.
[8] Austin, Sophie. “California Sues to Stop Trump From Imposing Sweeping Tariffs.” KCRA, April 21, 2025. https://www.kcra.com/article/california-newsom-lawsuit-donald-trump-tariffs/64500017
[9] Bade, Gavin. “How Did Trump’s China Tariffs Get to 245%?” The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2025. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-trump-tariffs-trade-war-04-17-25/card/how-did-trump-s-china-tariffs-get-to-245--K4fInaSxUrk90McUJnaf.
[10] “Governor Newsom Files Lawsuit to End President Trump’s Tariffs | Governor of California.”
[11] Stone, Alex. “California Becomes the First State to Sue Trump Over Tariffs.” ABC News, April 16, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/california-state-sue-trump-tariffs/story?id=120872312#:~:text=The%20governor%20said%2043%25%20of,is%20%22pronounced%20and%20profound.%22.
[12] Mui, Christine. “‘California Is Not Washington’: Newsom Asks Countries to Spare State From Retaliation.” Politico, April 4, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/newsom-to-fight-back-on-trump-tariffs-asking-countries-to-spare-california-retaliation-00272133
[13] Wilner, Michael. “Can Newsom Insulate California From Trump’s Trade War? - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2025-04-10/newsom-trump-trade-wars-politics
[14] Wilner, Michael. “Can Newsom Insulate California From Trump’s Trade War? - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2025-04-10/newsom-trump-trade-wars-politics
[15] Turner, Cory. “What the Supreme Court’s Rejection of Student Loan Relief Means for Borrowers.” NPR, June 30, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1176839127/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness-decision.
[16] Sherman, Natalie. “US Supreme Court Blocks Biden’s Workplace Vaccine Mandate,” January 14, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476.
[17] The New York Times. “Supreme Court Ends Biden’s Eviction Moratorium,” August 27, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html.
[18] Davis, Emily Erin. “Biden-Harris Legacy Will Be Their Heavy-handed Prosecution of Pro-life Activists.” Washington Times, August 29, 2024. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/aug/29/biden-harris-weaponize-doj-to-attack-pro-life-acti/.
[19] House Judiciary Committee Republicans. “US House Judiciary Republicans: DOJ Labeled Dozens of Parents as Terrorist Threats | House Judiciary Committee Republicans,” December 29, 2022. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/us-house-judiciary-republicans-doj-labeled-dozens-of-parents-as-terrorist.
[20] Oversight Committee Republicans. “Hearing Wrap up: IRS Whistleblowers Expose How Bidens Were Treated Differently - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.” United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, October 2, 2023. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-irs-whistleblowers-expose-how-bidens-were-treated-differently%EF%BF%BC/.
[21] Blinkley, Collin. “Judge Tosses Biden’s Title IX Rules, Rejecting Expansion of Protections for LGBTQ+ Students.” PBS News, January 9, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-tosses-bidens-title-ix-rules-rejecting-expansion-of-protections-for-lgbtq-students.
[22] Harder, Amy. “The Political Limits of Biden’s Climate Agenda.” Axios, November 2, 2020. https://www.axios.com/2020/11/02/biden-climate-agenda-limits.
[23] Inserra, David. “New Revelations of More Government Pressure on Tech Companies to Silence Constitutionally Protected Speech.” CATO Institute, May 6, 2024. https://www.cato.org/blog/new-revelations-more-government-pressure-tech-companies-silence-constitutionally-protected.
[24] Berman, Russell. “No, Biden Can’t Change the Constitution.” The Atlantic, January 17, 2025. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/01/biden-equal-rights-amendment/681358/
[25] Mulligan, Steve. “Constitutional Limits on States’ Power Over Foreign Affairs.” Congress.gov, August 15, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10808.
