r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 20h ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
88.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/Am_I_AI_or_Just_High 20h ago

Since Cali is has a bigger economy than nearly every other country, this is very possible and will make trump look even dumber. Also you don't need GPT to calculate "no more tariffs"

303

u/huttjedi Guam 19h ago

It’s actually ingenious. trump parades around the notion of putting more power into the States. Well guess what, similar to trump voters, there are consequences for your actions. If Texas can enact their own immigration laws (federal law) then California can enact their own trade laws/policies. No matter how much of a hypocrite the Orange Hitler is, this ain’t kindergarten. What is California going to lose? Federal road funds and that sort of thing…it’s not like Orange Hitler wanted to provide it to them in the first place.

79

u/nurdle 17h ago

Abortion: it's a state's rights issue!

Trade Tariffs: it's a federal issue! You can't do that!

So, where is the line? Where it's convenient?

8

u/i_love_rosin 15h ago

Whatever the regime wants that day of course!

4

u/CalvinMurphy11 11h ago

If you’re asking sincerely, I think the line gets drawn at things enumerated in the constitution (such as interstate commerce) vs. things the constitution doesn’t cover (I wouldn’t be surprised if healthcare fell into this category).

I’m not answering based on my own political views, nor am I trying to support the administration’s viewpoints—just trying to answer the question.

0

u/nurdle 8h ago

This administration is clearly not following the Constitution, so who knows.

3

u/once-was-hill-folk Europe 13h ago

Based on the slave state stance before your civil war, yes, that's exactly where the line is for these people.

5

u/perfectisforpictures 17h ago

And they are in the best position, out of all the states, to do so as well

1

u/jake63vw California 11h ago

We don't fix our roads anyways! All good 😎

71

u/Bruce-7891 20h ago

I'd love this but it sounds illegal as F. A tariff is a tax and a state can't independently decide it's not going to participate in federal taxes.

395

u/jrblockquote 19h ago

The tariffs are illegal as F. We are not in an economic state of emergency. Fake president has no authority to impose those sanctions.

65

u/DamnMyNameIsSteve 19h ago

I thought the power of the purse belonged to the house.

59

u/Handleton 19h ago

Only if the house wields and protects it. Nobody seems to understand that Project 2025 is a path to the President being a dictator and Trump has enacted 43% of it already.

It doesn't need to be at 100% for it to be a problem.

75

u/greennalgene 19h ago

It does. But they aren’t willing to piss Daddy off.

9

u/dedicated-pedestrian Wisconsin 19h ago

The Senate just passed a bill to specifically cancel the Canada tariffs earlier this week, but I doubt it survives the House.

8

u/orangeyougladiator 18h ago

That was literally so there could be comments like yours where they can falsely claim they’re standing up to Agent Orange. Don’t fall for it

17

u/torero15 California 19h ago

For the purpose of taxes, yes. Tariffs of course being a huge tax on the consumer. Trump is faking an emergency to avoid congress and so far they are letting him do it. He is also faking an immigration emergency and using that to deport people without due process. Both are massive abuses of power and should result in impeachment and removal from office. Sadly we’re too far gone for that now.

2

u/Fulano_MK1 19h ago

For the purpose of taxes, yes. Tariffs of course being a huge tax on the consumer. Trump is faking an emergency to avoid congress and so far they are letting him do it. He is also faking an immigration emergency and using that to deport people without due process. Both are massive abuses of power and should result in impeachment and removal from office. Sadly we’re too far gone for that now.

The legislative branch is ceding its authority to the executive branch, which is part of Project 2025/Heritage Foundations "unitary executive theory", which Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito support.

The executive branch still has the power to enforce laws, which it is using in some cases, and ignoring when convenient in others. California will try this and the Trump admin will use the full power of the state to enforce existing laws.

People keep remarking that the constitution is dead, that what Trump is doing is illegal. I want you to understand that it doesn't matter if Trump is doing something illegal - the executive branch enforces the law, so as long as he's in power, the law is whatever he/the cabinet decides to enforce or ignore.

1

u/torero15 California 9h ago

Thats where we the people gave to step up then. Nobody is saving us. Just a question of whether it will be too late or not.

9

u/markaamorossi 19h ago

Tell that to an exec branch that skirts the law at every turn and a judiciary that gave him the backing of immunity as well as no one enforcing rulings good judges are actually passing.

4

u/cigarettesandwhiskey 19h ago

Congress delegated a lot of its powers to the presidency during the cold war, so right now the president does have that authority. Congress would have to repeal the authorization to remove it. Which they could do, pretty easily, but they'd have to want to.

1

u/HyruleSmash855 17h ago

Problem is that contain resolution put out language basically saying that the house can’t end this emergency this term until it opens next year

4

u/soggy-hotdog-vendor 19h ago

Uh. These tarriffs absolutely are putting us into an economic state of emergency.

6

u/reyska 19h ago

Well... You are now.

1

u/sniper1rfa 18h ago

We are not in an economic state of emergency.

I mean, we weren't on Monday. We sure as shit are now.

-3

u/Shock_n_Oranges Arizona 19h ago

We are not in a state of emergency

Congress gets to decide that by voting it down, and they haven't/won't. So the tariffs are not illegal.

6

u/Saguna_Brahman 19h ago

The tariffs are indeed illegal.

0

u/Shock_n_Oranges Arizona 18h ago

In the first article by that author talking about the Mexico and Canada tariffs, they say that while they think it is illegal, they're not sure if the courts will strike it down. So in the end we have to wait for the courts.

1

u/ChiefBlueSky Kansas 18h ago

I have murdered somebody, but I havent been charged yet. So murder is not illegal.

0

u/haarschmuck 18h ago

Fake president

Ok.

-9

u/Bruce-7891 19h ago

Since when is raising taxes illegal? A 25%+ tariff is stupid as F, but that doesn't make it illegal.

12

u/fixgamepls 19h ago

It does when you make up some emergency to get the power to enact them without going through congress, not to mention breaking trade agreements

13

u/Knewonce 19h ago

It’s illegal for the president to declare it. It needs to come from Congress

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

Congress gave that power to the President, though.

3

u/sniper1rfa 18h ago

The president cannot raise taxes, and specifically can't impose tariffs except under very specific circumstances defined by congress. So... yeah. Since then.

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

Those "very specific circumstances" are actually very broad. Congress has increasingly given the executive more and more tariff power over the years.

2

u/galaxy1985 19h ago

Every day I'm more and more baffled by how little we know about our own government and laws.

76

u/No_Anxiety285 19h ago

Wild to consider legality with this administration

-15

u/Bruce-7891 19h ago

And you think the ability to break the law extends to you or anyone else outside of the administration? That's wild to think.

26

u/No_Anxiety285 19h ago

You think only one party is allowed to break the law and the rest of us have to follow it to a t?

18

u/ImBackAndImAngry 19h ago

I’m tired of dems and blue states trying to play by the rules when the GOP is actively ignoring them. Good on CA. Hopefully they inspire more blue donor states to do the same.

Is it a good thing to abandon rules? No. Obviously not. But playing by the rules while actual fascists ignore/rewrite them as needed is fucking useless too.

-3

u/Bruce-7891 19h ago

Yes. It isn't a matter of what I think. It's a fact. Unless you have congress, federal judges, the DOJ and FBI backing you, you can't. If you think you can, go ahead, go out and commit a crime.

5

u/No_Anxiety285 19h ago

You ever speed?

4

u/RelaxPrime 18h ago

They going to arrest California or something?

What you seem to fail to realize is Trump is already speed running a constitutional crisis.

0

u/Bruce-7891 18h ago

"They going to arrest California or something?"

Wow... It would most likely be people working for customs who are supposed to be enforcing import policies. Did you actually think about it before asking that?

1

u/RelaxPrime 18h ago

So the federal government employees- customs agents- are going to break the law now?

What are you even talking about Bruce-7891?

Just spinning your wheels.

0

u/Bruce-7891 17h ago

"Just spinning your wheels."

Literally what you are doing. Once these tariffs go into effect, choosing not to collect and pay them would be illegal. You are straight up making up stuff up.

You asked if California would be arrested for F***s sake. No the state isn't getting arrested the people in the State who were refusing to pay a federal tax would. You high right now?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/thats_so_over 19h ago

If you got the money it seemingly does and Cali has the money

4

u/DDRaptors 18h ago

Why the fuck wouldn’t it? If the leader of your country doesn’t follow federal law - the rule of federal law is fucking moot everywhere. 

-1

u/Bruce-7891 18h ago

"the rule of federal law is fucking moot everywhere."

Go ahead, break the law then. I'm not stopping you.

5

u/DDRaptors 18h ago

I do everyday. 

67

u/Silverspeed85 America 19h ago

Why not? We've seen there are no consequences for defying the Constitution.

29

u/THSSFC America 19h ago

As I read, this is CA negotiating deals with foreign powers to avoid the foreign powers from slapping tariffs on CA products. Not an evasion of the import tariffs.

-8

u/Safe-Cat-7289 19h ago

Why would any foreign country trust a trade deal with a state? Other countries follow the law, not carve outs with local governments. Just because you have a constitutional crisis, that doesn’t mean everyone else starts breaking their own norms

33

u/THSSFC America 19h ago

Because CA is the 5th largest economy in the world, that's why.

-11

u/Safe-Cat-7289 19h ago

Why are Americans delusional? Why would other countries break their own norms and rule of law? Undermining the presidency is the last thing other countries would want to do in an economic trade war.

Just because you’re an American in a constitutional crisis doesn’t mean the rest of the world is as well.

Stop making a fool of yourselves and think better, this is not going to happen, otherwise those other countries risk their own individual states/provinces engaging in trade as individuals and losing federal powers themselves.

12

u/THSSFC America 19h ago

What norms? We have long had partnerships with foreign entities at local levels. WA used to have negotiations with China and Japan over apple exports, for example.

The only issue is these states don't have tariff power, so they have to work on other aspects of trade, or bring the Feds in as partners.

-6

u/Safe-Cat-7289 19h ago

Partnerships vs engaging in override tariff trade are two very different things

You’re confusing the two. Calif cannot act as its own trading block and superseded federal trade actions

No country is going to sign state level deals while the federal government attacks them economically, use a bit of logic

There is a reason Canada and others are using specific state side trade actions like bourbon in Kentucky and oranges from Florida etc. it’s to maximize state level economic impacts.

4

u/THSSFC America 19h ago

Partnerships vs engaging in override tariff trade are two very different things

Yes, correct.

No country is going to sign state level deals while the federal government attacks them economically, use a bit of logic

They would if it were to their benefit. Foreign entities need products from California, despite the presence of tariffs.

There is a reason Canada and others are using specific state side trade actions like bourbon in Kentucky and oranges from Florida etc. it’s to maximize state level economic impacts.

Precisely. That's arguing my point.

-1

u/Safe-Cat-7289 19h ago

I can’t get around this American delusion

This is exactly why countries will try to move away from America the best they can

It comes after a Fox News report revealed that Newsom is directing his state to pursue “strategic” relationships with countries announcing retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., urging them to exclude California-made products from those taxes.

It’s the same bullshit every other state is saying that “tariffs are unfair on us” when countries choose to tariff something that directly affects that specific state while the federal government does a broad attack on others. The Kentucky distillers said the same thing about Canada that tariffing bourbon was unfair as a retaliation.

Heck the video on publicfreakout, the American government is calling any retaliation or reciprocal tariff an “overreaction”, just like a school yard bully. Apparently everyone takes in on the chin and is supposed to continue dealing with you like it’s another Friday?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/funkhero 19h ago

Why are Americans delusional?

Sounds like you're the delusional one here. As a Canadian I whole-heartedly recommend this course of action and look forward to trading directly with California. I'm not sure I could give less of a fuck about what the USA thinks of it, nor what repercussions you seem to think would happen.

0

u/Safe-Cat-7289 19h ago

You really think Canada would initiate a trade deal directly with a state while trump has a tariff on our country as a whole?

Don’t fall into this delusion, Smith going to Florida and what not is not it. Carney would never do this

4

u/funkhero 19h ago

I have given up predicting this timeline. Do I think it will happen? No clue. Would I support it? 100%

I trust Carney so if he says this isn't viable, sure, that's fine. But if he sees a path where this works, regardless of what the federal government of the USA says, then 100% for it.

0

u/Safe-Cat-7289 19h ago

Carney has never said a trade pact with an American state is on the table, he’s an economist that follows order.

He’s actively going to Europe for support, not the Americans and has already said any American negotiation is after the election

It’s always been the American states or entities thinking they can do this, never an outside government

1

u/thottieBree 18h ago

What are the norms they're breaking again?

0

u/Safe-Cat-7289 18h ago

Seeking a trade deal circumventing federal trade action with a foreign country?

2

u/thottieBree 18h ago

I genuinely do not understand why anyone might think this is norm breaking. It quite literally happened under Trump 1.0

-3

u/Tulipfarmer 19h ago

And how does that help the countries who are being tarrifed and the people losing their jobs because of it?

You think some auto worker in Ontario gives a shit about California, if they don't have a way for avoiding the tarrifs killing their job. Why would they want their government make a one sided deal to not punish Cali products when the federal US government is trying to destroy our economy. ?

4

u/THSSFC America 19h ago

I have no idea. I presume that CA thinks they can find some other way to partner with these entities.

I am not suggesting that this is easy or that the foreign parties should feel any obligation to this sort of cooperation.

6

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

You misunderstand what he's saying. He's saying Gavin Newsom is talking with foreign countries to get their retaliatory tariffs applied on products predominantly made in other states.

In other words, California doesn't manufacture many cars, but it's about 100% of the nation's almond production. So Gavin Newsom would be talking to the leaders of other countries and saying, "Please put your retaliatory tariffs on cars, and no tariffs on almonds."

This isn't any sort of break with norms or rule of law, it's telling them how to put the screws to red states the hardest while leaving blue states untouched.

0

u/Safe-Cat-7289 18h ago

Nope I understood, the purpose of retaliatory tariffs is to respond in kind with economic impact. Why would foreign countries not target vulnerable industries? The purpose of retaliation is to tell the constituents that you need to step up and tell your government to back off.

5

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

Nope I understood, the purpose of retaliatory tariffs is to respond in kind with economic impact.

Right, and if your tariffs are going onto Californians, then you aren't applying any political pressure to swing voters / Trump voters.

Why would foreign countries not target vulnerable industries?

Because they gain literally nothing from putting tariffs on almonds. It applies zero political pressure to Trump.

The purpose of retaliation is to tell the constituents that you need to step up and tell your government to back off.

Right. What part confused you again?

0

u/Safe-Cat-7289 18h ago

Are you suggesting there aren’t any republicans in California?

Again this American delusion that it’s not one country needs to stop. Just because you are 50 states, that doesn’t mean you aren’t represented by one government.

Everyone sees you as one country acting in unison, we don’t differentiate a Floridian from a Californian

3

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

Are you suggesting there aren’t any republicans in California?

Republicans that Trump has to care about in California? There are zero, correct.

Again this American delusion that it’s not one country needs to stop

You seem to be the delulu one here, you say the point of tariffs is to put pressure on the president, and then you want to pretend almond tariffs would do that.

They wouldn't, everyone knows this, what is wrong with you lol.

93

u/GeneratedUsername019 19h ago

They can decide whatever they like. It's not legal, but neither is what Trump is doing. There is no law anymore.

-1

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

Even if they "decide whatever they like" there's no functional ability to prevent the tariffs from being applied.

1

u/GeneratedUsername019 18h ago

Tariffs are collected by CBP at the port of entry so -- yes there is. They have the functional ability to prevent the tariffs from being applied.

Would it create havoc? Potentially a dangerous standoff? Maybe. But that's the game of chicken our federal government is playing with us when they simply ignore the judiciary.

They absolutely can deny the collection of tariffs. Whether it is a good idea is another argument completely.

1

u/MIT_Engineer 17h ago

Tariffs are collected by CBP

Those are federal employees.

at the port of entry

Not commonly, these days it's mostly paid beforehand electronically.

so -- yes there is.

Uhhhhh, how so?

They have the functional ability to prevent the tariffs from being applied.

They do not.

Would it create havoc?

Would what create havoc? Still unclear what your plan is for preventing the collection of tariffs that doesn't simply end up with the port closed to imports.

Potentially a dangerous standoff?

If it's dangerous then how are any companies going to get their imports through, they're not interested in danger. They're incorporated companies, not smuggling operations.

Maybe. But that's the game of chicken our federal government is playing with us when they simply ignore the judiciary.

It isn't a game of chicken, the federal government holds all the cards when it comes to application of tariffs. If you sent armed men to somehow disrupt CBP, all that would happen is no one would be able to unload their goods at your ports.

They absolutely can deny the collection of tariffs.

Still waiting on the how, you're going to have to be more specific.

-2

u/haarschmuck 13h ago

There is no law anymore.

You're welcome to believe that. Why not go rob a bank then?

10

u/BigBoyYuyuh 19h ago

sounds illegal as F

The social contract is broken. Laws are more like guidelines than actual rules (see convicted felon that’s now the president because people are fucking stupid)

14

u/HouStoned42 19h ago

Trump literally refused to send approved federal funding to a state because he felt the governor didn't give him a "full throated" apology, but everyone else is expected to play by the book...

-2

u/haarschmuck 18h ago

Trump was charged and convicted. What are you talking about?

3

u/RelaxPrime 18h ago

What comes after a criminal conviction?

3

u/BigBoyYuyuh 18h ago

In the normal world, jail. In trump world…reward, money, ultimate power.

28

u/DidntDiddydoit American Expat 19h ago

When the fed decides it wants to do the dumbest shit possible, and has threatened withholding relief funds, then I say go for it Cali.

18

u/VelvetFedoraSniffer 19h ago

You don't have to break federal law..

Make them pay the tariff, but create an equal portion of incentive via the powers of the state - i.e. discounts in other items in the supply chain

2

u/Bruce-7891 19h ago

There isn't enough money just floating around to do that though. If a shipment of cars or cargo containers arrives in the port of Long Beach from Asia, how are you going to compensate the importer 25% of the entire value of those things every time that happens? That's gotta be $10s of millions a month.

2

u/ExtremeModerate2024 19h ago edited 19h ago

you can give them a free lot to put the cars on it and a free corporate office that are exempt from property taxes and rent. you can give them tax breaks or even rebates. california would in effect be spending tax revenue to save tax revenues with direct rebates. but there are others to do it too.

california would have this right to offer rebates and incentitives to negate tariffs. they just can't impose tariffs themselves.

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

But why subsidize foreign goods instead of domestic ones? Using tax dollars to lower the prices of imports isn't the brightest move.

6

u/i_thrive_on_apathy New York 19h ago

They completely disregard any sense of legality with the stuff they're doing, so who cares about it. The American legal system is a joke.

0

u/Bruce-7891 19h ago

Why do people keep trying this argument? They broke the law so why don't we? Go right ahead, do it. I hope you also have a corrupt congress, federal judges backing you and personally know the leadership of the DOJ and FBI.

3

u/Warin_of_Nylan 19h ago

Unfortunately the fascists simply declared that being against fascism is illegal, so now we must all be fascists. Tough breaks.

4

u/Zakaru99 19h ago

Is it really breaking the law to ignore a brand new unconstitutional law?

The president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose a new tax without congress.

-2

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

If the states ignore this law, then that means the law comes into effect.

Tariffs aren't administered by the states, they're administered by the federal government. The states are just bystanders.

If the states tried to interfere with the collection of tariffs, THAT would be breaking the law, and it wouldn't have the desired effect: all it would mean is imports to their state would shut down, not that they'd come in tariff-free.

0

u/Zakaru99 16h ago

Since you apparently didn't read it, I'll repeat:

The president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose a new tax without congress.

I understand that tariffs (a tax) are administered by the federal government. That doesn't mean the president can impose tariffs unilaterally. Congress is part of the federal government. Congress is required to impose a new tax, by the constitution. Trump is trying to impose a new tax unilaterally, which is unconstitutional, AKA breaking the law.

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

Congress has given the power to impose tariffs to the president.

-2

u/MIT_Engineer 16h ago

Since you apparently didn't read it, I'll repeat:

I did read it, you just didn't understand my response.

I understand that tariffs (a tax) are administered by the federal government.

Right, so if the states "ignore" the law, then the federal government gets its way.

That doesn't mean the president can impose tariffs unilaterally.

Right, but it means that you would need to challenge him in court. Just saying, "We're not gonna follow that law" doesn't work here.

Congress is part of the federal government.

And California's state government is not.

Congress is required to impose a new tax, by the constitution.

So if you ignore him when he does so, you're letting him do something unconstitutional.

Trump is trying to impose a new tax unilaterally, which is unconstitutional, AKA breaking the law.

And you're literally telling us to "ignore" this.

Did you need me to repeat what you said? Maybe you didn't read it.

2

u/Zakaru99 16h ago edited 16h ago

Right, you're saying we all have to follow the "law" that isn't a law and didn't go through the proper channels to be law.

We're not ignoring a law. It's not a law. There are steps you have to go through to make something law, that haven't happened here. What has happened is a president attempting to wield power he doesn't have, and you're saying we have to abide by the power he doesn't have.

EOs don't create law.

0

u/MIT_Engineer 15h ago edited 13h ago

Right, you're saying we all have to follow the "law" that isn't a law and didn't go through the proper channels to be law.

No, what I've repeatedly said is the law isn't even something you "follow" in this case. It's something that happens with you as a bystander in this instance. If as a bystander you ignore it, then the law doesn't mind. It doesn't need your participation.

We're not ignoring a law.

To quote you:

Is it really breaking the law to ignore a brand new unconstitutional law?

See where there might be some confusion as to whatever it is you're trying to say?

It's not a law.

OK, sure, whatever you say. Let's call it a 'government action.' But whatever it is, a state like California is a bystander to it.

There are steps you have to go through to make something law, that haven't happened here.

That's nice, and something you can bring up in court, but it doesn't expand California's options here any.

What has happened is a president attempting to wield power he doesn't have

And you can take that up with the courts.

and you're saying we have to abide by the power he doesn't have.

The legal power you can contest in courts. The actual power is hard to get around, and he definitely has it. They collect the tariffs directly, they don't need compliance from the California state government.

EOs don't create law.

Neither does Newsom. So not only does he lack the actual power to stop the collection of federal tariffs, he lacks the legal authority as well. 0 for 2.

EDIT: He blocked me, so here's the response.

You say that Newsom lacks the power and legal authority to stop the collection of these tariffs, while glossing over that Trump lacks the power and legal authority to start the collection of these tariffs.

No, I didn't gloss over this at all. What I did was explain in detail how he absolutely has the power, and if you want to contest the legal authority you'd need to do so in a court of law. The idea that you're going to stop the collection of tariffs by federal agents is a non-starter on practical grounds.

You are literally saying that if Trump does anything, even if he didn't go through any of the proper channels to do it, everyone has to act like he did go through all the proper channels.

I said nothing at all like this, it's entirely a figment of your overactive imagination.

The courts will be involved. That doesn't mean everyone going to act like Trump actually had the authority to implement these tariffs until the slow court process occurs.

Right, but they ARE going to have to accept that he has the power to do so, despite your raving insistence that he somehow doesn't.

You keep conflating legal authority with the ability to exercise power, and it's completely disabled your ability to think or even comprehend what you are being told.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Mr_Slippery1 19h ago

I mean, plenty of things Trump has done are as well. He hides behind EO's to push all sorts of BS.

California's economy is massive, if anyone has the power to cause a shift it would be them.

3

u/oxero 19h ago edited 18h ago

Considering the amount of illegal activity being done currently by the Trump administration, where does the breaking point even begin?

Anyone with a brain and some resemblance of critical thinking knows these tariffs are going to ruin people's lives. They are a blatant tax on the working class which California absolutely didn't help vote for and it's going to cripple our country.

Seriously, we are now traveling well past the point taking the high ground does anything for the people. If they can find some kind of loop hole to get around these bogus tariffs, more power to them. It's going to end up saving their voters, and at the least show they are looking out for them.

5

u/RedQueenNatalie 19h ago

Thats because it is, article 1 of the constitution disallows it but if the feds aren't playing by the rules either, why should the states?

1

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

Because the states don't even have a choice, it's not like they collect the tariffs and then hand them to the federal government, the federal government collects them directly.

2

u/RedQueenNatalie 16h ago

I don't claim to know how they specifically plan to implement it but it seems there is an intent to sidestep federal involvement.

1

u/MIT_Engineer 16h ago

And I'm saying that "intent" is all bluster, there's no practical way for any of it to come to fruition, and it seems fairly obvious that this is a way for Newsom to look "tough on Trump" prior to a presidential run.

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

Congress gave their tariff power to the executive.

2

u/GotenRocko Rhode Island 19h ago

read the article. nothing to do with avoiding American tariffs.

2

u/_NationalRazor 19h ago

Idk going about things lawfully doesn't seem to be this administration's schtick, so whatever I guess

2

u/licuala 15h ago

Way too many replies in this thread that clearly missed what the move actually is: California is asking foreign allies to consider an exception in their tariff schedules for California products.

California is not trying to illegally subvert US tariffs.

1

u/kindredfan 19h ago

Who cares about the law at this point?

1

u/thats_so_over 19h ago

Good things nothing matters anymore, especially laws

1

u/No_Kangaroo_2428 19h ago

Has Congress approved these tariffs? No. Are they legal? I doubt it.

1

u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 19h ago

The headline is shit. Newsome isn’t trying avoid charging tariffs on imports to CA. He’s trying to negotiate against the retaliatory tariffs being charged on CA exporting reponse to trump tariffs.

1

u/Nissan-S-Cargo 19h ago

It literally doesn’t matter anymore

1

u/Politischmuck 19h ago

The fourteenth amendment makes Trump's entire presidency illegal, and yet here we are. The Constitution is just meaningless words on old paper at this point.

1

u/cosmicosmo4 18h ago

Read the article, please. The headline is so misleading.

1

u/StunningCloud9184 18h ago

Well technically when the TCJA expires next year. Cali can raise its taxes enough nothing goes to the fed.

1

u/Worthyness 18h ago

Its not a new tariff. It's a special trade operation. Totally legal. Very cool.

1

u/endium7 18h ago

they could be other options besides just not enforcing the import tariff. basically just negotiating a deal to be excluded from export tariff (perfectly legal) in exchange for some other concessions (for example, china agreeing to buy $X worth of goods for a more favorable price).

california would still enforce the tariff on imports but such a deal solidifies their own exports and meanwhile puts heavy pressure on Trump especially if other states join on.

1

u/a-mixtape 18h ago

But a tariff isn’t a literal tax, it is characterized as a sales tax. You’re not forced to pay it unless you buy a good that is subject to a tariff — which happens to be just about anything that is imported.

1

u/ChubbzNJ 17h ago

No taxation without representation. And I sure as fuck didn’t vote for this shit.

1

u/Am_I_AI_or_Just_High 19h ago

Well what if CA just declines to hand over tariffs to the fed and sues for it's right not to, since trump has broken the intent of the law with his bullshit tariffs.

2

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

Well what if CA just declines to hand over tariffs to the fed

CA doesn't collect the tariffs in the first place, the federal government collects them directly, so this isn't an option.

1

u/AmberDuke05 19h ago

These tariffs have been illegal since day one. Trump just claiming everything is an emergency and in enacting things Iike we are in wartime which we are not. Most of his actions since he took office are illegal and are in court. He basically broke the contract for a lot of these states so why should they listen to it.

It will fought in the courts and will be dragged out until Trump is out of office.

0

u/BaronGrackle Texas 19h ago

Even if Congress hasn't passed it?

0

u/aimforthehead90 18h ago

If Trump can independently decide to withhold approved federal funding from liberal states, states can independently decide to not let him destroy their economies.

We need to stop holding ourselves to standards that Trump and his oligarchs are pissing on. Trump and crew removed the idea that we all need to follow the law. We need to protect ourselves from what's coming.

2

u/bonafidebob California 15h ago

California controls 4% of the Senate, 12% of the House of Representatives, and 14% of the US economy.

Huh.

1

u/scsuhockey Minnesota 17h ago

Illegal or legal, I'm trying to figure out by what mechanism can California prevent the CPB (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) from collecting tariffs? The imports come into the docks and airports and aren't released until tariffs are paid to CPB. How does California disrupt that process?

1

u/kelpkelso 15h ago

Hey Cali please vote to join Canada. 🇨🇦 not joking seriously we’d be honoured to have you

0

u/ChaseGjamz 15h ago

While what you said is true, this would cause civil war. I prefer my friends and family alive. I dont think anyone should be rooting for this

3

u/Am_I_AI_or_Just_High 15h ago

As if the current destroyer in chief isn't already planning on this. I agree, I don't want war, but I also don't want millions of people to lose their homes, jobs and lives from hunger and disease. Doing nothing is going to get us there.

-1

u/MIT_Engineer 18h ago

You need to retake civics class if you think this is any sort of possible.

It's just talk. The California state government has no practical ability or legal basis to prevent federal employees from administering tariffs.