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
88.8k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/Mono_KS Foreign 19h ago

On one hand, this is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

On the other, everything Trump does is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

So fuck it.

321

u/LackingUtility 19h ago

On one hand, this is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

Depends. It's not my area of expertise, but at least one way to do it that would be completely constitutional would be to convince other countries to exempt specific products - that just happen to primarily be made in California - from their tariffs. For example, China imposes a 34% tariff on American agricultural products except almonds, which it exempts. Good for California, which produces 80% of the world's almonds. Totally constitutional, as it's not some sort of per-state treaty.

I'm not sure how California would do the reverse. Perhaps a state subsidy on particular products (that it primarily imports from China)? That would be legal.

34

u/gplfalt 19h ago

but at least one way to do it that would be completely constitutional would be to convince other countries to exempt specific products

Politely asking why the hell we would do that? We'd still be getting tariffs and that would likely bring down more on us

65

u/LackingUtility 19h ago

This would led Californian farmers continue to sell almonds overseas without drying up demand.

And Trump can't impose state-specific tariffs. And to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing California imports that no other state also imports.

9

u/gplfalt 18h ago

You're saying reasons why it would be good for California but that wasn't the question I was asking.

I was asking why the ever tucking hell would a nation risk further tariffs and Trump retaliation just to lend a hand to California?

28

u/KonigSteve 18h ago

Perhaps a state subsidy on particular products (that it primarily imports from China)?

He literally said the reason here.

4

u/Statcat2017 17h ago

No sane country would make this deal because then Trump would just go "ok then you can double your tarriff".

13

u/Proper_Ad5627 16h ago

Brother nobody gives a shit about trumps tariffs lol, if california wants to trade with the world, they will come begging -

Everyone is just signing new agreements that exclude America, sure it’ll take a few years but in 5-6 we will never need to trade at scale with the US again, new factories and plants are being built all around the world as we speak

8

u/Amish_guy_with_WiFi 16h ago

It's literally a trade war. Countries are going to go back and forth on raising tarriffs until one budges or implodes. America will probably implode since that's what Trump (Putin) wants.

3

u/Proper_Ad5627 16h ago

Brother nobody gives a shit about trumps tariffs lol, if california wants to trade with the world, they will come begging -

Everyone is just signing new agreements that exclude America, sure it’ll take a few years but in 5-6 we will never need to trade at scale with the US again, new factories and plants are being built all around the world as we speak

-2

u/gplfalt 18h ago

That is very much not enough to risk further tariffs on the federal side. Like not at all. Especially for countries like Canada.

7

u/tyyreaunn 18h ago

Presumably Newsom is offering something in return - e.g., the government of California will buy Product X exclusively from your country (regardless of US federal tariffs imposed on it) in exchange for your country providing preferential tariff treatment to US exports originating from California.

11

u/sniper1rfa 18h ago

Because california is by far the biggest market in the states? 10% of the US lives in california.

10

u/ekjohns1 17h ago

This has kind of already happened. Canada for example with whisky which preferentially hurts red states.

6

u/LamarMillerMVP 18h ago

Because tariffs are bad for your citizens

3

u/whofearsthenight 16h ago

Honestly the same reason that tariffs on coffee beans or bananas are insane – we simply cannot produce enough domestically. Not like "spin up the auto industry" which is already extremely stupid, but we simply do not have the climate to produce some of these things.

There are going to be US produced products like OP's example of almonds where if other countries don't want to pay exorbitant prices, the best option is to do a deal with California (and hopefully some other states get on board as well.)

The other reason they might want to do it: it's a clear fuck-you to Trump. While Putin is probably delighting in just how fucking incompetent and damaging this is, even Xi is going to feel pain from this. For most of the rest of the world, Trump just lobbed a grenade into the world economy that no joke has a large potential to start wars or could easily be the precursor to a world war. A significant deterrent for these kinds of conflicts is that we all have to buy shit from each other.

Last thing, in many cases this is not going to be heads of state negotiating, but heads of business. Think Tim Apple calling Dr Wei at TSMC.

10

u/NattyBumppo 18h ago

  a state subsidy on particular products

So the state ends up paying the tariff to the federal government (albeit indirectly)? Sounds like a pretty shitty deal for California.

17

u/LackingUtility 18h ago

Sounds that way unless the savings on the foreign tariffs are worth more. For example, if California subsidizes the import tariffs to the tune of $20B, but manages to export an additional $50B of goods they wouldn't have been able to, they're going to come out ahead.

Yes, it's not ideal, but what's your solution? Shove the almonds up your ass and hope you get milk?

1

u/NattyBumppo 17h ago edited 12h ago

Import the goods through California ports and don't pay the tariffs at all. Find a loophole. Fight fire with fire.

3

u/LackingUtility 17h ago

So just ignore federal taxes and hope that Trump never comes after you? Not sure that's going to work.

2

u/Alocasia_Sanderiana 15h ago

Depends on how you do it. If we go back in time, this would probably look something like the state opening its own port under the protection of state forces.

4

u/KuntaStillSingle 17h ago

Perhaps a state subsidy on particular products (that it primarily imports from China)? That would be legal.

They could probably get away with a market-origin ambivalent consumer rebate, tax incentive, etc, but an import subsidy would likely be regarded as a foreign duty.

10

u/CMScientist 18h ago

except almonds

No. Fk the almond farmers. They are all trump voters and waste so much water just because they can.

5

u/LackingUtility 17h ago

Well, yeah, but it was an example of something California exports and no one else does. You could also do technology exports of various types - California does do a decent amount of high tech manufacturing. Or you could do it on software products.

1

u/Background_Prize2745 17h ago

Pretty sure other countries can restrict just based on product and state of origin, since they're the one collecting their side of the tariff. A big state like CA and important states like WA where a lot of corp HQ resides could make this work.

6

u/ExtremeCreamTeam 17h ago

No. Fk the almond farmers

You can say fuck on the fucking internet.

2

u/_CodyB 17h ago

In Australia, we have similar laws regarding the federal government and it is no question that the responsibility of trade falls on to the federal government as well.

With that being said, Australian states often have investment commissions abroad.

There’s a possibility where tariffs are still paid but reciprocal agreements result overseas money coming back to California in the form of investment

1

u/Proper_Ad5627 16h ago

Remove sales tax or use that

1

u/ilikemoderation 13h ago

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10808

Unfortunately, any agreement would go to the Supreme Court who would undoubtedly side with Trump.

•

u/putdownthekitten 6h ago

Omg, if california used the money it sends to red states to offset the cost of the tariffs instead for it’s own residents, that would be poetically beautiful.

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

Your and Mono_KC's comments are eerily similar to Automatic-Wonder-299 and Qubeye's comments upthread.

•

u/LackingUtility 4h ago

Eerily similar in the sense that multiple people separately discussing the legality of a proposal will nonetheless fall into two groups: for or against.

•

u/Neve4ever 4h ago

Mono_KS's comment

On one hand, this is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

On the other, everything Trump does is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

So fuck it.

And Automatic-Wonder-299's

On One hand, that’s pretty unconstitutional

On the other hand, the constitution has already been shredded at this point, so who care

That's eerily similar. Further, it's how both you and Qubeye respond from the same angle on how you'd imagine California can do it. Your comment;

On one hand, this is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

Depends. It's not my area of expertise, but at least one way to do it that would be completely constitutional would be to convince other countries to exempt specific products - that just happen to primarily be made in California - from their tariffs. For example, China imposes a 34% tariff on American agricultural products except almonds, which it exempts. Good for California, which produces 80% of the world's almonds. Totally constitutional, as it's not some sort of per-state treaty.

I'm not sure how California would do the reverse. Perhaps a state subsidy on particular products (that it primarily imports from China)? That would be legal.

And Qubeye's

They can do it constitutionally by negotiating with a country so that country makes holes in their tariffs for goods made in California so they aren't included, and in exchange California spends some of their state budget to purchase goods made in that country, sponsoring visas, etc.

Perfectly legal. California gets more business revenue, keeps a good reputation, and will have a functional economy while everyone else crashes and burns under Trump.

•

u/LackingUtility 4h ago

Yes, and? Are you under the impression that two people can't have the same idea?

If you're trying to become some sort of bothunter, you're doing a really poor job.

1

u/jake3988 16h ago

The only way to accomplish the reverse would be to have California essentially subsidize the cost.

And California is about 90 billion in debt and growing. They can't afford to do that.

0

u/smartens419 16h ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Constitutional_authority_for_foreign_relations

0

u/LackingUtility 16h ago

Yes, would you like it explained to you?

1

u/smartens419 15h ago

Sure, enlighten me on how that doesn't apply to Newsom negotiating with foreign countries during a trade war.

0

u/LackingUtility 15h ago

Sure, happy to help! State governments, like anyone else, are allowed to purchase things from foreign manufacturers. For example, if you buy something on Temu, you're not violating the Logan Act and interfering with a dispute between the US and China. That's also true for the California state government. They can even decide to exclusively buy products from Chinese manufacturers, and they are still not negotiating with a foreign government. And if that decision is encouraged by China exempting certain products from their own tariffs, that's also not a violation. None of this places any obligations on the US and therefore also doesn't interfere with the executive's power to negotiate treaties either.

2

u/smartens419 14h ago

This is all correct, and none of it addresses Newsom negotiating with foreign countries to remove certain products from their tariffs.

0

u/Coyote_406 15h ago

Regulation of commerce with foreign nations is exclusively the province of the federal government.

It is per se unconstitutional for a state to negotiate their own tariff policies the same way the state of California cannot make treaties with foreign nations.

I’m not opposed to Newsome getting creative or even sticking it to Trump, but Art. 1, §8 of the Constitution is clear:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…

1

u/LackingUtility 15h ago

That's a bit of a misreading of both "regulate" and "tariff policies". Yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and the United States, but that's not to say that a state can't ever purchase anything from a foreign country - put another way, Congress is in charge of customs and border controls, tariffs, and regulation of various industries such as pharmaceuticals. But that doesn't mean that a state can't purchase, say, Chinese photocopiers for use in its offices. Or, going specifically to what I suggested, the fact that Congress has that power doesn't mean that California can't say that they will give a tax break on imports from particular countries. Their action in doing so does not impede Congress' ability to regulate commerce.

Similarly, under my suggestion, California wouldn't be applying any tariffs. They would be negotiating with another country who is imposing tariffs, but Congress' power to levy taxes doesn't impede foreign governments from levying taxes - how could it? Nor is it a treaty between the United States and a foreign country if California says "we'll exclusively buy products from you if you exempt our products from your retaliatory tariffs." The US isn't party to such an agreement and has no obligations under it.

5

u/PercentageOk6120 19h ago

Why is it unconditional? Please explain.

8

u/Muronelkaz Ohio 18h ago

Congress has the power to regulate commerce within and without the United States per the Commerce Clause,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Generally my understanding is that states can't regulate trade between themselves or with foreign nations.

16

u/PercentageOk6120 18h ago

Which is funny because Congress did not issue these tariffs.

So you can’t ask that this part of the constitution should only be partially applied. If Congress regulates it then Trump can’t enforce tariffs via EO. They must be enforced through congress.

1

u/JeanLucPicardAND 15h ago

Congress actually has the power to issue tariffs from a constitutional POV and has ceded most of that power to the executive branch via legislation spanning many decades. Having said that... Traditionally, the President does not actually decree new tariffs without consulting Congress, and he's also only supposed to do it under specific circumstances... but we're obviously beyond tradition at this point.

3

u/demonsanddragons1 18h ago

US Congress has the “power of the purse” vested to it by the Commerce Clause. See Article 1, Sec 8 of the US Constitution. Those powers are interpreted rather broadly, and include laws that regulate the channels and instrumentalities of commerce. This includes the power to regulate trade with foreign nations and among the states.

The “Dormant Commerce Clause” effectively prevents individual states from enacting policies that unduly burden or discriminate against the economies of other states.

It is possible that, here, circumventing the blanket tariffs would allow the state to unduly burden intrastate (meaning between state) commerce. A court would be tasked either balancing the “state interest,” whatever they would be argued to be, against the alleged “burden on intrastate commerce.” If the burden on intrastate commerce is deemed too much, the deal would be unconstitutional.

Source: law student

Note: this is the first legal issue I thought of, and does not represent an exhaustive listing of potential problems.

2

u/PercentageOk6120 17h ago

Did congress issue these tariffs? Because that was done by EO. So congress is not holding the power of the purse in this scenario either.

6

u/Warin_of_Nylan 18h ago

The American Revolution had no legal ground. Mainstream liberals are so obsessed with worshiping hegemonic power that they forget where and how that hegemonic power is founded upon.

In the end, legality and illegality is defined by the person with the most ability to back up their arguments, in the many ways that arguments can be backed.

2

u/jlonso 19h ago

On one hand, this is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

Time for the MAGAts to chant this.

On the other, everything Trump does is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

But turn a blind eye to this. 😎

2

u/KyberKrystalParty Colorado 17h ago

Ya and people so easily forget that Trump violated the Logan Act, by negotiating and interfering in foreign relations before reelected into office.

So fuck it. Agreed.

1

u/D3dshotCalamity 18h ago

On one hand, this is unconstitutional and has no legal ground.

I'd love to hear them try to use that argument. Y'all thought 25 hours was a long time, wait until you see our naughty list.

1

u/UtopianLibrary 18h ago

The federal government cannot interfere with interstate commerce. This probably counts as it.

1

u/Lower-Insect-3984 Utah 16h ago

we ball.

1

u/amalgam_reynolds 16h ago

Yeah but Trump is the one with his itty bitty teeny tiny hands around the constitution's throat via SCOTUS and the sycophant DOJ, not California...

1

u/One-Temporary8223 15h ago

"its a state issue"

they do it with abortions so fuck em

1

u/kelpkelso 15h ago

Dear USA, any individual state who voted blue. Pretty pretty please vote to join Canada. I have no idea how this is done, but I bet if the USA lost even one state they’d impeach him super fast.

1

u/francohab 15h ago

That’s the fucking spirit

-1

u/Jolly-Knowledge8704 18h ago

So red states can stop gay marriage?

3

u/JackOakheart 17h ago

They can do what my county did and stop issuing marriage licenses all together.