r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 19h ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
88.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

498

u/Wild_Harvest 19h ago

So wait, if I'm understanding correctly, then California is not negotiating to bypass Trump's tariffs but is willing to subsidize the tariffs and keep costs down, and in exchange the country will put in exemptions to products shipped to them from California but not, say, Nevada?

That could be a good way to both bypass the tariff, and prop up California's economy as the dominant force in the US. I could see New York doing something similar, too.

296

u/Qubeye Oregon 18h ago

I'm not saying that is what they are planning to do.

My comment was meant to be more of a "I casually came up with a way to do it without violating the constitution."

I'm sure if I put more than thirty seconds of thought into it I could come up with even more robust, legitimate ways to do it.

34

u/cjicantlie 17h ago

If the tariffs weren't enacted constitutionally, is it unconstitutional to bypass them?

12

u/TraditionalClick992 Canada 17h ago

No, but that would end up in the courts very quickly. And I really doubt SCOTUS would say it's unconstitutional, especially not this SCOTUS.

•

u/Exocoryak 6h ago

Executive Orders have the power of law, even if they appear to be unconstitutional. If they are not stricken down by the courts or revoked by an Act of Congress, they have the full power of a federal law.

Compare it to chess. Someone might play an illegal move, but if the opponnent doesn't see it and makes his move, it becomes a legal move afterwards, even though it technically was an illegal move at the time it was played.

•

u/gouramiracerealist 6h ago

Tariffs are at the purview of the executive fyi

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

Congress. But congress delegated it to the executive, like they have with most things.

•

u/gouramiracerealist 5h ago

Yea, so the executive

•

u/chronicpenguins 3h ago

But congress can take it away, constitutionally it’s their power.

•

u/gouramiracerealist 3h ago

Yea sure. It's more likely trump gets impeached than the executive is reigned in

7

u/firestepper 16h ago

lol you’ve already put more thought into this than trump did with his tariff policy

3

u/LeavesCat 13h ago

I mean didn't he just throw it at ChatGPT?

3

u/quartzguy American Expat 16h ago

"I casually came up with a way to do it without violating the constitution."

I wish Donald could do that kind of thing.

2

u/themonkeysbuild 17h ago

And it’s safe to assume that those in the state gov are also putting more than 30sec into it, lol.

2

u/HorlicksAbuser 15h ago

You are now responsible going forward. When can we expect your next update?

1

u/LazarusCrowley 18h ago

Law school?

11

u/ultimatt42 17h ago

Might take longer than thirty seconds

-18

u/dawtips 17h ago

So you just made stuff up. Got it.

22

u/Qubeye Oregon 16h ago

Yes, I made stuff up using the powers of education, which I got from applying myself over the course of several years to earn my Bachelor's in Political Science & Government.

Admittedly, I didn't actually need to complete the degree to know this, because separation of powers and Federal & State authority is taught in the first year classes.

I could have also done it by reading the Constitution and some basic texts from the library on the subject, too.

But also, I did go to college specifically for political science, a degree which is pretty much only useful for knowing stuff like this.

13

u/nabiku 16h ago

Then use a legitimate source to correct them? What is even the point of your comment otherwise?

9

u/GaiaMoore California 16h ago

That's like saying "separation of powers" is a made up concept

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's inherently wrong

3

u/runnergal78 16h ago

California's economy is already the dominant force in the U.S. If it were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world.

3

u/limb3h 13h ago

In the short term, this subsidy would cost taxpayer money, but in the long run I think more companies will come to california. Not a bad move.

1

u/Wild_Harvest 13h ago

Yeah. Definitely would have to sell the taxpayers on it, but I think that something like "We're having everyone share the load to prevent prices from going up" or something like that would work, and passing some anti-price gouging legislation at the state level would be needed as well.

•

u/EtTuBiggus 4h ago

Companies and infrastructure already exists to ship things out of California. Unless California wants to implement border controls, this exempts every state from the tariffs. A huge chunk of good move through California first.

•

u/limb3h 21m ago

That's probably illegal. I doubt we'll win if federal government sues though.

2

u/ShakethatYam 17h ago

I believe Illinois has also been having negotiations with Mexico. This was before the tariffs hit but I imagine those conversations will probably had if California is having them.

1

u/bobbydebobbob 17h ago

I don't think Mexico is planning reciprocal tariffs.

1

u/Sythe64 15h ago

What if all the states that didn't want to participate in the terrifs formed trade group so it could easily be referenced in trade documents.  

They could call it the American Sates Union.

1

u/Lankpants 12h ago

I mean, they could also just refuse to report imports to the admin and blatantly break the constitution. It really depends on how much they want to cause a constitutional crisis. The answer might actually be that California wants that right now.

1

u/buzzsawdps 11h ago

Europe is planning highly targeted economic retaliation on MAGA states for their treachery so this could align well. I bet Asia would be on board with this as well.

1

u/FlyingSagittarius 18h ago edited 18h ago

Tarriffs go to the federal government, though, not the state.  That procedure would basically just be the state paying the tarriff instead of the exporting country importing company.

24

u/xsmasher 18h ago

The exporting country doesn't pay the tariff, the importer does; so this would be helping importers in California, shipping companies in California, and other businesses in California.

2

u/thottieBree 18h ago

How does this help importers in California?

edit I get it, actually. I doubt the State could afford to pay, though

4

u/xTheMaster99x Florida 18h ago

Importers are the ones that pay the tariffs, not the country of origin. Subsidizing duties for the importers will obviously be very helpful to them.

1

u/Mitchwise 18h ago

I think you’re missing his point though. This plan would just shift the responsibility of paying the tariff from Californian companies and citizens to the California government (which still must be pay the tariff to the national government). Where does the California government get the money to pay for the tariff? Hint: taxes on the citizens…

The citizens of California end up paying for it either way.

5

u/Wild_Harvest 18h ago

Yeah, but I believe that California usually has a budget surplus and they can probably afford to put some of that surplus towards subsidizing tariffs to ease the burden on taxpayers.

But agreed it's not a good look either way.

3

u/themonkeysbuild 17h ago

That and if you are incentivizing more businesses and people to move to your state through a policy like this you will raise more taxes for the state to pay them as well.

1

u/Epshot 15h ago

The budget surplus is heavily reliant on a market being up, we don't do so well when its down.

1

u/Wild_Harvest 15h ago

That's entirely fair. But something like this proposal could help to keep California's market up, and would deny a LOT of revenue given how big California's GDP is compared to the rest of the US.

If Trump doesn't get income from his tariffs, he can't justify his tax cuts, which would make the tariffs a moot point.

6

u/AidenStoat Arizona 18h ago

The exporting country never paid the tariff to begin with.

-15

u/throwaway267ahdhen 18h ago

No this is completely illegal. Newsom apparently has no idea what he’s talking about and neither does this guy.

13

u/AwarenessReady3531 California 18h ago edited 17h ago

Newsom’s approach, as per the article, is to advocate for California-made products to be excluded from retaliatory tariffs imposed by other countries. This means he is lobbying for federal support in negotiations, not independently creating exemptions. This is legal and within his role as a state leader advocating for his state’s economic interests, but it does not mean he can directly influence or bypass federal tariffs.

4

u/Wild_Harvest 18h ago

If I understand, then California usually has a budget surplus, couldn't they use that surplus to pay the import duties as much as they could to ease the burden on California based businesses and consumers? Could be a way to incentivize companies to do business in CA and help ease the burden on taxpayers, too. Lets CA lower the cost of living, comparatively, to the rest of the nation since their prices won't be going up as much, and that would be a big boon to their local economies.

1

u/AwarenessReady3531 California 17h ago edited 16h ago

There are various legal concerns, but the big one is the Commerce Clause, which means it's likely that the state would get sued by the federal government because subsidizing tariffs to help in-state importers could be seen as nullifying federal tariffs. Then there's also the problem that deciding which businesses or industries receive subsidies would be politically complex and could lead to accusations of favoritism, and they WOULD have to pick and choose, because even with a budget surplus, they'd not be able to cover tariffs for every single item we import. Basically, it's probably too messy. Better to focus on the legal venues that are already well-established. You can get far going down that route, and if they take this job on competently, they'll save California a lot of trouble in the next 4 years.