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

Show parent comments

619

u/jeebus87 19h ago

What we are witnessing is a striking contradiction in American governance. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the message was clear: let the states decide. The federal government, through the Court’s ruling, signaled that the people of each state should determine their own course on some of the most consequential issues of our time. That was the rationale, state autonomy, local control, democratic self-determination.

Now, California seeks to do just that. Faced with sweeping tariffs that threaten the livelihood of its farmers and manufacturers, the state is exploring ways to shield its economy. But if the federal government refuses to allow it, or worse, actively blocks those efforts, then we are left with a troubling inconsistency.

The principle of states' rights cannot be a one-way street. It cannot apply to some issues and not others, depending on the politics of the moment. If states are trusted to regulate matters of life and liberty, they ought to be trusted to protect their workers and industries. To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

279

u/Gettingthatbread23 18h ago

Dang, if Republicans had a reading comprehension level above that of a Kindergarten aged child they'd be really upset.

38

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 17h ago

When are they not really upset?

Bunch of snowflakes.

4

u/El_Rey_de_Spices 15h ago

"Facts don't care about your feelings!", they desperately scream through streams of tears and snot, their faces flush and limbs flailing with unrestrained emotion.

2

u/NecroCannon 15h ago

In “leftist” spaces I see people just being chill, not making everything about politics, and being reasonably angry when something’s wrong

Meanwhile in their spaces it’s constant anger and even bickering amongst themselves because thinking any way outside of what the news tells them to, is “leftist talk”

8

u/bussy_of_lucifer 16h ago

No dude, they’re just arguing in bad faith. There is no amount of debating that will reverse this - republicans want to do something and will make up any justification, no matter how obviously hypocritical or outright incorrect

1

u/muxcode 10h ago

Conservatives have only ever accepted states rights as a one way street.

17

u/Roklam Connecticut 18h ago

To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

There seems to be no understanding of what hypocrisy is, or what it communicates about 'you' to others in that space.

20

u/Itakethngzclitorally 18h ago

Inconsistent and hypocritical are the benchmarks of the current GOP.

4

u/DMvsPC 16h ago

Maine is getting the football pulled away constantly right now for not following papa Trump and instead following the state constitution and laws. All those states rights arguers? Oh, this is different they say? Gotcha.

12

u/DiabolicallyRandom 18h ago

It cannot apply to some issues and not others It can and has and does. I agree that "not via politics of the moment" but the constitution is clear on a great many things. Some things are reserved for the fed.

Anything NOT reserved for the fed is for the state.

All interpretations to date of the constitution stipulate international trade is regulated by the fed.

This was very intentional and explicit by the framers.

12

u/jeebus87 18h ago

You are absolutely correct that the Constitution draws clear lines, international trade, foreign affairs, the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, these powers are unmistakably delegated to the federal government under Article I, Section 8. And yes, the framers were deliberate in that design, not only to present a unified front in international dealings but also to prevent economic fragmentation among the states.

But here is where the tension lies. While the authority to regulate international trade rests squarely with the federal government, the consequences of those regulations fall unevenly across the states. When a sweeping federal tariff policy disproportionately harms certain states, say, California’s agricultural or tech sectors, it is not unreasonable for those states to attempt to shield their residents from the economic fallout, even if their tools are limited.

You are also right that some issues must be federal. But when federal action produces harm, and state-level mitigation is met with resistance, it strains the credibility of appeals to federalism in other contexts. The hypocrisy arises not from a failure to understand constitutional boundaries, but from watching those boundaries expand and contract based on political expediency.

So yes, the framers gave international trade to the federal government. But the federal government must wield that authority with a sense of shared national stewardship, not as a blunt instrument that ignores the real, localized damage it inflicts. Otherwise, the states will understandably fight for breathing room, even if the Constitution gives them precious little of it. And that, too, is part of the ongoing American story.

1

u/throwawayoftheday941 14h ago

This is like the actual reason the civil war really started. I mean yes, slavery, but the morrill tariff was the actual catalyst.

2

u/DiabolicallyRandom 17h ago

I'm all for multiple paragraphs, but none of this changes the realities. This is against the law. Being mad about it won't change that and the fed is permitted to enforce that law, including through use of force.

The tension creates political problems, not legal ones. The law is clear.

14

u/A_Seiv_For_Kale 16h ago

This is against the law.

So is a lot of things.

Defying the courts, defying congress, committing fraud and perjury...

You can't trample the law and then hide behind it. If the Fed wants their money, let them try taking it by force.

10

u/rangecontrol 17h ago

The law is clear.

in case you haven't been paying attention, that doesnt mean shit to this admin.

3

u/Real-Front-0 15h ago

You are correct that the fed sets tariffs, but they are not set by the executive per Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The state has no obligation to collect illegitimate tariffs.

1

u/MommyLovesPot8toes 14h ago

It is not that black and white.

It comes down the the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. But the supremacy clause does not say "the federal government controls foreign tariffs, the end." It has all sorts of twists and turns and loopholes and exceptions. It has been interpreted and reinterpreted throughout all of American history. It has to be looked at by a court in a case-by-case basis for the most part.

Most notably, it's been decided that the federal govt can only supercede a state decision if Congress has a specific intent for the tariffs and it is spelled out as part of their order. In other words, a case could be made that there is no reason given for Trump's tariffs. Not just because they are stupid, but because they were not ordered or authorized by Congress and Congress has given no justification for them.

Basically, until Congress (not trump) says "we want these tariffs and here's why", California can negotiate for itself.

1

u/hbgoddard 14h ago

The law is clear.

It also doesn't matter anymore

0

u/doyletyree 16h ago

I agree with each of you.

The bottom line, from where I sit, is that the law directs the Fed to handle trade; end of that particular story.

The other reality is the seeming contradiction of power-application and the seeming prerogative of states to react accordingly.

I don’t believe that these are contradictions of behavior by the administration. Instead, it’s simply an aberration, even phase-shift, of application precedent.

The administration says x, then does y to some. That’s not a contradiction of behavior; it was expected. It’s different, sure, but until a court strikes orders or until a new constitution is written, the best we can say is “This is now how it is. This is how these words can now be applied.”

Moreover, the enforcement of the law is clear; state can’t just throw a fit and invalidate it as they don’t have the power. So, again, while it may seem like a crack to exploit, it’ll e a tough row to hoe for making a case that all states should have this power equally.

You could argue that the administration is wrong; worst case scenario for them: they’re ruled against, they stop and switch tactics, and go on. There’ll always be loyal staff to serve as patsies if need be.

3

u/jeebus87 16h ago

You are correct that the Constitution expressly vests the federal government with the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That provision is clear, and no serious argument disputes it. However, to conclude that this ends the discussion is to conflate legal authority with political legitimacy. The question is not whether California may draft trade treaties. It may not. The question is whether a state, bearing the brunt of national policy, may seek to protect its constituents through lawful and adaptive responses. Jurisdictional exclusivity does not extinguish political consequence. When federal action imposes disproportionate harm, states have not only the prerogative but arguably the duty to advocate for relief. This is not rebellion. It is governance in its most responsive form.

The assertion that any contradiction in the administration’s posture is only apparent overlooks the broader implications of how power is rationalized and deployed. When an administration defends one state’s authority to restrict fundamental liberties under the banner of federalism, and then reflexively rejects another state’s attempt to respond to federal economic harm, the inconsistency is not theoretical. It is demonstrable. It is not enough to say precedent is evolving. The problem is not evolution. It is selective application. That is what corrodes the integrity of federalism.

Framing this as a phase shift in application precedent merely obscures the stakes. If precedent is nothing more than a temporary application of power, contingent on political utility, then it ceases to be precedent at all. It becomes performance. If constitutional interpretation is reduced to expediency, then the rule of law is subordinated to the will of those in office. This is not a system of checks and balances. It is the erosion of legal coherence.

Claiming that inconsistency is expected is, ironically, an admission of the dysfunction that critics identify. Normalizing incoherence in governance does not excuse it. On the contrary, it institutionalizes cynicism. When erratic governance becomes accepted as standard practice, public trust dissolves, and constitutional design loses its foundation.

No one is suggesting that states may nullify federal law. California is not seeking to invalidate tariffs or undermine federal supremacy. It is navigating the narrow legal boundaries available to it, petitioning trade partners, requesting exemptions, and signaling the disproportionate impact of national policy. This is not insubordination. It is participatory federalism. When Washington exercises its lawful power in ways that inflict severe local damage, states must retain the capacity to respond with advocacy, diplomacy, and lawful resistance. To demand that they remain silent is to confuse compliance with consent.

This is not about granting states unlimited discretion in foreign policy. It is about recognizing the political, economic, and human cost of blunt national policymaking. When such policies are enacted without regard to regional variation, states with complex, interconnected economies will naturally seek relief. That response is not unlawful. It is the predictable result of a union that balances national power with local representation.

To say that the administration may simply adjust its strategy after being ruled against is a description of procedural flexibility, not a defense of its actions. A government’s readiness to abandon one unlawful course in favor of another does not cleanse the original misuse of power. It compounds it. In a constitutional republic, the measure of legitimacy is not what a government can get away with, but whether it governs within principled constraints. That is not sentiment. That is the foundation of lawful self-government.

-1

u/penguin_hugger100 16h ago

Yeah you're just talking to talk at this point. What California is proposing is illegal. I don't like when politicians and government bodies think they are above the rule of law, and that extends to Democrats. I think perhaps YOU are the hypocrite for complaining about illegal acts by Trump's government yet supporting illegal acts from neoliberal governments.

2

u/ThinkyRetroLad America 12h ago edited 12h ago

Perhaps 'the other side' ignoring the courts and our rule of law is the only way to illustrate the problems with going down this path, when semiotics and language becomes flexible and anything can be argued, nothing has meaning. We have our legal system for a reason. Ignoring it may illustrate why. We've crossed into uncharted territory, regardless of what people want to admit.

-3

u/the_pwnererXx 18h ago

5 paragraphs of prose but you are making incoherent points, the person you responded to made it clear that, state rights quite literally are a one way street. Just a long ass appeal to emotions

2

u/sniper1rfa 18h ago

His statement was philosophical in nature, not legal, so the distinction is irrelevant.

2

u/jeebus87 18h ago

It's argumentative in nature, but certainly rooted in the law. 😊

-4

u/DiabolicallyRandom 17h ago

It's not rooted in law at all lmao. It's rooted in emotion.

I agree with you on the philosophical ideals, but this is against the law... period.

The federal government is permitted to enforce that law too. With force. (see the 1860s).

5

u/jeebus87 17h ago

That is a fair and historically grounded point. The federal government does have the constitutional authority, and indeed the legal precedent, to enforce its laws even in the face of state opposition. The Civil War, Reconstruction, desegregation, and even recent federal interventions all serve as reminders that states pushing against federal supremacy in areas clearly reserved for the federal government will not prevail when it comes to the rule of law.

But here is where we should be careful. While the legal boundaries are firm, the discussion around them is not merely emotional, it is political, economic, and civic. The tension is not about whether California can override federal trade policy, it cannot, but whether the federal government, having created harm through lawful policy, is willing to allow a state to advocate for mitigation, carve out exemptions, or seek flexibility without being told to sit down and accept the consequences.

It is not about nullification. It is about negotiation. About diplomacy within the union. California is not threatening secession or openly defying federal law, it is lobbying, coordinating, and attempting to act in defense of its people. That is not illegal. That is governance.

So while I agree with you that the constitutional lines are clear, I would argue that this is not a question of legality versus emotion. It is a question of whether a federal government that claims to support local control in some spheres is willing to tolerate it when the politics are reversed. If not, then yes, it is legal, but also politically hypocritical. And in a functioning republic, hypocrisy matters.

1

u/DiabolicallyRandom 17h ago

You're speaking as if we still exist with rational elected leadership.

You seem to maintain the belief that somehow the maga GOP will somehow be forced to take California's "negotiation" seriously from a political, economic, or civic perspective.

That belief is based in emotion, not rationality.

Trump has not been told no even once.

If he wants to use the military to blockade California, he will.

1

u/jeebus87 17h ago

That is a sobering assessment, and I do not think it is entirely unfounded. We are, undeniably, in a moment where institutional norms are being tested, stretched, and in some cases discarded altogether. The assumption that rational actors will behave with respect for precedent, process, or principle has, frankly, taken a beating in recent years. I do not disagree that betting on a good-faith response from an increasingly authoritarian faction is, at best, optimistic.

However, I would still argue that even in the face of irrational or authoritarian leadership, the act of negotiation, of asserting state interests, of using legal, political, and diplomatic tools, is not naive. It is necessary. California cannot afford to disengage from the process simply because the other side may not play fair. Refusing to show up at the table does not protect anyone, it cedes the entire field.

You are right. Trump has not been told no by many people who mattered at key moments. But that is not a reason to stop resisting or to stop articulating a coherent state-centered argument. It is the reason to sharpen it, to codify it, to challenge any overreach not just in the streets, but in the courts, in the legislature, and yes, in the eyes of the public who will judge these acts in the long arc of history.

If we abandon the tools of law and reason simply because the other side might ignore them, we concede the terrain of legitimacy. Once that is gone, all we are left with is force. That is not a world we should accept as inevitable, not without a fight, and not without saying plainly that it was wrong.

3

u/PortugalTheHam 18h ago

I can bet were going to see a huge shift in federalism towards states in the coming years. I can imagine a usa where states have autonomy similar to the EU or the original articles of confederation and the federal government acts as a national security pact and a coordinator of interstate commerce.

3

u/chrismsp 16h ago

Except that pesky clause in Article I that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, which they promptly ceded to the president. The legal authority he's using is some economic emergency crap.

There are very few 'state's rights' when it comes to interstate commerce.

•

u/Gingerstachesupreme 5h ago

Article 1 gives congress power of the purse - yet DOGE can cut jobs and spending as an executive department.

Better yet, creating or altering an executive department requires senate approval (article 2 s2) - yet DOGE exists and wields power.

The constitution is null and void and this point, as they set the precedent to burn it. Might as well have the next dem president use EO to pass through as much extreme progressive agenda as possible.

2

u/Tropicaldaze1950 15h ago

IF California proceeds to make trade deals and IF the DOJ or Trump tries to stop them, the case is headed for SCOTUS. If it truly believes in states' rights, they might rule in California's favor. Let them give Trump some help in crashing the economy. We're already on the way there.

2

u/SciGuy013 12h ago

chatgpt reply.

2

u/sycamotree 17h ago

?

I likely align with you politically but there already are some things that are states rights and some things that are federal rights, and we have an entire history of arguing over those rights lol. See: the Civil War. (Please for the love of God don't "states rights to do what" me I know what the Civil War was about.)

In fact international trade is a federal right, so California would be wrong here. But clearly the constitution is a suggestion so 🤷🏿‍♂️

3

u/PlatonicTroglodyte Virginia 18h ago

Ok I’m not unsympathetic to the overall argument, but cherry picking vibes from Dobbs and acting like something entirely unrelated is constitutional per Dobbs is ridiculous lol.

17

u/jeebus87 18h ago

Well now, I appreciate your thoughtful pushback. And you're right to draw a line between what the Dobbs decision technically says and how its logic is used beyond the context of reproductive rights. Dobbs, at its core, did not confer general permission for states to chart their own path on every issue. It simply held that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, and thus returned that matter to the states.

But here is the rub. When the highest court in the land tells the American people that certain fundamental questions should be decided not by federal fiat but by the people and their representatives in each state, it sends a broader message about where authority resides. That message, whether intended or not, does not exist in a vacuum. It creates an expectation, one that says local governance matters, that the will of a state’s electorate carries weight, even when it rubs against federal preference.

So, while Dobbs may not be precedent for economic autonomy or international trade policy, the philosophy that undergirds it, about the rightful locus of decision-making, absolutely reverberates into these debates. That is not cherry picking. That is recognizing the intellectual consequences of our jurisprudence. And that, my friend, is the way it is.

0

u/Dracious 17h ago

Couldn't the same argument have been made at any time in US history though? There have always been certain laws/decisions that can be made at the State level, and some that are made at the Federal level. Just because the state can decide on some things doesn't inherently mean that it can decide on everything?

The Dobbs decision changed a single topic from Federal to State, why would that suddenly mean that is precedent for States to do anything? Wouldnt the original decision to make abortion a federal issue in the past also have meant that the states have no rights at all by that logic?

I guess I just don't understand your 'all or nothing' sort of argument when the US pre and post Dobbs have had all sorts of important things split into federal and state laws, and things moving from one to the other isn't an event unique to Dobbs.

3

u/jeebus87 17h ago

You are correct that the Constitution has long drawn lines between federal and state authority. But the Dobbs decision was not just another adjustment along that line. It marked a profound shift. For nearly half a century, the right to abortion was understood as a constitutionally protected liberty, upheld by the highest court in the land. With Dobbs, that right was withdrawn, not by legislation, but by judicial declaration. And in doing so, the Court did more than return one issue to the states, it signaled that long-standing federal protections, even those deeply woven into the fabric of modern American life, could be stripped away if not firmly grounded in historical tradition. That does not merely tinker with the balance of power. It redraws the map. And that, in the eyes of many, opened a door that will not easily be closed.

1

u/endium7 18h ago

what can the federal government do to stop it? assuming california finds some loopholes to exploit

0

u/TheMoneyOfArt 15h ago

That's not how it works. There's not a loophole. The Constitution gives control here to the federal government. 

1

u/suxatjugg 18h ago

Can't wait for trump to turn on his supreme court cronies

1

u/Ravek 17h ago

That would matter if you lived in a society governed by rule of law. It’s been time to wake up for a while now.

1

u/god_damnit_reddit 17h ago

i mean, sure. but nobody in the country thinks that's what any of this means. states rights is for republican priorities like guns and restricting abortions. federal power is also for republican priorities like restricting abortions and harming blue state economies.

1

u/NewtonBill 17h ago

Hypocrisy is the life blood of the GOP.

1

u/TrankElephant 17h ago

Great argument, eloquently stated.

1

u/Romans5_5 17h ago

How do tariffs on imports impact California exports?

1

u/ComradeSubtopia 17h ago

"The principle of states' right cannot be..."

Unfortunately, jeebus, the fascists & demagogues have made it clear that 'might makes right' is the only principle they acknowledge now.

1

u/Thirtysevenintwenty5 16h ago

It's always been a one way street. Andrew Jackson vehemently argued for State's rights when it came to preserving slavery. But when South Carolina attempted to nullify tariffs set by the Federal government, the feds say "Um.... no, not like that".

1

u/penguin_hugger100 16h ago

It is a one way street sadly. The constitution is very clear that states rights are merely the rights not allocated explicitly to the federal government. Trade is one of those rights. It's explicitly illegal for a state to engage in trade deals with foreign nations. should it be? Probably not. But it is, and that's the legal fact of the matter.

1

u/Routine_Left 16h ago

The principle of states' rights cannot be a one-way street.

"Hold my burger". Trump, probably.

1

u/Alyusha 16h ago

The scary thing is that once states start disregarding the federal government outright, what options does the federal government really have to correct it? I can't think of much that doesn't include military options.

1

u/SUPERCOW7 15h ago

Well put.

1

u/verdatum 15h ago

so, uh, long live the new confederacy?

I'm not happy.

1

u/Rhysati 15h ago

It has always been hypocritical. They claim states rights while also saying states can't regulate firearms their own way.

They had issues with states wanting gay marriage.

The idea that conservatives care at all about states rights is ridiculous. They only care if/when it's in regards to something they like or don't like.

1

u/whogivesashirtdotca Canada 15h ago

Isn't one of Project 2025's goals to rewrite the Constitution?

1

u/agnostic_science 15h ago

In the hearts of conservatives, abortion has as much to do with state's right as slavery.

1

u/BellGeek 13h ago

Of course it can. When Republicans are in control, that’s EXACTLY how it works. Monumental hypocrisy and abject cruelty are their two most defining characteristics.

1

u/TurkeyBLTSandwich 13h ago

I think it was Adam Kinzinger, former Republican Illinois House Rep, said that an all out civil war wouldn't take place, but like a tit for tat retaliation for state to state tariffs.

Like Texas and other red States would boycott California and in return California wouldn't ship items to them. I could totally see California setting up their own State run ports to ignore/avoid tariffs and just having straight agreements with other countries.

But I agree if Texas can ignore FEDERAL laws when it comes to immigration and enforcement, California can do as it pleases when it comes to import and export tariffs.

1

u/Silidistani 11h ago

a troubling inconsistency

has never once stopped them before, they just pretend some portion of reality doesn't exist and continue on with their "plans" like it's normal. Of course, for a not insignificant number of them, they don't understand the actual issues in the first place either.

1

u/Hastyscorpion 11h ago

What we are witnessing is a striking contradiction in American governance. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the message was clear: let the states decide. The federal government, through the Court’s ruling, signaled that the people of each state should determine their own course on some of the most consequential issues of our time. That was the rationale, state autonomy, local control, democratic self-determination.

You misunderstand what the Supreme Court decided. What they decided was that there are very clearly defined areas that fall to the Federal Government to decide (International Trade is one of them in Article I Section 8). Access to specific types of medical care is not. Everything that is not clearly defined as being a federal power falls to the states to decide. This is not an inconsistency. It does not depend on the political moment, It depends on what is written in the Constitution as who has what power.

Now you definitely could argue (and people are suing about this) that the Constitution allows Congress to impose tariffs but does not allow them to delegate that power to the President.

1

u/Dry-Peach-6327 10h ago

This is why I love what California is doing

1

u/11correcaminos 9h ago

The interstate commerce clause has entered the chat

1

u/TreadingPatience 8h ago

Inconsistency is the point. Hypocrisy is the point. States rights was never the goal.

•

u/putdownthekitten 6h ago

Have you met the GOP? Hypocrisy is the primary pillar supporting their entire platform.

•

u/Tallon_raider 6h ago

California should just do it anyways and raise a militia

•

u/Neve4ever 5h ago

The constitution gives the federal government power over trade. It's not a state right and never has been. Abortion has long been in the realm of states, and was still in the hands of states once a fetus reached viability.

1

u/1900grs 18h ago

To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

Did you just wake up from a coma? This has been the GOP playbook for many decades.