California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

[u/sweatycat]

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

[u/SharkSymphony]

I don't think it's that big a deal:

• California's had international name-brand recognition for decades. Nothing new there.
• California's been trumpeting that "fifth largest economy" line for – well, as long as we've been that! – though I'd guess we started the bragging when we cracked the top ten. 😛 Nothing new there.
• California's been wooing international investment and trade for decades. Nothing new there.

So, what's new? I'm not aware that California has ever asked other countries for favorable tax treatment on its exports before – that seems unusual. But in the context of all of the above, I don't think it's out of line.

The one thing I take issue with Newsom on in this statement is his assertion that we can be a reliable trading partner when the US is not. That's just not true, even if it is a nice aspiration. For one thing, the US dictates our import duties, not California. For another, the same instabilities that roil the US as a whole do exist here in California too.

[u/SharkSymphony → u/[deleted]]

ChatGPT, I'm guessing?

[u/Kindly-Employer-6075 → u/SharkSymphony]

No, I just like to use formatting. Became a habit since I started using Obsidian for note taking, and Reddit also does markdown formatting.

[u/SharkSymphony → u/Kindly-Employer-6075]

Ah, a fellow Obsidianite. I see.

Past trade missions were about economic growth. This is about political resistance. Newsom isn’t just selling almonds and Silicon Valley—he’s positioning CA as a diplomatic counterweight to a rogue federal government. That’s unprecedented, even for us.

Not entirely. Newsom's been making these kinds of grand – and largely symbolic – gestures going back to his San Francisco mayor days. And, of course, sometimes that defiance is well more than symbolic – the decision to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples was revolutionary. In this case, though, I think it's more on the symbolic side.

But by lobbying for export exemptions, Newsom is essentially asking partners to treat CA as a customs-free zone within the U.S.—a carve-out that weakens federal leverage.

It would only be a customs-free zone if he could control import tariffs. But I'm not sure he's even trying to set up California as a middleman for exports. At least, if he is, that would maybe bring up some Commerce Clause challenges.

If the EU agrees to tax Texas LNG at 25% while letting CA wine flow tariff-free, that’s a direct attack on D.C.’s trade strategy.

I think that: 1) DC has no trade strategy here beyond "trade deficit bad, extracting concessions good." 2) Even if they had a strategy, they don't get to control which products a country chooses to place tariffs on. Indeed, a country would be advised to make their retaliation as painful on the administration as possible, so the more the administration yells about it, the more certain they can be that they're on the right track.

Notice the quiet rollout of CA’s “Office of Foreign Investment” last month. Or SB-1, which lets the state sue corporations aiding federal crackdowns. This isn’t just talk—it’s institutional scaffolding for autonomy.

Interesting.

Apple, Google, and Central Valley ag control global supply chains. Partners need CA exports, even if D.C. is chaotic.

I'm not sure what Apple and Google make that are in supply chains. Seems to me they export finished consumer items. Partners may well decide they need to keep CA produce cheap irrespective of Newsom's offer, but I suspect Mexico agriculture is going to benefit hugely from this trade war – even CA consumes a lot of Mexican produce, after all.

CA’s climate laws and labor standards offer predictability the feds lack. German automakers would rather bet on CA’s EV mandates than Trump’s flip-flopping.

That seems like an orthogonal issue to me.

If Newsom backs this with action—say, letting CA ports prioritize “certified” exports (tech, green goods) over red-state commodities—it becomes a blueprint for fragmenting federal authority.

There I think he would really be tripping on the Commerce Clause. States can't generally discriminate against out-of-state businesses, is my understanding.