Newsom’s Plan to Evade Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit Constitutional Roadblock, Experts Say

Clear Facts

• Governor Gavin Newsom of California is attempting to mitigate the impact of President Trump’s tariffs by negotiating with international trade partners.
• Legal experts suggest that Newsom’s efforts may conflict with the Constitution, which reserves foreign trade negotiations for the federal government.
• While informal arrangements between states and foreign countries are common, they typically lack substantial impact due to constitutional limitations.

California Governor Gavin Newsom is taking bold steps to shield his state from the economic repercussions of President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. By reaching out to international trade partners, Newsom aims to exempt California-made products from retaliatory tariffs and foster new strategic trade relationships. However, his approach may encounter significant constitutional challenges.

Newsom’s strategy was reiterated after President Trump announced a temporary 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs, while maintaining a 10% baseline and increasing tariffs on China. “Trump caved,” Newsom stated on X, emphasizing that California is a “stable, reliable partner” and expressing a desire for international business.

Legal scholars argue that Newsom’s actions could infringe upon the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign trade. Donald Kochan, executive director of the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, highlighted the constitutional constraints, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council. This ruling invalidated a Massachusetts law due to the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

“Even sort of insinuating that California has the ability to negotiate side deals is itself diminishing the capacity of the federal government to speak with one voice and to negotiate trade deals, and consequently, should be avoided,” Kochan explained.

Despite these potential legal hurdles, Newsom remains steadfast in his commitment to international collaboration. “California is not Washington, D.C.,” he declared, underscoring the state’s economic significance as the fifth largest economy in the world.

Stanford law professor Alan Sykes expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of California’s requests for tariff exemptions. “Asking for favors does not raise constitutional questions,” he noted, but formal agreements could, depending on their specifics.

Duke University international law professor Tim Meyer acknowledged that states have historically engaged in informal trade arrangements with foreign countries. However, he pointed out that these arrangements often lack substantial impact. “California does not control tariffs, so there is little reason for other countries to agree to exempt California products from retaliatory tariffs,” Meyer said.

Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, mentioned that California has previously entered into “agreements” with foreign countries that stop short of treaties. In 2019, for instance, California collaborated with Canada on regulations promoting zero-emission vehicles. “The Courts did not block this agreement, but there is a risk,” Blackman acknowledged.

As Newsom navigates these complex legal waters, the question remains whether his efforts will yield tangible results or face insurmountable constitutional barriers.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Source