Technically it is a factual question but I presume it will become a political discussion.
I read an article that Gov. Newsom is looking to negotiate agreements with foreign countries to exempt California from the retalitory tariffs. The problem I see is that it is an enumerated power of the Federal government
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Also a restriction on the states is
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
Although I don’t think an agreement is the same as a treaty.
So can Newsom pull this off?
Would Congress let him?
What would the courts decide?
It’s unconstitutional and most countries will tell him to fuck off anyway. As the federal government controls tariffs, everything they send to California will be tariffed, so why are they going to go to the (administratively burdensome) trouble of giving California goods in particular a break?
They would shut it down, because I don’t think there’s a good legal argument to support it.
I mean, I like the gesture as a middle finger to Trump and to remind people of the disaster that his economic policies (tantrums) have wrought, but there’s no way this is legal.
The last time I recall something like this happening was when South Carolina declared that Federal tariffs did not apply to the state of South Carolina in the 1830s. Tariffs were one of the contributing factors that increased the North-South divide and while slavery was of course the major cause of the war, tariffs and economic battles between the northern industrialists and the southern plantation owners added to the tensions that eventually resulted in the Civil War.
California cannot stop the United States from levying tariffs on goods entering or exiting United States.
California can ask another country to not levy tariffs on particular goods entering that country. In fact, some countries are already being very selective on their tariffs; for example, high tariffs on Kentucky liquor, but no tariffs on California wine.
If it were just California asking for countries not to impose tariffs on California goods, sure. But why would another country do that without quid pro quo?
Plus in the article
A Newsom official also told Fox News that the new Trump tariffs will hinder access to essential supplies, like construction materials, needed to rebuild after the Los Angeles wildfires. The U.S. currently imposes a 14 percent duty on Canadian lumber, with the rate possibly rising to nearly 27 percent this year.
So I think they are also looking to reduce the tariffs on goods that California imports.
Well, since those are imposed and collected unilaterally by the federal government, any agreement to that effect would necessarily have the federal government as a party, negating any of your concerns about it.
If California was trying to bring things in without paying US tariffs, then that’s technically smuggling I believe. But then that has nothing to do with the other nation, so I don’t know why I assumed that.
I guess that there really isn’t anything wrong with a country that says it’s going to exempt tariffs from stuff being imported from California. That’s the country setting its own policies for itself.
Now, I also don’t see why Trump couldn’t retaliate by specifically increasing tariffs on goods destined for California. But he’s already pulling crap like this, cutting aid to states he doesn’t like. He did similar things in his first administration (such as being selective in what states he provided medical supplies to during the pandemic, based on which ones sucked up to him the most).
Other countries aren’t stupid. Their retaliatory tariffs can try to maximize the pressure on Trump’s political base. Hence the tariffs on Kentucky liquor.
California is already targeted by Republicans, and it’s not like they’re going to target us more. So helping California makes a great symbol for resisting Trump.
Tariffs don’t have to be on imports; they can also be on exports. Export tariffs are even stupider than import tariffs, but that might not stop Republicans.
Yeah, you don’t hear about them very often because as you said they make even less sense than your typical import tariff. I didn’t even consider it to be on the table, but with this administration who knows.
They could make themselves a sanctuary state for smuggling.
The number one export of Botswana, to the U.S., is diamonds. The Trump tariff rate for Botswana is 37 percent. Diamonds are easy to hide. So there will be smuggling.
However, California already is a sanctuary state for immigration, and I do not think that slows down ICE much.
Also, I do not know how to hide a ship coming in full of lumber.
I suspect other countries are going to be surgical in their approach to retaliatory tariffs, and with Trump in office they can take the strategy of disproportionately tariffing items largely manufactured in red states.
Kentucky bourbon seems to be an easy target for retaliatory tariffs, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that both senators from the state voted to stop Trump from imposing the tariffs.
Although Rand is full on crazy libertarian and Mitch doesn’t give a fuck anymore, so it might have been coincidence.
But while Newsom can’t override the federal tariffs, he could certainly talk to other countries to make the case for exempting certain California products from retaliatory tariffs, and maybe even give them some guidance on how to do so. I hope he does this.
ETA - Personally, I find the mass cruelty these tariffs will impose on impoverished countries reprehensible.
Although I must say that seeking revenge on the Vietnamese peasants that make your $9.99 fast fashion tee-shirts because they are screwing you over by never buying anything from YOU is definitely peak MAGA.
Yes, and if my last sentence is wrong, Trump would use the Insurrection Act to nationalize the California National Guard. Only question there is whether they would just take over the ports or march on Sacramento.
So much depends on whether Trump conquers Greenland. If he backs down there, Sacramento is safe.
California is the fifth largest economy in the world and unsurprisingly it has an office devoted to international relations, mostly trade promotion. It seems reasonable for them to apply what little pressure they have to redirect trade retaliation to other states. It’s not like Trump will care if other countries sanction California products: hell, Trump may like that and California should point that out.
Foreign countries may retaliate by taxing wheat and corn, them move on to manufactured goods from Ohio and perhaps Pennsylvania.