Tariffs, Treason, and Trade: California’s Dangerous Rebellion

@amuse

Apr 4

The founding premise of our constitutional republic is unity: political, military, and commercial. These are not separate compartments but strands in a single rope—intertwined, tensile, and intended to bear the weight of a nation. When a state attempts to unravel one of those strands while continuing to enjoy the strength of the whole, it does more than flirt with federal overreach; it toys with the dissolution of the Union itself. Governor Gavin Newsom’s April 4 announcement—his plan to engage foreign powers in pursuit of tariff exemptions for California-made products—does precisely that. While presented in the language of advocacy and framed as a defense of local interests, Newsom’s maneuver amounts to an unconstitutional arrogation of federal power and a deeply un-American assertion of state economic sovereignty.

This is not mere hyperbole. The legal and philosophical architecture of the United States places international trade under exclusive federal authority. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution—the Commerce Clause—confers upon Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Its textual clarity leaves no room for competing state claims. Moreover, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3—the Compact Clause—categorically prohibits any state from entering into an agreement with a foreign power without the consent of Congress. Taken together, these provisions are not vague guidelines; they are guardrails constructed to prevent precisely the sort of economic factionalism and cross-border state diplomacy that fractured the Articles of Confederation and nearly sundered the infant Republic.

Let us be clear: Newsom is not leading a ceremonial trade delegation or participating in a federally sanctioned commercial mission. He is attempting to recalibrate California’s economic relationship with foreign powers in direct contravention of national policy. He does so amid a brewing trade conflict, with retaliatory tariffs imposed on American goods following President Trump’s assertive economic stance. Newsom’s aim is to convince foreign governments to exempt California-origin goods from those retaliatory measures. The problem, of course, is that those tariffs were imposed in response to actions taken not by California, but by the United States. To treat California as a separate economic actor, eligible for bespoke carve-outs, is to deny the singular identity of the nation in foreign affairs. One might as well erect a customs house on the Golden Gate Bridge and declare California open for business—as a separate country.

Some will protest: is this not merely lobbying? An effort to protect local farmers, tech producers, and vintners from the collateral damage of a national policy they did not author? Perhaps. But intent cannot sanitize effect. The line between promotion and negotiation is not drawn by the purity of motive but by the nature of the act. When a governor corresponds with foreign officials to alter their trade behavior in a manner that conflicts with U.S. policy, the action is no longer innocuous advocacy—it becomes a functional circumvention of federal authority. In this sense, Newsom’s overture strays into the shadow of the Logan Act, which forbids unauthorized citizens from conducting foreign policy on behalf of the United States. While its application to governors remains murky, the principle is unambiguous: the Union must speak with one voice abroad.

Historical precedent affirms this principle. In Zschernig v. Miller (1968), the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law that attempted to regulate inheritance by foreign nationals, declaring it an impermissible intrusion into the federal government’s exclusive foreign affairs power. In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000), the Court invalidated a Massachusetts law that conflicted with federal sanctions against Burma, reaffirming that even well-intentioned state actions must yield when they tread upon the federal government’s foreign policy prerogatives. The lesson is plain: foreign relations are not a patchwork quilt of fifty state initiatives. They are a unified expression of national will.

Moreover, the practical realities of international trade render Newsom’s plan incoherent. Tariffs are not applied to goods stamped with “Made in Fresno” or “Packed in Napa.” They are levied at the national level. Foreign customs agents do not have protocols for differentiating California almonds from Texan ones. To entertain Newsom’s pitch is to indulge a fiction—a fantasy that economic sovereignty can be surgically separated from political sovereignty. That fiction is not merely implausible. It is dangerous.

Consider the implications if other states followed suit. Florida might court exemptions for its citrus exports. Texas could seek preferential treatment for its oil and gas industries. New York might push for unique access to European financial markets. The result would not be a federation, but a loosely tethered economic confederacy—a return to the pre-Constitutional disorder of rival commercial fiefdoms. That disorder was precisely what the framers sought to end.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 22, warned against the perils of state interference in foreign commerce, observing that such a system "would tend to create jealousies and dissensions between the States." James Madison, too, saw the need for uniformity in external relations as essential to national survival. That vision of a cohesive commercial union—reinforced by the Supreme Court and rooted in constitutional text—stands in direct opposition to Newsom’s attempted end-run around federal authority.

And what of political principle? The progressive left, so often enthralled by the centralization of power, now finds itself enamored with decentralized diplomacy—when it suits their ideological ends. Imagine the outcry if Governor Ron DeSantis negotiated with Israel for trade preferences or if Governor Abbott sought exemptions from European environmental tariffs. The hypocrisy is palpable, and it reveals the underlying problem: when states treat federal policy as optional, the rule of law becomes a tool of convenience, not a binding covenant.

In the final analysis, Newsom’s actions are not simply an overreach. They are an affront to the constitutional order. They amount to an assertion of de facto independence in the realm of trade—a move that appropriates the benefits of national defense, shared currency, and international stature while simultaneously rejecting the burdens of shared economic policy. This is not federalism; it is factionalism. It is the soft secession of a state that wants the perks of Union without its responsibilities.

There is still time for Congress to reassert its prerogatives. It can do so by demanding transparency from Newsom’s administration, holding hearings on state overreach, and reining in unauthorized diplomatic activity. The Department of Justice, too, should clarify the boundaries of lawful state conduct in foreign affairs and consider whether any violation of the Logan Act—or its spirit—has occurred.

But above all, the public must grasp the stakes. If California is permitted to chart its own course on international trade, it sets a precedent not of innovation, but of insubordination. The principle that binds this Union—one flag, one Constitution, one economic voice—will begin to fray.

And when that thread is pulled, the fabric does not merely loosen. It unravels.

If you don't already please follow