The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, on Wednesday announced a lawsuit that disputes the executive authority of President Trump to promulgate international tariffs without support from the congress, which compared the commander in chief with a “demolition ball” to the global reputation of the United States.
Legal action argues that International Emergency Emergency Powers Law The fact that Trump cites to impose tariffs does not grant the President the ability to unilaterally adopt tariffs on goods imported to the US. The demand for California is the first challenge of any state against commercial policy.
“No state is ready to lose more than the state of California,” said Newsom on Trump’s rates. “That is why we are affirming Uurselves on behalf of 40 million Americans.”
The case marks the first time that the news has a main role in any of the 15 demands that California has presented against the current Trump administration, indicating a deviation from his most reserved approach to the president who lasts Trump’s second mandate. Until now, the state of state. Gene. Rob Bonta has acted as the face of California’s legal battles against the federal government, while Newsom has generally maintained a distance from the court of return and fame.
Newsom said he chose to take action after absorbing the effects of tariffs in recent weeks.
“He is betraying the people who supported him,” said Newsom. “Donald Trump has turned his back on his followers.”
According to the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, Trump has implemented baseline tariffs of 10% over all imported goods, higher taxes on goods in Mexico, Canada and China, and specific encumbrances on products and materials such as cars and aluminum. The president threatened and then stopped additional tariffs on other nations until this summer.
California, that the governor’s office said he participated in almost $ 675 billion in bidirectional trade last year, You can lose billions in state revenues under Trump’s tariff policies If international trade decreases and stock market tanks. Mexico, Canada and China represent the three largest commercial partners in the State.
“The severity and instability of the situation in question cannot be exaggerated,” said Bonta. “The risk for California, for our business, our workers, our families, cannot be exaggerated.”
Newsom showed glimpse on Wednesday of the Democratic Fire brand for which it is known, since it implored the Republicans in Congress to do their work.
“They are sitting there passively while this guy destroys the economy of the United States of America, which has dominated the global economy,” said Newsom.
The changes of the governor between attacking Trump and sometimes staying Mom about the controversial actions of the White House show that Newsom is trying to find a base on how to deal effectively with Trump in his second term.
Newsom not only leads a state under a constant threat of losing essential federal funds for disaster recovery, education and medical care, but is also a national figure in a Democratic Party that revives its resistance to Trump after the November elections.
Althegh Democrats have fought to articulate a message about what they represent, Trump’s tariffs are giving them an unpopular problem to face, said Mike Madrid, a republican political consultant.
“A politician who is not attacking would be making a big mistake,” said Madrid. “Trump gave them an opening that they did not create titles.”
Since forest fires decimated Pacific Palisades and Altadena in January, Newsom has tried to choose their battles to avoid endangering their employment relationship with Trump and endangering the federal support necessary to rebuild. He repeatedly pointed out the negative effects of tariffs on the state budget and the economy on Wednesday to explain their reasoning to speak.
The “toxic uncertainty” on tariffs, said, will likely lead to greater unemployment, greater inflation, lower GDP projections and less income from capital gains for California. The economic consequences could abandon the State with a considerable deficit to overcome and a limited capacity to fill out losses without making considerable cuts to the programs.
Newsom said its proposed state budget “will reflect a reduction in economic perspectives in this state.”
“Therefore, the impacts on the state budget are already being felt and the total impact has not been full of legs,” he said.
California’s legal case is based on an argument that the International Emergency Economic Powers Law, which is considered to be taken if it declares a national emergency in response to a foreign national security, foreign policy or economic threats.
“The reality is that the United States Constitution gives Congress the power of the bag,” said Bonta. “It is the responsibility of the Congress to establish and raise taxes, tariffs and improvisations, including, yes, tariffs, not the president. Congress has authorized these rates, much less authorized imposing tariff The issue are, the issue of our nation and the lash of global economy is trying to cancel Congress and the separation of the separation of powers.
The tariffs seem to be in weak legal field, given the president of the president to trust the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, said Stratos Pahis, associate professor of law and co -director of the block center of the Law of Study of the Faculty of Law of Brooklyn.
Pahis said that Congress has delegated the president to increase tariffs in response to unfair commercial practices or for national security reasons under a separate law called commercial law, which imposes substantive and procedural votes, such as the country by country or the assets of the goods. The Commerce Law does not allow the administration to wake up one day and impose tariffs of 10% to all the countries of the world and in all the good that enters, he said.
“So that is the Commerce Law, which is the normal reason for the Executive to impose or raise tariffs. Of course, the president does not use it. The President is using the International Law on Emergency Economic Powers,” Pahis said.
The IEEEPA has It has never been used to impose rates And does not explicitly mention the rates.
Pahis said that a strong argument against the use of the law to impose tariffs is that it requires that the president declare a national emergency and that the president discovers that they are unusual and extraordinary threats to the United States, for the national security of the United States or the economy.
“And that is where I think it is more likely that the law fails because it is very difficult to understand the threats that the president has identified as unusual or extraordinary,” Pahis said. It was observed that the commercial deficits and the loss of the manufacture that Trump is citing are the consequences of American commercial policy that the country has deliberately followed for 80 years.
Complaints request from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to annul Trump’s tariff orders, according to the Bont office.
Pahis said it is possible, but also unprecedented, so that Trump trusts the Commerce Law and the realization of the request for request, without resorting to Congress, to legally impose 10% of the tariff rates if the federal government is the case.
Make Congress vote in Washington to adopt tariffs or allow Trump to promulg tariffs could place republican legislators in a vulnerable political position in the middle of the period elections. A recent CBS News survey He showed that 58% of Americans opposed the US tariffs of imported assets.
The Times staff writer, Kevin Rector, contributed to this report.
