California’s Puzzling Fight
California’s decision to sue over President Trump’s tariffs feels like a punch to American workers. Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit in April 2025, claiming the president’s trade policies break the law. They argue Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs without Congress’s approval. Yet these tariffs tackle decades of unfair trade practices that have crushed U.S. industries. Why would California stand in the way of policies that rebuild our economy?
The state’s legal strategy focuses on a procedural trick, keeping the case in California’s courts. A San Francisco judge recently dismissed the lawsuit, not to end it, but to allow an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. This move delays tariffs that are already strengthening America’s global trade position. It’s hard to see this as anything but political theater, prioritizing headlines over the livelihoods of everyday Americans.
Tariffs Build Economic Strength
The 2025 tariffs, with a 10 percent universal rate and higher duties on specific goods, protect American jobs. Bonta warns they’ll cost California $25 billion and 64,000 jobs, but that’s only half the picture. Unlike the broad Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, today’s measures target sectors like apparel and autos to counter predatory pricing from countries like China. Early data shows manufacturing gains, with GDP growth holding steady despite a modest 2.3 percent price increase.
These policies go beyond dollars and cents. They restore America’s ability to compete. For years, global trade deals left factory towns struggling, as jobs vanished overseas. Trump’s tariffs, backed by executive authority, address this by shielding industries vital to national security. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows such action in economic crises, and unchecked foreign competition fits that bill. California’s lawsuit dismisses this reality, acting as if trade policy needs endless congressional debates.
The Weakness in California’s Argument
Bonta claims Trump’s tariffs lack legal grounding, but history and law say otherwise. Since the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, presidents have held tariff powers for national interests. Court rulings, like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, confirm executives can act within delegated authority. Trump’s tariffs align with these precedents, targeting foreign overproduction that threatens U.S. markets. A separate case, Oregon v. Trump, saw the Court of International Trade limit similar tariffs, but that doesn’t negate the president’s broader authority.
California’s insistence on federal district court jurisdiction is a misstep. Trade disputes belong in specialized courts, like the Court of International Trade, which grasp the nuances of global commerce. By pushing for the Ninth Circuit, known for unpredictable rulings, California seems more interested in political wins than legal clarity. This approach wastes time and resources, stalling policies that benefit American workers.
What’s at Risk for Americans
If California’s lawsuit prevails, it could dismantle a trade strategy revitalizing U.S. industry. Tariffs have already sparked factory investments in states like Ohio and Michigan, creating stable jobs. Reversing them would empower foreign competitors, driving up costs as supply chains weaken. Yes, prices for some goods have risen, but the long-term payoff—stronger industries and better wages—outweighs temporary costs. Why should California’s leaders jeopardize this progress?
Some point to studies, like the Penn Wharton Budget Model’s $3,800 per-household cost estimate, to argue tariffs harm consumers. Yet those numbers overlook job growth and rising incomes in protected sectors. Free-trade policies enriched corporations for decades while communities suffered. Trump’s tariffs shift the focus back to American families, and California’s challenge threatens to undo that shift.
A Moment to Choose America’s Path
This tariff battle reflects a larger question: can America prioritize its own economic future? Trump’s policies, rooted in legal authority, counter real threats—foreign dumping, job losses, and fragile supply chains. Courts should dismiss California’s attempt to derail them. The Ninth Circuit needs to affirm the president’s right to act decisively on trade.
For everyday Americans, the stakes are clear. Tariffs are encouraging companies to invest at home, boosting jobs in struggling regions. California’s focus on global markets risks sidelining these gains. The nation faces a choice—embrace policies that strengthen our economy or revert to outdated trade models that favor foreign interests.
California’s legal push must not halt America’s momentum. The tariffs are delivering results, and courts should let them stand. Our workers, communities, and future prosperity depend on it.