California Gov. Newsom Sues Trump Over Sweeping Tariffs
California Gov. Gavin Newsom files lawsuit against Trump tariff authority, citing economic harm. Learn about the legal challenge and its impact.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - On April 16, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom launched a legal challenge against the authority of President Donald Trump to impose broad tariffs on international trade partners. Alongside California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Newsom announced a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by Trump to enact tariffs is unlawful.
This lawsuit positions California as the first state to legally contest the tariff policies of Trump, which include a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and higher rates on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China. Newsom stressed the economic risks for California, the world’s fifth-largest economy, noting that these tariffs could lead to billions in losses and disrupt industries such as agriculture, technology, and manufacturing.
Economic Concerns Drive California’s Lawsuit
California’s economy depends heavily on international trade, with Mexico, Canada, and China as its top trading partners. In 2024, over 40% of the state’s $491 billion in imports originated from these nations. Newsom warned of “immediate and severe harm” to the economy, including higher consumer prices, supply chain disruptions, and job losses in sectors like almond farming and technology.
At a press conference held at a Ceres almond farm, Newsom called the tariffs “one of the largest tax increases in recent memory.” He criticized the unilateral approach of Trump, arguing that Congress, not the president, holds constitutional authority over tariffs. The lawsuit seeks to nullify the tariffs and prevent their enforcement.
Rob Bonta Labels Tariffs “Unlawful and Unprecedented”
Attorney General Rob Bonta reinforced Newsom’s stance, describing the actions of Trump as an overreach of executive power. “The president is using authority he doesn’t possess,” Bonta stated, noting that the IEEPA, enacted in 1977, has never been used for tariffs in its history. The lawsuit contends that the act does not authorize tariffs and that the national emergency declared by Trump to justify them lacks foundation.
Bonta highlighted the wider impact on American households, saying the tariffs are inflating costs and threatening economic stability. “From Central Valley farmers to Sacramento small businesses, Californians are facing serious consequences,” he said, pledging to defend the state against what he termed “arbitrary and damaging” policies.
White House Counters, Newsom Holds Ground
The Trump administration responded sharply, with White House spokesperson Kush Desai accusing Newsom of ignoring California’s issues like crime and homelessness. “Rather than addressing California’s pressing problems, Gavin Newsom is focused on obstructing President Trump’s efforts to fix our nation’s trade imbalances,” Desai said.
Newsom rejected the critique, framing the lawsuit as a defense of California’s economic interests and a stand against “unfair trade practices.” He accused Trump of creating “unpredictable chaos” by granting exemptions to certain industries, possibly tied to political allies. “The only thing certain is uncertainty,” Newsom said, vowing to protect the state’s 40 million residents.
California’s Global Strategy and Broader Impact
Newsom’s legal action coincides with efforts to shield California from the global repercussions of Trump’s trade policies. In early April, the governor proposed building trade partnerships with nations like Canada and the United Kingdom, urging them to exempt California products, such as almonds and wine, from retaliatory tariffs. While some economists doubt the practicality of these plans, Newsom remains confident in California’s economic influence and history of independent trade talks.
The lawsuit also highlights California’s role as a key opponent of Trump’s agenda, reigniting tensions with the White House. With the state grappling with a budget crisis and the uncertainty of a potential trade war, Newsom’s move signals a determined effort to safeguard California’s interests.
As the case progresses, the federal court’s decision will be pivotal in defining the scope of U.S. trade policy authority. For now, Newsom and Bonta are positioning California as a leader in advocating for economic stability and constitutional principles amid unprecedented federal actions.
