Just now
California has announced.
On October 6, California Governor Newton publicly stated that he would bring the Trump administration to court.
The lawsuit, described by the Wall Street Journal as “the most expensive civil war in U.S. constitutional history,” not only involved the survival of $675 billion in trade, but also exposed the deep cracks of the U.S. federalism in an era of counter-globalization.
When the governor of California, the largest economy in the United States, raises the legal shield, the balance of power between Washington and Silicon Valley is subtly tilting.
The Trump administration has imposed a 10-percent general tariff, which seems to be a “one-shot” policy, and the reality is that California is the largest import hub in the United States, with its Long Beach port handling 83,000 containers every day, 62% coming from China.
In the first week of tariffs, container retention in the port of Los Angeles increased by 400 percent, leading directly to a 15-day delay in the supply chain of the U.S. automotive industry.
The California Almond Exporters Association data showed that the 145% tariffs imposed on China increased the cost of exports per almond by $2.3 and threatened 3,200 almond farms across the state.
But Trump's real goal may not be at the economic level. According to Lawrence Lacey, a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, "This is a strangulation against California's political influence."
As the Democratic Party’s major headquarters, California contributed 12% of the nation’s popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. By hitting its core industry, Trump sought to weaken the Democratic Party’s box office base for the midterm elections in 2026.
The conflict between California and the federal government has long been established.In the 1849 Golden Rush period, California has been fighting against the federal government over the slavery issue; during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the San Francisco Bay Area became the center of the anti-war movement.
In 2017, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, and California immediately joined forces with Washington and New York to establish the "American Climate Alliance". This "disobedience to tradition" is particularly obvious in the field of science and technology.
52% of Silicon Valley's venture capital comes from state guidance funds, and Trump's chip ban directly caused Intel's factory in Ohio to delay production.
What is intriguing is that Section 1702 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cited in California's lawsuit was formulated by the Carter administration in 1977 in response to the Soviet food embargo.
At that time, the California Agricultural Association jointly sued the bill for unconstitutionality, and the Supreme Court finally upheld it with a 5: 4 judgment. Now history repeats itself, but the background of the times is completely different: California's digital economy will reach US $1.2 trillion in 2025, accounting for a quarter of the United States, and the lobbying ability of its technology giants far exceeds that of 40 years ago.
The impact of tariff policy on California goes far beyond the economic level. In San Jose's science and technology park, engineers began to organize "de-Chinaization" seminars on their own in an attempt to shift the supply chain to Vietnam and Mexico.
Hollywood producers have re-evaluated the feasibility of viewing in Canada, and the Trump administration has threatened to impose a 25% tariff on filmmaking equipment.
The more hidden impact comes from the flow of talent: 38% of the 1,20,000 engineers added to Silicon Valley in 1925 are from China, and the visa tightening caused by tariffs could bring that percentage down to 20%.
The winner or loser of this lawsuit lies in the right to interpret the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. When the Trump administration invoked the 1977 legislation, it deliberately ignored the core provision of the bill requiring that "a state of emergency should be directly related to a specific foreign threat".
California’s justice team moved away from the 2018 Supreme Court ruling on “presidential tariff rights” when the court ruled that Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum products were unconstitutional on the grounds of a lack of congressional authority.
In the legal community of Washington, DC, a “shadow lobby” is taking place. California-held lawyer Davis Polk, who led the 2012 Dodd-Frank Act legislation, creatively proposed a “economic emergency” in the lawsuit to meet three criteria.
Quantifiable damage, clear foreign threats, and reasonable time limits.This legal interpretation, if adopted, would directly overturn the Trump administration’s 34 existing tax policies.
The chain reaction triggered by the California lawsuit is reshaping the global trade landscape. At the Port of Busan in South Korea, Hyundai Motor Group urgently adjusted its production line and shifted its electric vehicles originally scheduled to be exported to the United States to the European market.
Germany's Siemens has suspended investment in wind power projects in Texas and instead sought cooperation with BYD in California. What is more subtle is Russia's reaction. The Russian Foreign Trade Bank announced that it would accept some exports to the United States settled in RMB, which opened up new financing channels for California energy companies.
In this game, Chinese tech enterprises suddenly became the winners.Djing Innovation’s drone R&D center in California received state subsidies, and its new agricultural planting machine, which avoided tariff barriers, boosted its market share from 12% to 34%.This “Eastern Bright West” industrial shift may have far greater significance than the tariffs themselves.
From the California Environmental Quality Act of 1978 challenging the Federal Environment Agency, to the tariff lawsuits of 2025 impacting the WTO rules, California has been exploring the flexible boundaries of the U.S. federal system.
When Newton showed his shoes with the mud of the vineyard at a press conference, the message was clear: In this era of technological rebuilding the world, local innovation is likely to surpass central authority.
The ultimate significance of this lawsuit may not be to win or lose, but to prove that when Washington is addicted to trade wars, the power that really changes the world is often born in the garage of Silicon Valley, the irrigation system of farmland, and the insistence of every ordinary person to safeguard their own rights and interests.
Just as 19th century gold miners used pickaxes to rewrite the destiny of the United States, today's California is using law and technology to pierce through the iron walls of the old order.
Source of information:
Trump Deploys California National Guard Interstate to Portland, California Governor: Shocking, Will File a Lawsuit
World Wide Web 2025-10-06 10:00 Beijing
California has announced.
On October 6, California Governor Newton publicly stated that he would bring the Trump administration to court.
The lawsuit, described by the Wall Street Journal as “the most expensive civil war in U.S. constitutional history,” not only involved the survival of $675 billion in trade, but also exposed the deep cracks of the U.S. federalism in an era of counter-globalization.
When the governor of California, the largest economy in the United States, raises the legal shield, the balance of power between Washington and Silicon Valley is subtly tilting.
The Trump administration has imposed a 10-percent general tariff, which seems to be a “one-shot” policy, and the reality is that California is the largest import hub in the United States, with its Long Beach port handling 83,000 containers every day, 62% coming from China.
In the first week of tariffs, container retention in the port of Los Angeles increased by 400 percent, leading directly to a 15-day delay in the supply chain of the U.S. automotive industry.
The California Almond Exporters Association data showed that the 145% tariffs imposed on China increased the cost of exports per almond by $2.3 and threatened 3,200 almond farms across the state.
But Trump's real goal may not be at the economic level. According to Lawrence Lacey, a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, "This is a strangulation against California's political influence."
As the Democratic Party’s major headquarters, California contributed 12% of the nation’s popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. By hitting its core industry, Trump sought to weaken the Democratic Party’s box office base for the midterm elections in 2026.
The conflict between California and the federal government has long been established.In the 1849 Golden Rush period, California has been fighting against the federal government over the slavery issue; during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the San Francisco Bay Area became the center of the anti-war movement.
In 2017, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, and California immediately joined forces with Washington and New York to establish the "American Climate Alliance". This "disobedience to tradition" is particularly obvious in the field of science and technology.
52% of Silicon Valley's venture capital comes from state guidance funds, and Trump's chip ban directly caused Intel's factory in Ohio to delay production.
What is intriguing is that Section 1702 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cited in California's lawsuit was formulated by the Carter administration in 1977 in response to the Soviet food embargo.
At that time, the California Agricultural Association jointly sued the bill for unconstitutionality, and the Supreme Court finally upheld it with a 5: 4 judgment. Now history repeats itself, but the background of the times is completely different: California's digital economy will reach US $1.2 trillion in 2025, accounting for a quarter of the United States, and the lobbying ability of its technology giants far exceeds that of 40 years ago.
The impact of tariff policy on California goes far beyond the economic level. In San Jose's science and technology park, engineers began to organize "de-Chinaization" seminars on their own in an attempt to shift the supply chain to Vietnam and Mexico.
Hollywood producers have re-evaluated the feasibility of viewing in Canada, and the Trump administration has threatened to impose a 25% tariff on filmmaking equipment.
The more hidden impact comes from the flow of talent: 38% of the 1,20,000 engineers added to Silicon Valley in 1925 are from China, and the visa tightening caused by tariffs could bring that percentage down to 20%.
The winner or loser of this lawsuit lies in the right to interpret the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. When the Trump administration invoked the 1977 legislation, it deliberately ignored the core provision of the bill requiring that "a state of emergency should be directly related to a specific foreign threat".
California’s justice team moved away from the 2018 Supreme Court ruling on “presidential tariff rights” when the court ruled that Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum products were unconstitutional on the grounds of a lack of congressional authority.
In the legal community of Washington, DC, a “shadow lobby” is taking place. California-held lawyer Davis Polk, who led the 2012 Dodd-Frank Act legislation, creatively proposed a “economic emergency” in the lawsuit to meet three criteria.
Quantifiable damage, clear foreign threats, and reasonable time limits.This legal interpretation, if adopted, would directly overturn the Trump administration’s 34 existing tax policies.
The chain reaction triggered by the California lawsuit is reshaping the global trade landscape. At the Port of Busan in South Korea, Hyundai Motor Group urgently adjusted its production line and shifted its electric vehicles originally scheduled to be exported to the United States to the European market.
Germany's Siemens has suspended investment in wind power projects in Texas and instead sought cooperation with BYD in California. What is more subtle is Russia's reaction. The Russian Foreign Trade Bank announced that it would accept some exports to the United States settled in RMB, which opened up new financing channels for California energy companies.
In this game, Chinese tech enterprises suddenly became the winners.Djing Innovation’s drone R&D center in California received state subsidies, and its new agricultural planting machine, which avoided tariff barriers, boosted its market share from 12% to 34%.This “Eastern Bright West” industrial shift may have far greater significance than the tariffs themselves.
From the California Environmental Quality Act of 1978 challenging the Federal Environment Agency, to the tariff lawsuits of 2025 impacting the WTO rules, California has been exploring the flexible boundaries of the U.S. federal system.
When Newton showed his shoes with the mud of the vineyard at a press conference, the message was clear: In this era of technological rebuilding the world, local innovation is likely to surpass central authority.
The ultimate significance of this lawsuit may not be to win or lose, but to prove that when Washington is addicted to trade wars, the power that really changes the world is often born in the garage of Silicon Valley, the irrigation system of farmland, and the insistence of every ordinary person to safeguard their own rights and interests.
Just as 19th century gold miners used pickaxes to rewrite the destiny of the United States, today's California is using law and technology to pierce through the iron walls of the old order.
Source of information:
Trump Deploys California National Guard Interstate to Portland, California Governor: Shocking, Will File a Lawsuit
World Wide Web 2025-10-06 10:00 Beijing