Latest / Uncensored Objection / [Podcast] California Sues Trump Over Unlawful Tariffs

Transcript

[Podcast] California Sues Trump Over Unlawful Tariffs · Uncensored Objection

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_01: Keeping up with everything that matters today.
• 0:03
  SPEAKER_00: Well, it can feel pretty overwhelming, can it?
• 0:05
  SPEAKER_00: There's just so much noise.
• 0:06
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_01: That's why we try to cut through it sometimes.
• 0:09
  SPEAKER_00: And that's exactly what we're doing today.
• 0:10
  We're taking a deep dive into a really significant piece of
• 0:14
  political and legal news.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 0:17
  We're looking at California's lawsuit against President Trump's terrorists.
• 0:21
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta.
• 0:25
  And we're basing our discussion on a really detailed piece by
• 0:28
  Attorney Mitch
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_00: Jackson over on his sub-stack,
• 0:30
  SPEAKER_00: Uncensored Objection.
• 0:32
  SPEAKER_01: It's a complex situation with big implications.
• 0:34
  SPEAKER_00: Definitely.
• 0:35
  SPEAKER_00: Our goal here is to really unpack the arguments,
• 0:38
  SPEAKER_00: understand why California is doing this and,
• 0:40
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 0:41
  what it might mean for the economy and maybe even presidential
• 0:43
  power itself.
• 0:44
  SPEAKER_01: It really gets to the heart of checks and balances, doesn't it?
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 0:48
  SPEAKER_00: Okay, so let's kick things off.
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_00: What's the...
• 0:50
  The absolute core argument that California is making in this
• 0:53
  federal lawsuit.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_01: Well,
• 0:54
  the central claim is that President Trump basically went beyond
• 0:58
  his executive
• 0:59
  SPEAKER_01: authority by using emergency powers to slap on these tariffs.
• 1:04
  SPEAKER_01: Emergency powers.
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_01: You mean...
• 1:06
  SPEAKER_01: That specific law, the IEEPA.
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_00: The International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_00: California is saying,
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_00: look,
• 1:13
  SPEAKER_00: this law is for,
• 1:14
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_00: targeted sanctions,
• 1:16
  SPEAKER_00: real specific emergencies,
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_00: not for launching what they see as an unauthorized trade war.
• 1:22
  So the argument is that the Constitution gives Congress the
• 1:26
  power to set tariffs
• 1:27
  SPEAKER_01: and regulate foreign trade,
• 1:29
  SPEAKER_01: not the president acting alone using this emergency law.
• 1:33
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_00: They're arguing it's a constitutional issue.
• 1:36
  SPEAKER_00: That power belongs to the legislative branch.
• 1:39
  SPEAKER_00: And using IEPA this way, well, it bypasses Congress entirely.
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_01: OK, that makes sense as a legal argument.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_01: But why is California specifically leading this charge?
• 1:48
  SPEAKER_01: What's their stake in it, economically speaking?
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: Well, the article really lays out the economic hit.
• 1:53
  SPEAKER_00: California argues these tariffs have caused real harm.
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_00: Increased prices for consumers,
• 1:58
  SPEAKER_00: struggles for small businesses,
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_00: especially manufacturers and farmers.
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_01: And California's economy is massive.
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_01: Fifth largest in the world, I think.
• 2:04
  SPEAKER_00: That's right.
• 2:05
  SPEAKER_00: So when you have broad terraces like these,
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_00: an economy as diverse as California's,
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 2:11
  SPEAKER_00: tech,
• 2:11
  SPEAKER_00: entertainment,
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_00: agriculture,
• 2:13
  SPEAKER_00: manufacturing it,
• 2:15
  SPEAKER_00: it feels the pain across many,
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_00: many sectors.
• 2:18
  SPEAKER_01: Can you give some examples of that pain?
• 2:19
  SPEAKER_01: What kind of damage are they talking about?
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_00: Sure.
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_00: The source material points to things like reduced agricultural exports.
• 2:26
  SPEAKER_00: Think almonds, wine, citrus...
• 2:30
  Big California products hit hard by retaliatory tariffs from
• 2:33
  other countries.
• 2:34
  SPEAKER_01: Ah, the retaliation factor.
• 2:35
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 2:36
  SPEAKER_00: And then you have manufacturers who need imported materials.
• 2:39
  SPEAKER_00: Their costs go up.
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_00: Or manufacturers trying to export finished goods.
• 2:43
  SPEAKER_00: They face barriers, too.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_00: Plus, less activity at the big ports like Long Beach and L.A.
• 2:49
  SPEAKER_01: So it's not just an abstract economic debate for them.
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_01: They're seeing it as a direct tax on businesses and people in California.
• 2:55
  That's definitely how Governor Newsom and Attorney General
• 2:58
  Bonta are framing it.
• 2:59
  They argue these tariffs act like taxes,
• 3:01
  raising costs and creating a lot of uncertainty.
• 3:04
  SPEAKER_01: Let's talk about Newsom and Bonta's leadership on this.
• 3:07
  SPEAKER_01: How are they positioning this fight?
• 3:08
  SPEAKER_00: They're casting it as standing up not just for Californians,
• 3:11
  but really for all Americans affected by what they see as
• 3:15
  federal overreach on
• 3:16
  SPEAKER_00: trade policy.
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_01: Protecting their constituents' economic interests.
• 3:19
  Yes,
• 3:20
  and Attorney General Bonta,
• 3:21
  he's quoted talking about the real consequences for people.
• 3:25
  Farmers losing markets,
• 3:26
  small businesses facing higher costs,
• 3:28
  families paying more for goods.
• 3:30
  SPEAKER_00: It's about tangible impact.
• 3:32
  So Nussol's move is portrayed as defending the rule of law
• 3:36
  against an executive
• 3:38
  SPEAKER_01: branch stretching its powers.
• 3:40
  SPEAKER_00: That seems to be the core message,
• 3:41
  SPEAKER_00: yeah,
• 3:41
  SPEAKER_00: that this is about defending the constitutional separation of powers.
• 3:45
  SPEAKER_00: And perhaps,
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_00: as the article might suggest,
• 3:47
  it fits into California's history of sometimes challenging
• 3:50
  federal actions on
• 3:51
  SPEAKER_00: various issues.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_01: OK, let's get back into the legal weeds a bit.
• 3:54
  SPEAKER_01: Why exactly do they say using IEPA is unlawful here?
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_01: You mentioned it wasn't meant for broad terrorists.
• 4:01
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 4:02
  SPEAKER_00: The argument is historical precedent and intent.
• 4:05
  SPEAKER_00: I.E.
• 4:06
  SPEAKER_00: EPA was designed for specific targeted sanctions.
• 4:10
  Think freezing assets of hostile regimes or terrorists,
• 4:13
  that kind of thing.
• 4:14
  It wasn't envisioned as a tool for widespread across the board
• 4:17
  tariffs impacting
• 4:18
  SPEAKER_00: billions in trade.
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_01: And no president before Trump used it this way for tariffs.
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_00: That's a key point in their argument.
• 4:25
  This application of IEPA for broad tariffs is unprecedented,
• 4:31
  according to them.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_01: This connects to something called the major questions doctrine, right?
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_01: Can you break that down?
• 4:35
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 4:36
  The major questions doctrine is a legal principle that's been
• 4:39
  getting more attention recently.
• 4:41
  SPEAKER_00: Basically,
• 4:41
  it says that if an executive agency wants to take an action
• 4:44
  with huge economic or
• 4:45
  SPEAKER_00: political significance,
• 4:47
  SPEAKER_00: a major question,
• 4:48
  SPEAKER_00: it needs really clear,
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_00: explicit permission from Congress in the law.
• 4:53
  SPEAKER_01: ambiguity isn't enough for massive policy shifts.
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 4:56
  SPEAKER_00: You can't just find some vague language in an old statute and use it to,
• 5:00
  SPEAKER_00: say,
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_00: reshape huge sectors of the economy.
• 5:03
  SPEAKER_00: Congress has to have clearly spoken on that specific major issue.
• 5:06
  And California is arguing that imposing these massive tariffs
• 5:09
  is a major question.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 5:11
  They're saying these tariffs have vast economic significance
• 5:14
  affecting nearly everyone.
• 5:16
  SPEAKER_00: Therefore,
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_00: under the major questions doctrine,
• 5:19
  SPEAKER_00: the president needed clear authorization from Congress to impose them.
• 5:22
  And IEPA,
• 5:23
  they argue,
• 5:24
  doesn't provide that clear green light for this kind of action.
• 5:27
  SPEAKER_00: That's the nub of it.
• 5:28
  They contend IEPA lacks the necessary clear statement from
• 5:32
  Congress authorizing its
• 5:33
  SPEAKER_00: use for such broad tariff measures.
• 5:36
  SPEAKER_00: They might point to recent Supreme Court cases like West Virginia v.
• 5:40
  EPA or the student loan cases where the court struck down
• 5:44
  executive actions partly
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_00: on these grounds.
• 5:46
  Saying the administration read powers into the law that
• 5:49
  Congress hadn't explicitly
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_01: granted for such big actions.
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 5:53
  It's about ensuring Congress retains control over those truly
• 5:57
  significant policy decisions.
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_01: Now,
• 5:59
  the article we're drawing from by Mitch Jackson likely points
• 6:02
  out that it wasn't
• 6:02
  SPEAKER_01: just Democrats opposing these tariffs,
• 6:04
  SPEAKER_01: right?
• 6:04
  SPEAKER_01: There was bipartisan pushback.
• 6:06
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, absolutely.
• 6:07
  SPEAKER_00: And that's significant.
• 6:09
  SPEAKER_00: It shows the concerns weren't purely partisan.
• 6:11
  SPEAKER_00: You had Republicans,
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_00: prominent ones like Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul,
• 6:16
  SPEAKER_00: calling tariffs taxes on Americans.
• 6:18
  SPEAKER_00: Senator Murkowski emphasized Congress's role in trade.
• 6:22
  SPEAKER_01: Even conservative commentators and publications?
• 6:24
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 6:25
  Figures like Ben Shapiro,
• 6:26
  publications like The Wall Street Journal,
• 6:28
  they raised criticisms too.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_00: And importantly,
• 6:31
  SPEAKER_00: major business groups,
• 6:32
  SPEAKER_00: the Chamber of Commerce,
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_00: the National Retail Federation,
• 6:35
  SPEAKER_00: they warned about higher prices and economic harm from the start.
• 6:39
  So the opposition was pretty broad,
• 6:41
  cutting across typical political lines.
• 6:43
  SPEAKER_00: It really did,
• 6:43
  which underscores that the concerns about both the economic
• 6:46
  impact and the process
• 6:49
  SPEAKER_00: used were quite widespread.
• 6:51
  SPEAKER_01: Beyond just filing this lawsuit,
• 6:53
  is Governor Newsom doing other things to try and shield
• 6:55
  California's economy?
• 6:57
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 6:57
  SPEAKER_00: The source suggests he's also working proactively on trade resilience,
• 7:01
  SPEAKER_00: trying to build new international partnerships,
• 7:03
  SPEAKER_00: diversify markets for California goods,
• 7:05
  SPEAKER_00: and strengthen supply chains.
• 7:07
  So not putting all the eggs in the lawsuit basket trying to
• 7:09
  find other trade avenues.
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 7:11
  It seems to be about reducing reliance on maybe volatile trade
• 7:14
  relationships and
• 7:15
  SPEAKER_00: creating more stability.
• 7:17
  There might be efforts to get specific exemptions for
• 7:19
  California products from
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_00: retaliatory tariffs,
• 7:22
  SPEAKER_00: plus programs helping businesses find new suppliers or export markets.
• 7:27
  SPEAKER_01: A kind of two track approach.
• 7:29
  SPEAKER_01: Fight the policy legally, but also adapt to the reality on the ground.
• 7:33
  SPEAKER_00: That appears to be the strategy.
• 7:35
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 7:35
  SPEAKER_00: Mitigating the damage while the legal challenge proceeds.
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_01: OK.
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_01: Let's zoom out one last time.
• 7:39
  SPEAKER_01: The lawsuit is being presented as more than just about tariffs.
• 7:43
  SPEAKER_01: It's about defending democracy and checks and balances.
• 7:46
  SPEAKER_01: Why is that framing so important here?
• 7:48
  SPEAKER_00: Because it taps into fundamental questions about presidential power.
• 7:52
  SPEAKER_00: The concern,
• 7:53
  SPEAKER_00: as articulated by critics,
• 7:54
  is that if a president can use emergency powers so broadly for
• 7:57
  something like trade,
• 7:59
  SPEAKER_00: where does it stop?
• 8:00
  Could it set a precedent for bypassing Congress on other major
• 8:03
  issues just by
• 8:04
  SPEAKER_01: calling it an emergency?
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_00: That's the worry.
• 8:06
  SPEAKER_00: It potentially shifts significant power to the executive branch,
• 8:10
  SPEAKER_00: away from the legislature,
• 8:11
  SPEAKER_00: undermining the separation of powers that's foundational to the U.S.
• 8:15
  SPEAKER_00: system.
• 8:16
  So upholding the constitutional structure is a key motivation
• 8:20
  here beyond just the
• 8:21
  SPEAKER_01: economic arguments.
• 8:22
  It definitely seems to be a major pillar of California's case
• 8:26
  and the public
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_00: arguments being made by Newsom and Bonta.
• 8:29
  SPEAKER_00: It's about preventing what they see as executive overreach.
• 8:33
  SPEAKER_01: So to quickly recap,
• 8:34
  SPEAKER_01: California,
• 8:35
  SPEAKER_01: led by Newsom and Bonta,
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_01: is suing over President Trump's tariffs,
• 8:40
  arguing they're unconstitutional because he allegedly misused
• 8:43
  emergency powers,
• 8:44
  SPEAKER_01: i.e.
• 8:45
  SPEAKER_01: EPA, exceeding his authority and hurting the economy.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 8:49
  SPEAKER_00: And this power properly belongs to Congress,
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_00: especially for actions with such major economic consequences,
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_00: invoking principles like the major questions doctrine.
• 8:57
  And this challenge has seen some bipartisan concern and runs
• 9:01
  alongside California's
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_01: efforts to build trade resilience through other means.
• 9:04
  SPEAKER_00: A complex situation with significant legal and economic dimensions.
• 9:08
  SPEAKER_01: It really leaves you thinking, doesn't it?
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_01: If this use of executive power stands,
• 9:13
  what does that mean for the balance between Congress and the
• 9:15
  president down the
• 9:16
  SPEAKER_01: road on issues maybe far removed from trade?
• 9:18
  SPEAKER_00: That's the provocative question, isn't it?
• 9:21
  What are the long-term implications for how major policy gets
• 9:24
  made if emergency
• 9:25
  SPEAKER_00: declarations become a more common tool for the executive?
• 9:30
  SPEAKER_00: Something to really mull over.
• 9:31
  SPEAKER_01: This has been a fascinating deep dive,
• 9:34
  really illuminated by the analysis in that article from
• 9:37
  attorney Mitch Jackson on
• 9:39
  SPEAKER_01: his uncensored objections substack.
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: Yes,
• 9:42
  his breakdown provides a lot of the legal and political context
• 9:46
  that's crucial for
• 9:47
  SPEAKER_00: understanding this.
• 9:48
  If you want to get a fuller picture of California's arguments
• 9:51
  and the legal
• 9:52
  SPEAKER_01: reasoning involved,
• 9:53
  SPEAKER_01: we absolutely recommend checking out Mitch Jackson's work.
• 9:56
  SPEAKER_00: Definitely worth a read for anyone following this.
• 9:59
  SPEAKER_01: Head over to the Uncensored Objections substack.
• 10:01
  SPEAKER_01: You can read the full article that informed our discussion today.
• 10:04
  SPEAKER_01: And honestly, just explore his other insightful commentary.
• 10:07
  Engaging with analyses like that is key to staying truly
• 10:10
  informed on these complex topics.
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_01: But please do visit Mitch Jackson's Uncensored Objection Substack.
• 10:15
  SPEAKER_01: Subscribe while you're there,
• 10:17
  SPEAKER_01: share the articles you find valuable,
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_01: and join the discussion in the comments.
• 10:21
  SPEAKER_01: Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.