National Tariffs Fuel Growing Support for California Secession

California officials filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump on April 16, challenging his authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing the move exceeds executive power.

The lawsuit contends that the 10% levy on all imports, along with an additional 20% on Chinese imports, is an overreach of President Trump’s constitutional authority, threatening California’s industries and economic interests. These tariffs, expanded by the Trump administration under IEEPA, cite national security concerns—specifically the fentanyl crisis—as the reasoning for their implementation.

The lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges California has brought against President Trump during his current term. By mid-April 2025, at least 15 suits had been filed in response to various executive actions.

“The President’s power to impose these tariffs doesn’t come from the Constitution,” said David Sloss, an international law specialist and professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, when asked about the scope of presidential authority to impose tariffs. “So it’s gotta come, if at all, from a statute passed by Congress that grants the President authority, right? There are other statutes out there that explicitly grant the president the authority to sort of impose tariffs, but they have certain procedural requirements. President Trump did not go through the procedural requirements.”

The statute invoked to implement the current tariffs—IEEPA—gives the President broad authority to regulate economic transactions following a national emergency declaration. The national emergency, initially cited in early February to address the fentanyl and drug crisis tied to mass illegal immigration, later shifted by April to focus on an “overreliance” on foreign minerals, products and materials vital to national defense.

California claims that the tariffs have had “devastating impacts,” particularly on the state’s economy. The state “bears an inordinate share of these costs,” the lawsuit argues, given its status as the world’s fourth-largest economy—surpassing Japan in early 2025.

“It does hurt California tremendously,” said Anna Han, associate professor of law with a specialization in Chinese trade law. “When it’s passed in Congress, you have congressional representatives negotiating from every state, negotiating on their behalf. All of these things were not taken into consideration, and now it becomes a kind of lobbying—you say, ‘Hey, this impacts me, don’t do this to me.’ And that’s not efficient, nor is it right.”

California is not the first party to file a suit against the president on this issue. The Liberty Justice Center filed a similar lawsuit against President Trump on April 14, arguing many of the same points while highlighting the specific impact these tariffs have on small, local businesses across the country.

California’s agriculture industry, in particular, is bracing for significant losses as a result of the tariffs.

"It's not the interference with the contracts," Han said, describing the broader economic implications of the tariffs on existing agreements between California and foreign countries. “It's the cost of goods to the consumers, to the importers. All of these things are going to be tariffed at extraordinarily high prices, and this is going to cause inflation here in the United States because we are such a huge trading partner."

As a result of the tariffs and the ongoing tension between California and the federal government, some have begun to question whether the situation strengthens the arguments for California’s permanent secession from the United States.

The Calexit movement—a campaign advocating for California’s secession, active since 2014—gained traction following Donald Trump’s first term in 2016 and has seen renewed momentum since 2024. Organizers hope to place secession on the ballot.

The movement cites California’s outsized federal tax contributions, robust economy, and growing global influence as justification for leaving the United States and becoming a sovereign nation.

But could California actually secede?

“There’s no clear Constitutional answer,” Sloss said.

The 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines four requirements for statehood: a permanent population, defined territory, effective government and the ability to engage in foreign relations.

However, Sloss also pointed to a second legal theory—one that hinges on states recognizing each other.

“Whether you’re a state under international law depends entirely on whether there are other states that recognize you,” Sloss said. "So what other states would recognize California under international law? That would depend a lot on the attitude of the federal government.”

"I think the critical factor here is the national government basically saying, ‘Go with our blessing,’” says Sloss. “But if the federal government says, ‘No, California is a part of the United States,’ there aren’t a whole lot of states that are going to line up and side with California.”

As the legal battle continues, many wonder if the verdict will not only decide the future of the tariffs but also reshape how California interacts with the federal government on issues of national importance.