Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom posted a video on social media, clearly stating that the Trump administration’s tariff policies “do not represent all Americans.” He stressed that California, as the world’s fifth-largest economy, will keep expanding its international partnerships. Newsom urged the California government to build new strategic trade relationships with global partners to protect the state’s manufacturing, agriculture, and supply chains. This isn’t the first time he’s openly opposed Trump’s tariff plans. Back in November last year, when Trump announced a plan to slap 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and other countries, Newsom spoke out against it multiple times. More than 50% of California’s vegetables come from Mexico, and tariffs would drive up food prices, hitting everyday families hard. Newsom also criticized Trump’s tariffs for going against the USMCA agreement signed during his term, saying they undermine regional trade stability. As America’s top state for agriculture and manufacturing, California’s trade with China hit $137 billion in 2024, and tariffs would directly hurt its key industries. Newsom pointed out that raising tariffs is basically “taxing American families” and could lead to retaliatory moves from trade partners, damaging export businesses. Beyond speaking out, Newsom has taken action, directing the California government to work around federal policies and set up direct trade deals with places like the EU and Asia to lessen the tariffs’ impact on the state.
For now, let’s not dig into Trump’s exact reasons for pushing tariffs. Just the fact that all American states are forced under one tariff system feels like a stomp on state rights and goes against America’s founding ideas. Those ideas go back to the country’s early days. After the Revolutionary War, the U.S. ran under a confederation system where each state controlled its own tariffs. So when did states lose that power? It happened on September 17, 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was passed. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “set and collect tariffs, import taxes, and other duties,” and says those tariffs must be the same across the whole country. Plus, to limit state power, Article I, Section 10 bans states from taxing imports or exports without Congress’s approval. From that point on, the Constitution pulled tariff control away from the states and handed it to the federal government. Once the Constitution kicked in, the first Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1789, setting an average rate of about 8.5%, mostly to pay off debts and shield local manufacturing. The guy behind that law was Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, who pushed for higher tariffs to boost industry. In his 1791 Report on Manufactures, he laid out the “infant industry protection theory,” which has shaped U.S. tariff policies ever since. Doesn’t Trump’s talk sound a lot like Hamilton’s old lines?
The way the federal government took over tariff powers can be seen in two totally different lights. If you’re all for a strong, united America, the tariff rules in the Constitution are a big win for federalism, giving the federal government control over the economy and ending the loose confederation system—basically creating real “central power.” But if you buy what California’s governor said today—that California shouldn’t have its tariffs dictated by Trump’s Washington—then looking at the Constitution, you’d say it was a huge step backward on tariffs. That step also fueled tensions between the North and South. Northern industrial states wanted high tariffs to protect their factories, while Southern farming states hated how tariffs jacked up the cost of imported goods. This split was one of the economic sparks that led to the Civil War.
A lot of people think the Civil War was just about freeing slaves, but that might be too simple—maybe even tricked by the one-sided stories in Chinese history textbooks. History’s truth can be tough to face, and it’s way more complicated than textbooks make it. When the Civil War started in April 1861, Lincoln made it clear his main goal was to stop the Southern states from breaking away from the Union. In his March 4, 1861, inaugural speech, he said, “The Union is forever” and promised not to mess with slavery where it already existed. Early in the war, Lincoln was careful about slavery, steering clear of calling it an “abolition war” to keep border slave states like Missouri and Kentucky on his side. In August 1861, when Northern General John Fremont declared slaves in Missouri free on his own, Lincoln quickly canceled that order, saying the war was about “saving the Union, not ending slavery.” It wasn’t until 1862, when the war was stuck, the North was losing people, and international pressure was growing, that abolitionists, radical Republicans, and Black rights leaders pushed Lincoln to make ending slavery the war’s goal—to claim the moral high ground and win global support. In a 1862 letter to the New York Tribune, Lincoln wrote, “My top goal is to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery… But if freeing the slaves would save the Union, I’d do it.” Still, back then, the Constitution let states leave the Union, so Lincoln’s war was technically against the Constitution.
We’ve wandered a bit far with Lincoln—let’s get back to Trump. I know Trump’s tariff moves have split my friends again, with some cheering him on. They think he’s playing a big game, using the threat of higher tariffs to eventually lower them. Come on, even if you like Trump, do you have to polish him up that much? Are you really so sure he’s out to save the world? Isn’t this just Trump’s version of a big game? People who buy the “big game” idea often just imagine what they want, taking Trump’s words as his real reasons. But check the tariff list he put out—even countries friendly with the U.S. get hit: 20% on the EU, 24% on Japan, 17% on Israel, and even Argentina, which sticks close to Trump, gets 10%. There are two kinds of “big game” fans: one group backs Trump’s game, the other backs China’s. Both share something—they’re fine with a strong group forcing its way, even if it messes up regular people’s economic lives, no matter the cost, as long as that group gets what it wants. Maybe those fans never see themselves as part of that cost. But can you at least hear the people paying it? What about folks in trade businesses? Their workers? People whose daily lives get hit?
Plz, can you stand with civilization instead of always rooting for force?