There has been no shortage of unhinged reactions to President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda, but two recent developments in particular are worth mentioning as indicative of a disturbing trend within the American left.

First, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom is proposing something akin to negotiating his free trade deals with foreign powers to bypass Trump’s tariffs. This move appears to flagrantly violate the Constitution and Newsom’s oath to uphold it. Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, at least one liberal lawmaker in Rhode Island is so upset with Trump’s tariffs that he has requested that the governor revert to British colonial trade law from the 17th century to undermine a democratically elected president.

President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs coupled 10% across-the-board fees with additional imposts totaling half of each nation’s trade surplus with the United States. He then suspended the “reciprocal tariffs” on most nations but imposed significantly higher fees on the People’s Republic of China.

In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit last week, implausibly asserting that the president lacks the statutory authority to impose global tariffs. In reality, Congress deferred “sweeping powers to the President to control economic transactions” under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), as the Congressional Research Service has noted.

Presidents have declared dozens of national emergencies since IEEPA’s passage in 1977, and 57% of them remained in effect as of last January. It’s hard to argue with President Trump’s concerns that overreliance on China for strategic goods could undermine national security. 

Undeterred by this apparently obvious legal reality, Newsom earlier this month also instructed his state to “pursue new strategic trade relationships with international partners.” He pleaded with other countries “to exempt California-made products from any retaliatory measures,” because, unlike Trump, Newsom asserts, he believes in “fair, open, and mutually beneficial trade.” Under his watch, we are told, “[T]he Golden State will remain a steady, reliable partner for generations to come, no matter the turbulence coming out of Washington. California is not Washington, D.C.”

Of course, states crafting their own trade or foreign policies violates the Constitution, which vests Congress with the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that foreign trade agreements remain the exclusive privilege of the federal government.

Back in 1915, in Brolan v. United States, the Court ruled that the federal government’s control over foreign trade is so complete that Congress could “absolutely prohibit foreign importations,” if it wished. In 1933, the Court ruled in Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States that “the control of importation does not rest with the state but with the Congress,” because “[i]n international relations and with respect to foreign intercourse and trade the people of the United States act through a single government.” In the 1976 case Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages Tax Commission, the justices unanimously reiterated that states cannot regulate foreign trade, because “the Federal Government must speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments.” That decision was then reaffirmed in 1979.

Perhaps bowing to the limits of American jurisprudence, one Democratic lawmaker has proposed his state ignore the U.S. Constitution – and the Declaration of Independence – entirely and return to a long-dead statute enacted by the British crown.

“I would like to respectfully request that you use the powers of your office as granted by King Charles II in our 1663 Royal Charter to establish free trade zones in the state of Rhode Island,” wrote State Rep. Joseph McNamara (D-19) to Governor Daniel McKee, a Democrat, on April 9. “The Royal Charter states, ‘Upon the lawful and civil occasions and to converse, and hold commerce and trade, with such inhabitants of other colonies peaceably. And lastly, we do for us our heirs and successors grant unto said Governor and their successors.’”

“The Royal Charter expressly gives your office the ability to establish free trade zones in the state of Rhode Island,” McNamara averred.

McNamara’s citation of the 1663 British manifest is both illegal and irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence rendered all royal privileges and prerogatives moot. The U.S. is no longer governed by the Sovereign of England (although we have unhappily become the home to the king’s younger son and daughter-in-law).

McNamara also misinterprets the Royal Charter, which legalized “commerce and trade with such inhabitants of other colonies.” Not even the ugliest American would assert Uyghur slave laborers work in American “colonies.” The charter’s previous clause defined that term as “the rest of our Colonies in New England,” as contrasted with “our kingdom of England.” These 13 “English Colonies” became the United States.

The Constitution not only allows but compels Rhode Island to carry out free trade with all 50 states — which is precisely the economic zone President Trump intends to enlarge. And Americans have good reasons to believe Trump’s proposed deregulation and tax reforms will more than offset any negative consequences of tariffs and spur an economic boom greater than that under his first administration. Democrats’ real problem is political, not economic.

McNamara’s back-to-the-future trade policy reveals the extent to which the Democratic Party has become a post-American party. Denial of American exceptionalism has become a hallmark of Democratic rhetoric.

Then-New York governor and current New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo won the media’s adulation after insisting President Trump is “not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” Liberals seem to believe all the wealth America has gained since 1619 is illegitimate; therefore, they should furnish our entire GDP to any foreigner who requests it as a form of reparations. Of all the president’s personality traits, his patriotic insistence on prioritizing his own citizens most triggers the liberals’ Trump Derangement Syndrome.

While Democrats continually warn that President Trump harbors racist, dictatorial designs, they retreat behind the laws of dead white men who believed in the divine right of kings. Apparently, some liberals so seek to sabotage the duly elected president of the United States’ America First agenda that they would prefer to invoke centuries-old powers conferred by unelected monarchs. Nothing about that process is democratic.

Rev. Ben Johnson is an Eastern Orthodox priest and editor at the Family Research Council’s news website, The Washington Stand. You can follow him on X at @therightswriter. His views are his own.