In the aftermath of President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement, California governor Gavin Newsom quickly sprang into action—well, not so much “action” as the governor beseeching foreign lands to exempt the Golden State from retaliatory tariffs.
“Donald Trump’s tariffs do not represent all Americans,” Newsom uttered in this social media video. “And on behalf of 40 million Americans that live in the great state of California, the tentpole of the US economy . . . the dominant manufacturing state in America, our state of mind is around supporting stable trading relationships around the globe."
Which raises at least two questions.
First, how many world leaders would choose to take sides with a term-limited governor (who may or may not run for president in 2028) knowing it could antagonize a term-limited president (who may or may not want to leave office in 2029)?
Second, does Newsom’s entreaty to make, in effect, side treaties between California and other nations pass legal muster? I’m thinking especially of the federal Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution), which grants Congress rather than the states the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes,” as well as the federal Logan Act, which bans US citizens from engaging in unauthorized communications with foreign governments in ways that might influence their policies or actions.
Of course, that second question would be moot if California were a nation unto itself. And that just happens to be the subject of a proposed ballot measure that might come to a vote in 2028 (its organizers have until late July to collect the 546,541 signatures of registered voters needed to qualify for the ballot). What the measure asks: “Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?”
Before we start to imagine what a reconfigured 49-star American flag might resemble, or whether Canada might replace the Golden State as a 50th star, a word of caution. Should the secession measure receive majority support, all that would ensue is a commission to report on California’s viability as an independent land.
And after that?
As California can’t break away on its own (this week being the 160th anniversary of the Confederate surrender at Appomattox and an end to the effort by 13 states to secede from the union), one scenario would be for the Supreme Court to revisit a post–Civil War ruling on the permanency of the union. Otherwise, secession is only so much “California dreaming.”
What is not a dream—and is in fact a harsh reality—is the importance of the initiative process in establishing a conservative policy beachhead in the Golden State.
The emerging 2026 election underscores this. On the one hand, California Republicans looking for a greater say in Sacramento’s decision making could invest their time and resources trying to secure one of the state’s constitutional offices. But to do so means finding a way around what I call the “Chen line” of California politics. Named in honor of Hoover fellow Lanhee Chen, who ran for state controller in 2022 and exceeded expectations (including the rarity of a Republican candidate receiving a Los Angeles Times endorsement), it suggests that Chen’s 44.7% support is the ceiling for statewide GOP hopefuls (in 2022, none of the six other Republicans on the same ballot as Chen seeking a statewide post managed to clear 41.2%).
But the initiative side of the ballot tells a different story. Take 2024’s Proposition 36, which increased the punishment for drug and theft crimes. Prop 36 sailed to victory by a larger than two-to-one margin statewide (it was the only ballot measure to receive majority support in each of California’s 58 counties). Moreover, it had the added political benefit of cleaving prominent California Democrats (Governor Newsom opposing, big-city mayors supporting).
Will there be a Proposition 36–like disrupter on California’s 2026 ballot? And what might be the topic? One possibility: voter ID laws. At present, the group Reform California hopes to place a measure on the 2026 ballot requiring citizenship verification for voter registration and a photo ID when casting a vote, plus providing the last four digits of a government-issued ID when mailing in ballots (the group cites a January poll of 800 Californians showing 52% of Democrats, 93% of Republicans, and 70% of independents in favor of proof of ID).
Then again—judging by two measures that have already qualified for the November 2026 ballot—conservatives aren’t the only partisans looking at the initiative process as a means to a political end. One of those two proposals stipulates that any initiative proposing a higher threshold for approval of a policy matter must likewise pass by the same higher threshold (translation: if you want to require two-thirds support for a tax increase, the ballot measure must be receive the same two-thirds support as opposed to a simple majority).
Also on the ballot: fiddling with California’s recall process. If the proposed initiative passes, the lieutenant governor will automatically succeed an ousted governor rather than voters choosing from a slate of replacement candidates, followed by a special election to decide who governs for the remainder of the four-year term. Under this scenario, there would have been no Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Instead of Arnold serving out the remainder of Gray Davis’s term and then seeking re-election in 2006, the job would have gone to then–lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante, followed by a special election in 2004.
As for other possible ballot measures in 2026, some have a distinctly California flavor. The so-called Sustainable, Healthy Earth Act, for example, mandates that the Golden State’s public schools “shall provide each pupil with 30-hours of healthy Earth sustainability education and best practices training every two years.” The purpose being: “to take steps to move away from fossil fuels, better use resources, protect and restore Earth's ecosystems, reduce consumption of animal products, stabilize the human population, and more.”
Meanwhile, one other measure looks to get away with murder—more precisely, using a high-profile accused murderer to advance a cause. The so-called Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act, named after the accused killer of health insurance executive Brian Thompson, proposes: “No insurer may delay, deny or modify any medical procedure or medication . . . where the delay, denial or modification could result in disability, death, amputation, permanent disfigurement, loss or reduction or any bodily function.”
What’s not a coincidence: The word “deny” was among the words scribbled on the bullet casings found at the scene of Thompson’s murder – Mangione’s alleged crime has been cast in an empathetic light by some (and even glorified by others), as he reportedly suffered from back pain, brain fog, and sciatica.
Mangione’s name may not make it to the California ballot in 2026—the state attorney general has the final say on initiatives’ titles and summaries. But it shows to what lengths some organizers will go to get noticed. The question is: Will the next round of ballot measures have a noticeable impact on California’s future in terms of advancing conservative causes?
