A Four-Step Plan for a Stronger California in the Trump Era
How the Golden State Can Defend Its Autonomy Against Federal Overreach
From economic coercion to unchecked executive power, the federal government is escalating its attempts to undermine California’s independence. Less than 45 days into his second term, Donald Trump has already brought the state to a crossroads: Will California secure its autonomy, or will it bow to federal overreach?
California is not just another state—it is a global economic powerhouse, home to nearly 40 million people, and a leader in technology, agriculture, trade, and cultural influence. Its policies often set the standard for the rest of the nation, and its $4 trillion economy ranks among the largest in the world. Despite its great influence, the state remains vulnerable to federal overreach under a Trump presidency.
Rather than waiting for principled Republican Congresional lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to grow a spine, California must take immediate action to strengthen its independence—ensuring its residents can uphold their values, protect their communities, and defend themselves from hostile federal overreach. This approach focuses on maximizing state-level autonomy through legal and economic means.
For decades, the Republican Party has championed states’ rights and limited federal government, arguing that states should have greater autonomy to govern themselves without interference from the federal government. Now, California can use the very legal framework crafted by conservative activists, lawmakers, and judges to push back against the Trump administration—turning their own precedent into a shield for California’s sovereignty.
Step 1: Assert Sovereignty Under the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affirms that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle, reinforcing that Congress cannot compel states to enforce federal policies—a doctrine known as anti-commandeering.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment
Legal Precedent Against Federal Overreach
The Supreme Court’s rulings in landmark cases such as Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018) have made clear that the federal government cannot force state officials to enforce federal mandates. In National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius (2012), the Court also ruled that federal funding conditions cannot be used as a coercive tool to strip states of their autonomy. These cases establish a legal foundation for California to resist federal overreach, ensuring that its governance remains independent and aligned with the needs of its residents rather than dictated by Washington, D.C.
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” – Printz v. United States
This precedent was further reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), when the Court struck down a provision of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that prohibited states from legalizing sports betting. The Court found that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures, whether through mandates requiring action or prohibiting it. This decision expanded the anti-commandeering principle, making it clear that the federal government cannot control state policymaking through indirect prohibitions or outright demands.
Additionally, while Congress may attach conditions to federal funds under its Spending Clause powers, this power has limits. In National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court struck down the Medicaid expansion mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), ruling that threatening to withhold all federal Medicaid funding unless states complied was unconstitutional coercion. Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly noted that when states have no real choice in accepting federal conditions, it amounts to unconstitutional commandeering. The court’s ruling suggests that any federal attempt to financially coerce California into enforcing federal mandates can be legally challenged under the same principle.
By formalizing these protections, California can ensure that its governance remains independent and aligned with the needs of its residents rather than dictated by Washington, D.C.
Step 2: Leverage Economic Power to Resist Federal Coercion
California’s $4 trillion economy provides the state with substantial leverage to push back against federal coercion. As a net contributor to the federal government, California pays more in federal taxes than it receives in funding. Yet, Washington has historically used financial pressure as a tool for political control.
State-Controlled Federal Tax Escrow Accounts
One way to counteract this is by withholding or redirecting federal tax revenue into state-controlled escrow accounts before remitting it to the federal government. While states cannot legally refuse to send federal taxes unilaterally, they can explore legal avenues to temporarily hold funds to ensure compliance with state priorities before remittance.
This tactic aligns with past legal challenges regarding federal funding mechanisms, such as state-led lawsuits over Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. By first assessing federal funds for alignment with California’s interests, the state can prevent financial exploitation and retain greater control over its own resources.
Establishing a State Public Banking System
California should also establish a state-sponsored public banking system to assert financial independence and reduce reliance on federally regulated institutions. A state-run bank would allow California to directly control and reinvest its financial resources, funding critical infrastructure, housing, and social programs without being subject to federal constraints or political interference.
Public banking is not a radical concept—it has historical precedent. North Dakota has successfully operated a state-owned bank for over a century, using it to finance local economic development and infrastructure projects while shielding its financial resources from federal overreach. A California Public Bank could function similarly, offering the state greater control over its financial ecosystem while redirecting revenue toward state priorities rather than funneling it through federally regulated institutions that may impose restrictions.
By establishing state-owned escrow accounts and a financial institution, California can ensure that its resources remain within the state, shielding its economy from the political weaponization of federal financial systems—a tactic Washington has already used against California. In doing so, the state can further insulate itself from federal economic coercion, reinforcing its long-term fiscal autonomy.
Step 3: Develop Infrastructure Independence
California’s infrastructure—ports, energy grid, and supply chains—must be safeguarded against federal interference. As a global economic hub, the state must maintain stability regardless of Washington’s decisions.
Strengthening Control Over Ports and Supply Chains
First, California must strengthen control over its ports and supply chains by invoking its regulatory authority over intrastate commerce and state-owned infrastructure. While the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the federal government authority over interstate and international trade, states retain broad control over intrastate commerce and state-operated infrastructure.
California reserves the authority to regulate business operations, environmental protections, and labor standards within its ports, indirectly influencing federal trade policies without violating federal law. Given California’s role as the gateway for international trade, securing control over its shipping and distribution networks will ensure continued economic strength, even if federal policies attempt to interfere.
Expanding Economic and Trade Partnerships
Second, California should expand economic partnerships with other states and international entities. While formal international trade agreements fall under federal jurisdiction, California can still negotiate economic and climate-related partnerships with foreign nations—as it has done with Canada, China, and the European Union. These partnerships do not violate federal trade laws but allow California to influence economic stability and resilience, even if Washington imposes restrictive policies.
Building a State-Managed Energy Grid
Finally, developing a state-managed energy grid is essential. Texas serves as a key example, operating its own power grid independently and remaining largely disconnected from federally regulated energy markets. While Texas’ grid has faced challenges, its autonomy demonstrates that a state-managed system is legally feasible and allows greater control over energy policy, pricing, and regulations.
By strengthening partnerships with technology companies and investing in renewable energy infrastructure, microgrids, and storage technology, California can build an independent energy system that is more resilient than Texas’ system and less susceptible to federal regulations and interference.
Step 4: Defend State Authority Through Legal and Political Challenges
When federal actions threaten California’s autonomy, the state must respond with aggressive legal and political resistance. California has already demonstrated that legal action is one of its most effective tools, having successfully sued the federal government multiple times. To safeguard state sovereignty, these legal battles must be expanded and strengthened.
Expanding and Strengthening Sanctuary Laws
California must broaden its sanctuary laws, which limit state cooperation with federal enforcement when it conflicts with state priorities. While commonly associated with immigration, sanctuary protections should be expanded to healthcare, environmental regulations, and gun control, where California’s policies diverge from federal mandates. The anti-commandeering principle, as upheld by the Supreme Court, ensures that the federal government cannot force California to implement or enforce federal laws that contradict its policies. By strengthening sanctuary laws, California can proactively block federal overreach and prevent its agencies from being weaponized to enforce laws that go against state values.
Using Legal Challenges to Block Federal Overreach
One of California’s strongest tools is its ability to challenge unconstitutional federal actions in court—a strategy that has repeatedly proven effective. The state has legal standing to sue when federal policies harm its residents, violate the 10th Amendment, or impose mandates that exceed federal authority. California must continue expanding its legal strategy by challenging unconstitutional executive orders and congressional mandates, blocking federal policies that disproportionately harm the state, and defending California’s legal authority in key areas like emissions standards, labor laws, and consumer protections.
To ensure California is always prepared for legal challenges, the state should establish a dedicated legal defense fund to finance lawsuits against federal overreach, support litigation on behalf of cities and municipalities challenging unjust federal mandates, and ensure legal teams have the resources needed to respond swiftly to federal threats.
Preventing State Agencies from Enforcing Federal Mandates
California must also codify legal protections that explicitly prohibit state agencies from enforcing federal policies that contradict state law, unless explicitly required by the U.S. Constitution. While the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law takes precedence, the anti-commandeering principle, upheld by the Supreme Court, ensures that the federal government cannot force states to enforce its mandates. By passing laws that prevent state resources from being used to enforce unconstitutional federal policies, California can block federal law enforcement from commandeering local agencies for immigration crackdowns, prevent state agencies from assisting in federal rollbacks of environmental protections, and ensure that California’s laws are upheld without interference from Washington.
Forming Coalitions With Other States
Finally, California must expand its legal and political alliances with other states that share its commitment to state sovereignty and resistance against federal overreach. When multiple states unite in legal and political resistance, they can apply significant pressure on the federal government. States with similar policy goals—such as Oregon, Washington, and New York—can join California in a strategic coalition to file joint lawsuits against unconstitutional federal policies, create multi-state agreements on key issues like climate change, worker protections, and healthcare, and collectively lobby Congress to resist federal overreach. Strengthening interstate cooperation will ensure that state-led legal challenges remain an effective tool against federal intrusion.
Addressing Concerns and Potential Risks
Some critics may argue that these actions could provoke retaliation from the federal government, whether through funding cuts or increased political resistance. However, California has resisted federal overreach, most notably in environmental policies, healthcare, and immigration laws. The state has both the economic and legal power to withstand federal pressure, and by forming coalitions with other states, it can further reinforce its position. Taking proactive steps now will ensure California is prepared to defend its autonomy rather than being forced into reactionary measures later.
Moreover, the federal government has already begun targeting California with financial punishment. In a striking example, within his first few days in office, Trump halted federal disaster relief funding for California following the recent devastating Southern California wildfires, leaving tens of thousands of Americans without critical support. This demonstrates how Trump is already weaponizing the federal government’s financial leverage to exert control over the state, further reinforcing the urgency for California to secure its economic independence.
Where Does California Go From Here?
This four-step plan is not merely a policy proposal but a call to action for Californians who believe in self-governance and protecting their state’s future. The time to act is now. Californians must demand legislative action and push their representatives to implement these measures.
As the largest subnational economy in the world, California has the unique ability to resist federal pressure in ways that smaller states cannot. Its economic influence, control over global trade, and dominant population make it the most powerful counterweight to federal overreach. If the state fails to act, Washington will dictate policies that do not reflect the values or needs of the Golden State.
The question is no longer if California should defend itself—it’s whether it can afford not to.