Greenberg: Newsom Once Again Proves He’s Unfit to Lead

 In the grand theater of international trade, tariffs have always been the quiet enforcers, leveling the playing field when other nations play dirty, protect domestic jobs, and occasionally remind adversaries that actions have consequences.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for broad tariffs was a procedural setback, not a death knell. The 6-3 decision essentially said, “Nice try, but IEEPA doesn’t cover tariffs.”

Undeterred, Trump pivoted within hours to another set of legal tools: Sections 122 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, among others, proving once again that creative governance beats hand-wringing every time.

Tariffs aren’t merely taxes, they’re strategic instruments.

They counter currency manipulation, state subsidies, intellectual-property theft, and outright dumping. They encourage companies to bring manufacturing home or at least diversify away from single-point-of-failure suppliers. Targeted correctly, they generate revenue while forcing trading partners to the negotiating table.

Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs aimed to match what other countries already charge U.S. exports, hardly a radical concept unless you believe America should unilaterally disarm in trade wars.

And let’s be honest: the short-term price bump consumers feel is often outweighed by long-term gains in industrial capacity and bargaining power. The 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs, for example, sparked a measurable revival in those sectors, adding tens of thousands of jobs according to multiple economic analyses.

Nowhere is the punitive power of tariffs more justified than with China, whose role in the fentanyl crisis is impossible to ignore. Over 100,000 Americans die annually from overdoses, many tied to precursors shipped from Chinese chemical plants. Beijing’s promises to crack down have been as reliable as their weather forecasts, loud announcements followed by business-as-usual.

Tariffs apply economic pressure where diplomacy alone has failed, linking trade privileges to cooperation on a literal killer export. Trump’s earlier tariff rounds extracted real concessions on agriculture purchases and fentanyl commitments. Keeping that leverage intact isn’t protectionism; it’s basic self-defense.

Enter California Governor Gavin Newsom, who, mere minutes after the Supreme Court ruling, rushed to the microphones to deliver what can only be described as a masterclass in performative outrage. He scolded Trump, branded the tariffs an “illegal cash grab,” and demanded immediate refunds with interest for every overcharged American. One almost expects him to hand out tissue boxes at the next presser. The sincerity would be touching if it weren’t so transparently selective.

Newsom didn’t just criticize; he actively worked against the policy. In 2025 he joined an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike the tariffs down, arguing they exceeded presidential authority and hurt California’s economy. Yes, usually governors defend their states. But the timing and tone reveal a deeper posture: one that reflexively sides with open borders for goods (even when those goods come laced with lethal chemicals) over tools that pressure the very country enabling the fentanyl pipeline.

Newsom’s 2023 pilgrimage to Beijing, complete with warm meetings with Xi Jinping, praise for climate cooperation, and conspicuously gentle handling of the fentanyl question, only fuels the impression that Sacramento’s priorities sometimes align more closely with Pacific Rim boardrooms than with America’s (and San Francisco’s ) Main Street overdose statistics.

The irony practically writes itself: while American families bury their children, Newsom lectures the nation on the evils of trying to stop the flow at its source. He demands refunds for tariff “victims” yet offers no equivalent urgency for refunding the lives lost to Chinese-sourced precursors. It’s a curious brand of populism, one that champions consumers’ wallets over citizens’ safety and frames national-security trade measures as petty overreach rather than long-overdue accountability.

This pattern raises a larger question about Newsom’s fitness for national leadership.

A president must weigh state-level gripes against the country’s collective security and economic sovereignty. Newsom’s rhetoric, polished, indignant, and relentlessly focused on short-term price tags, suggests a preference for applause lines over hard choices. When the Supreme Court handed Trump a narrow loss, the president responded by doubling down on alternative authorities and vowing to keep fighting unfair trade.

Newsom responded by clutching pearls and calling for checks to be cut. The contrast is stark, and not in the governor’s favor.

Tariffs, wielded with precision, remain one of the few levers America has left to equalize commerce and punish bad actors. Trump understands that; Newsom appears more comfortable scolding the effort than confronting the problem. In an era when fentanyl kills more Americans each year than car accidents, that disconnect isn’t merely political, it’s dangerously out of step with the moment.