This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact The Epoch Times Reprints.
A stone lion stands outside the Consulate General of the People's Republic of China in San Francisco in a file photo. Philip Pacheco/AFP via Getty Images
Since before Ronald Reagan’s time as governor, Californians have considered their rich and bountiful home something of a “nation-state.” It’s a phrase Gov. Gavin Newsom has employed repeatedly—and a description he seems to have taken literally: California has fostered its own diplomatic relationship with China for years.
The stated rationale is the need for energy and economic collaboration. But some critics believe that China’s own motivations are not so high-minded. One such critic, Brigham McCown, a scholar from the Hudson Institute, fears that the relationship will cause Californians to become “unwitting instruments in China’s propaganda efforts.”
The subnational diplomatic ties between California and China are well established. A 2014 report details California’s long-standing work with China in the energy sector. But they are not without controversy, particularly in recent years.
In 2023, Newsom was criticized for “cozying up to” the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on his 2023 trip to China, during which he signed five memoranda of understanding (MOUs) regarding climate change.
MOUs are nonbinding agreements between a state and a country, and California currently shares 17 with China, a much higher number than it shares with most other countries. For reference, the next comparable numbers are the 12 MOUs California shares with Mexico and the nine it shares with Japan. Besides those countries, California’s MOUs per country hover around the one-to-five range.
While it is difficult to obtain the exact numbers, Ryan Scoville, a professor of law at Marquette University, compiled a list of U.S. state commitments with foreign governments, including MOUs, and found that California leads with at least 94 agreements, with Maryland coming in second place with 68.
There is evidence for a subversive type of Chinese influence in California as well. The late Dianne Feinstein, the longest-serving female senator in history and a key figure in Californian politics, made headlines after it was revealed that her driver was a Chinese spy. California Rep. Eric Swalwell was embarrassed by revelations that a Chinese operative had been targeting him and working on his campaign.
Most recently, California and the federal government have been embroiled in a lawsuit over President Donald Trump’s tariffs. The lawsuit “argues that President Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs against Mexico, China, and Canada or create an across-the-board 10 percent tariff.”
The California governor’s official website states: “California’s economy and workers rely heavily on this trade activity, particularly with Mexico, Canada, and China—our top 3 trade partners. Over 40 percent of California imports come from these countries, totaling $203 billion of the more than $491 billion in goods imported by California in 2024.”
Though state leaders are insistent that their diplomatic efforts are for the good of Californians, scholars remain divided over whether such diplomacy is necessary, or whether it creates a national security threat.
Does Subnational Diplomacy Undermine US Policy?
Yuichiro Kakutani, a policy adviser at the China and Indo-Pacific Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, told RealClearPolitics (RCP), “Widespread malign Chinese influence in California presents a concrete national security risk to the United States.”
Kakutani explained that the CCP is more dangerous to engage with than other countries since it “has proven adept at manipulating state-level officials” and listed several examples, including China’s efforts to influence California elections and UC–Berkley’s tech deal that gave the Chinese access to U.S. research.
Brigham McCown, a senior fellow and director of the Initiative on American Energy Security at the Hudson Institute, another conservative think tank, offered a similar, though more nuanced, perspective to RCP.
“While California’s activities may not directly undermine an administration’s agenda in a legal sense, its actions can complicate America’s diplomatic posture, especially when unity is vital to facing strategic challenges,” McCown said.
McCown explained that not only has China learned how to manipulate politicians, but also, it has a long history of discreetly “exploiting internal divisions” among Americans.
“Californians should be cautious not to become unwitting instruments in China’s propaganda efforts,” he warned.
McCown also touched on the tariff lawsuit, which has been ruled on in favor of California, though an appeals court paused the decision, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect. He explained that the case is particularly relevant as it dictates the boundaries of state and federal authority.
“These types of cases raise an important constitutional standing issue, which is: ‘Who has standing to challenge federal decisions in matters of foreign policy?’” McCown said.
McCown admitted that California may have ground to oppose the tariffs on an economic level, but he said that it does not have the authority to rise against the federal government on the matter.
He explained, “While states may object to the economic consequences of federal action, under our federal system, states must defer to the national government in areas where the Constitution clearly delegates authority—particularly foreign commerce and international relations.”
The Benefits to California
Not every scholar sees a problem. Kal Raustiala, the director of the UCLA Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations and a professor of comparative and international law at UCLA Law School, said he believes that subnational diplomacy is vital for California’s flourishing.
“In our system the federal government takes the lead on foreign affairs. But that doesn’t mean that states have no role,” Raustiala said.
He said that as long as states are not actively contradicting or undermining federal foreign policy, the federal government has no real reason to intervene.
“As a nation known for liberty and freedom, I think sometimes having multiple voices and opinions is good,” Raustiala said. “I think other nations around the world understand that we are a big, varied nation with many views on key issues.”
In addressing the tariff lawsuit, Raustiala stated that California is protecting both its own people and its foreign interests.
“California is the most economically dynamic state in the union,” he told RCP. “We are big traders, big exporters, and have big, active ports. Trade is important, and California is seeking to ensure that trade continues to bring prosperity—prosperity that allows California to be a major net donor to the federal government year after year.”
