Newsom says Trump’s “illegal tariffs” took your money — and critics torch him over California spending

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is leaning into the Supreme Court’s new tariff ruling — and getting hit from both sides in the replies.

In a post on X on Feb. 20, Newsom wrote: “Imagine what you could have done with the money Donald Trump took away with his illegal tariffs.” The post racked up hundreds of thousands of views within hours, as supporters echoed his point and critics tried to flip the “wasted money” argument back onto California.

Newsom’s framing is tied to a major Supreme Court decision released the same day. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (and a companion case), the court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — known as IEEPA — does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and the lineup included votes from Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both Trump appointees.

The ruling doesn’t automatically answer the biggest question people care about: what happens to money already collected under the now-invalidated tariffs. Legal analysts have flagged that the next phase is likely to involve more court fights over refunds, timing, and mechanics. Newsom’s office moved quickly into that gap, publishing a statement calling for “immediate tariff refund checks” — “with interest” — after the decision.

That “refund” angle became rocket fuel in the comment section.

Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren replied by arguing Newsom’s own spending record undercuts his message, listing California problems and priorities she says should have been addressed first. In other replies, critics cited homelessness, high-speed rail, and immigration-related spending as counterexamples, while some supporters argued tariffs function like a hidden tax that hits consumers through higher prices and retaliation. (Many of the replies cite big dollar figures, but they’re presented as partisan claims — and the back-and-forth is largely about blame, not documentation.)

On the pro-Newsom side, commenters tried to keep the focus on the court’s bottom line: the tariffs were thrown out because the administration leaned on an emergency-powers law that the court said doesn’t cover tariffs. On the anti-Newsom side, the argument was less about the legal details and more about credibility — basically: “You’re talking about wasted money?”

Meanwhile, Trump responded angrily to the ruling in public remarks, blasting the justices who voted against him and signaling he may look for other legal paths to revive tariff policy. Coverage of the fallout has centered on how far the ruling reaches, what it means for importers, and how quickly the administration could try again under a different statute.

For Newsom, the post is a familiar play: tie a national legal moment to a pocketbook message, then dare opponents to argue against “giving people their money back.” For his critics, it’s an invitation to relitigate California’s budget priorities in the loudest possible venue — right under his own post.