In a twist that surprises absolutely no one, the state of California and its judicial allies have once again decided that their moral compass is the only one that matters. This time, they’re not content with just regulating your gas stove or banning plastic straws. No, the Golden State’s legal crusaders are now aiming higher—much higher—like, “let’s dictate U.S. foreign policy” higher. Their target? Former President Donald Trump’s recent decision to authorize airstrikes on Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. Because, apparently, Sacramento knows better than the Pentagon when it comes to geopolitics.
Last week, as reports surfaced of U.S. drones lighting up Iranian facilities suspected of housing nuclear warheads, California’s Attorney General, backed by a chorus of like-minded federal judges, sprang into action. They filed an emergency injunction in the Ninth Circuit Court, claiming the strikes were “an unconstitutional overreach of executive power” and “a violation of international norms.” Translation: Trump’s bombing bad guys is bad, and we, the enlightened coastal elites, must stop him. Never mind that Iran’s been chanting “Death to America” since 1979 or that their nuclear program could turn the Middle East into a glowing parking lot. Details, schmetails.
The legal argument? It’s a masterpiece of creative fiction. California’s lawyers argue that the airstrikes “disproportionately harm marginalized communities” by “destabilizing global markets, which could raise gas prices in low-income neighborhoods.” Yes, you read that right. Bombing a rogue regime’s nuclear sites is now an environmental justice issue. They also claim the strikes violate the Paris Climate Accord because, you know, explosions release carbon. Somewhere, Greta Thunberg is nodding approvingly.
But it’s not just California. New York’s AG has joined the fray, filing a separate suit alleging that Trump’s actions “endanger Iranian-American communities by fostering xenophobia.” Meanwhile, a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order, citing “irreparable harm to diplomatic relations.” Because nothing screams “diplomacy” like letting a theocracy build a nuke.
Let’s be real: this isn’t about the Constitution or international law. It’s about politics. Trump’s name on anything—be it a tax cut, a wall, or a precision strike—triggers an allergic reaction in blue states and their judicial lapdogs. If Biden had ordered the same strikes, they’d be penning op-eds about “courageous leadership.” But since it’s Trump, it’s an impeachable offense. The hypocrisy is so thick you could spread it on toast.
The irony? These same states and judges cry foul when red states like Texas try to enforce border security, calling it “federal overreach.” So, let’s get this straight: Texas can’t protect its own borders, but California can veto a national security operation 7,000 miles away? Got it.
What’s next? Will California sue to stop sanctions on North Korea because they hurt kimchi exports? Will Oregon demand a say in NATO deployments because tanks aren’t vegan? At this rate, every U.S. foreign policy decision will need a stamp of approval from a San Francisco courtroom.
