California Governor Gavin Newsom is positioning himself for a potential White House bid, trailing only Vice President Kamala Harris in early Democratic primary polls. But his state's aggressive regulatory agenda is increasingly drawing fire from lawmakers and attorneys general who argue that Sacramento is effectively setting national policy without a national mandate.
At the center of the latest clash is a June lawsuit against California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which requires all packaging sold in the state to be recyclable or compostable by 2032 and sharply restricts single-use plastics. The suit, backed by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, contends that the law forces companies across the country to overhaul their products, with costs passed on to consumers everywhere.
“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” Hilgers said. He warned that “if California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”
The legal route may be slow, but Congress has a faster tool: legislation that blocks or narrows California's extraterritorial reach. That test is now playing out over Proposition 12, a voter-approved law banning the sale of pork and eggs from farms that don't meet California's space and housing standards. The measure affects any farmer selling into the state, regardless of where the farm is located, and has been blamed for raising grocery prices as producers spend millions to retrofit facilities.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has folded a fix into the House-passed version of the farm bill. The provision would limit Prop 12's enforcement to farms physically located in California, effectively shielding out-of-state producers. More than a dozen House Democrats joined Republicans to support the measure, and both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden have signaled openness to reining in the state's regulatory power.
The Senate has yet to take up the farm bill, and the outcome is uncertain. But the debate has become a proxy for a broader question: Should one state be allowed to impose its policy preferences on the entire country through market access? Critics say no, pointing to the packaging rules as a template for future overreach. Supporters of California's approach argue that states have long used their purchasing power to drive environmental and animal welfare standards, and that national companies can choose not to sell in California if they object.
For now, the political momentum appears to be with those who want to limit Sacramento's influence. The House provision is a direct rebuke to Newsom's administration, and it has drawn unusual cross-party support. As the farm bill moves through the Senate, the fight over Prop 12 could determine whether Congress is willing to step in—or whether California's regulatory reach continues to expand.
Meanwhile, Newsom faces renewed scrutiny over his personal conduct, with a Vanity Fair essay resurfacing a two-decade-old affair, adding to the political noise as he weighs a national run. His allies argue that the attacks are distractions from his policy record, but the packaging and food fights are giving Republicans—and some Democrats—a concrete issue to rally around.
If the Senate acts, it would mark a rare instance of Congress overriding a state's food and agriculture regulations. If it doesn't, the legal battles will continue, and the cost of California compliance will likely keep climbing for consumers nationwide.
