UK-California Climate Alliance Set to Deepen Despite Trump Opposition: A New Model for Sub-National Diplomacy Emerges

6 predicted events · 12 source articles analyzed · Model: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929

Current Situation: A Diplomatic Flashpoint

President Donald Trump has launched a sharp public rebuke of a clean energy memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The agreement, finalized at London's Foreign Office on Monday, February 16, 2026, aims to deepen cooperation on clean energy, climate action, and nature protection between the UK and America's most populous state. According to Articles 1-12, Trump characterized the deal as "inappropriate" and unleashed personal attacks on Governor Newsom, calling him a "loser" and claiming "everything he's touched turns to garbage." The President's criticism extends beyond personalities to question the legitimacy of sub-national governments engaging in international agreements, warning the UK that dealing with California would be unsuccessful. The MOU represents the UK's 12th such agreement with US states, following similar arrangements with Washington and Florida. It focuses on boosting transatlantic investment, strengthening research collaborations, helping UK clean energy businesses access California's massive market, and sharing expertise on climate resilience.

Key Trends and Signals

**The Rise of Sub-National Climate Diplomacy** The UK's strategy of signing state-level agreements represents a sophisticated diplomatic workaround to federal climate policy uncertainty. California, as the world's fifth-largest economy with aggressive climate targets, offers the UK a powerful alternative pathway to US market access and technological collaboration. **Trump's Constitutional Concerns** Trump's assertion that it's "inappropriate" for governors to make international agreements hints at potential constitutional challenges. While states cannot enter formal treaties, MOUs typically fall into a grey area of non-binding cooperation agreements that have become standard practice. **The Personal Trump-Newsom Rivalry** The intensity of Trump's personal attacks on Newsom—using derogatory nicknames and extreme language—signals that this conflict transcends policy disagreement. Newsom is widely viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate, making this clash as much about domestic US politics as international relations. **Parallel Track Diplomacy** Crucially, the articles note that this deal "sits separately from British efforts to find common ground on energy with Mr Trump's administration." This reveals the UK's dual-track approach: maintaining federal relations while hedging through state partnerships.

Predictions: What Happens Next

### 1. The UK Will Double Down on State-Level Partnerships Despite Trump's criticism, the UK government is highly unlikely to back away from the California agreement or similar state-level MOUs. The British government under Labour has made clean energy transition a cornerstone policy priority, and California offers market opportunities, technological partnerships, and political alignment that the Trump administration cannot provide. **Rationale:** The UK has already signed 12 such agreements, demonstrating an established strategy. Capitulating to Trump's demands would undermine British sovereignty, appear weak domestically, and sacrifice valuable economic opportunities. The non-binding nature of MOUs provides legal defensibility. ### 2. Additional US States Will Sign Similar UK Agreements Expect announcements of new MOUs between the UK and other Democratic-led US states—particularly New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and potentially Colorado or Oregon—within the next 2-3 months. **Rationale:** Trump's public opposition paradoxically validates the strategic importance of these partnerships for both UK and US state leaders. Democratic governors seeking to maintain climate leadership and potentially presidential credentials will see partnering with major international allies as politically advantageous. The UK will leverage this momentum to expand market access. ### 3. Trump Administration May Attempt Legal or Political Interference The Trump administration could take steps to complicate state-level international cooperation, potentially through legal challenges, federal regulatory obstacles to cross-border clean energy projects, or pressure on UK-US trade negotiations. **Rationale:** Trump's strong public statement suggests this issue has gained White House attention. His characterization of the agreements as "inappropriate" could signal forthcoming legal or administrative action. However, constitutional limits on federal power over states may constrain effective interference. ### 4. The UK-California Partnership Produces Concrete Results Quickly Expect announcements of specific joint projects—likely university research collaborations, clean energy trade missions, or pilot programs on climate resilience—within 3-6 months to demonstrate tangible benefits and justify the political controversy. **Rationale:** Both Miliband and Newsom face political pressure to show results. Quick wins will be necessary to counter Trump's narrative and justify the diplomatic capital expended. California's advanced clean energy sector and substantial government resources make rapid implementation feasible. ### 5. This Becomes a Template for International Climate Coalitions Other nations, particularly EU members, will follow the UK's model of engaging directly with US states, leading to a formalized network of sub-national climate alliances that effectively bypasses federal US climate policy. **Rationale:** The UK has established proof of concept. Other nations facing similar challenges in engaging with the Trump administration on climate will see state-level partnerships as pragmatic alternatives. California and other states have established infrastructure for such cooperation through networks like the Under2 Coalition.

Broader Implications

This controversy reveals a fundamental realignment in climate diplomacy where sub-national actors increasingly operate as quasi-independent international players. The UK's willingness to proceed despite presidential opposition signals that traditional diplomatic deference may be eroding in areas where federal and state US policies sharply diverge. For Trump, this represents a loss of federal control over America's international image and economic relationships. For the UK, it's a calculated bet that state-level partnerships offer more value than avoiding presidential criticism. The coming months will test whether this new model of fragmented international relations can deliver substantive results or merely generates political theater.