Trump Blasts Newsom’s Foreign Policy Gamble

Gavin Newsom is using California to run a parallel foreign policy on climate—cutting deals abroad even as the Trump administration pulls back from global climate frameworks.

Story Snapshot

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signed a new clean-energy Memorandum of Understanding in London on Feb. 16, 2026.
British firm Octopus Energy announced a nearly $1 billion commitment aimed at California clean-tech companies and projects.
The agreement emphasizes clean-power technology, research ties, and investment links between a U.S. state and a foreign government.
President Trump criticized the arrangement as “inappropriate,” pointing to California’s governance and infrastructure track record.

A state-level climate deal goes international

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced an expanded climate and clean-energy partnership with the United Kingdom after signing a Memorandum of Understanding with UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband in London on Feb. 16, 2026. The public messaging focused on “innovation,” scaling clean-energy technologies, and connecting businesses and research institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. The standout headline item was Octopus Energy’s nearly $1 billion investment commitment targeting California companies and projects.

The structure matters as much as the substance. The arrangement is a bilateral framework between a U.S. state and a foreign national government, intended to boost transatlantic investment and deepen institutional cooperation. Supporters describe it as a way to accelerate the “race for clean power,” while critics see a familiar pattern of political branding: a high-profile announcement that relies on long-term follow-through. The available documents do not specify detailed benchmarks or timelines for the full investment rollout.

What the MOU says it will do—and what remains unclear

UK officials described the refreshed framework as a way to drive innovation, scale up clean-energy technologies, support jobs and industry growth, and strengthen relationships between research institutions in California and the UK. The announcement also referenced shared work on solutions tied to climate and nature goals, including collaboration that could touch areas like offshore wind and other grid-related technologies. What is not spelled out in the public summaries is a project-by-project map that taxpayers and ratepayers can use to measure results.

Octopus Energy’s leadership highlighted consumer-facing technology as a potential benefit, citing efforts that could cut energy bills and improve customer experience. The company referenced work with Southern California Edison involving an app designed to help coordinate electric vehicles and home batteries for grid support. That is a concrete example, but it still leaves a basic accountability question: how much of the nearly $1 billion is earmarked for specific deployments, and how much is contingent on future approvals, market conditions, or partner participation.

The broader political context: Trump’s reset vs. Newsom’s workaround

The partnership lands in a politically charged moment because the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change earlier in 2026, while California and the UK continue pursuing net-zero targets aligned with the global treaty. That split fuels a larger debate over who speaks for the country abroad and whether subnational “climate diplomacy” effectively sidesteps the voters’ choice at the federal level. The research provided does not include legal challenges, but it does show the tension clearly.

President Trump’s criticism, reported publicly, did not hinge on technical arguments about batteries or offshore wind. Trump called the deal “inappropriate” and framed his objection around governance credibility—pointing to California’s population outmigration and the state’s delayed high-speed rail project as evidence that Newsom’s administration struggles to execute major promises. That critique aligns with a core conservative concern: big announcements are easy, but competence and accountability decide whether costs fall on families through taxes, fees, or utility bills.

California’s clean-energy record: real buildout, real tradeoffs

California’s proponents argue the state is already delivering measurable grid changes. The state reports battery storage reaching nearly 17,000 megawatts since the start of the Newsom administration, described as a more than 2,100% increase, alongside over 30,000 megawatts of new resources added to the electric grid. California also claims it has reached about 33% of the storage capacity it estimates it will need by 2045 to hit 100% clean electricity. Those figures suggest momentum, not just rhetoric.

At the same time, big numbers do not automatically settle the kitchen-table question for voters: will reliability improve and bills fall. The UK-California announcements stress lowering energy bills, but the sources provided do not offer audited projections, rate impacts, or a clear enforcement mechanism if promised savings fail to materialize. The partnership also includes a biodiversity component—conserving 30% of lands and coastal waters by 2030—which may resonate with environmental constituencies but can also collide with permitting, property-use fights, and local control.

Newsom’s UK clean energy pact ripped for ‘insanity,’ as critics question effectiveness Governor Gavin Newsom’s clean energy pact is getting torched as just another failure when it comes to California policy that has already driven serious business out of the state. The memoran… pic.twitter.com/10ZJvAVY3Z

— NahBabyNah (@NahBabyNahNah) February 17, 2026

The bottom line is that the MOU and investment pledge create headlines and opportunities, but they also intensify a fundamental governance conflict: whether a single state should act as America’s face to foreign governments on energy policy during a federal course correction. The strongest confirmed facts are the signing, the stated goals, the nearly $1 billion commitment, and Trump’s public objection. Beyond that, the effectiveness critics are asking about will be proved—or disproved—only through transparent milestones, delivery dates, and results that households can actually feel.