This doesn't make sense.
From a schema standpoint, table `orders` presumably has a row per order, with columns like `user_id`, `status` (as you stated), `created_at` (same), etc. Why would there be a `count` column? What does that represent?
From a query standpoint, I'm not sure what this would accomplish. You want the cartesian product of `users` and `orders`, filtered to all states except Washington, and where the order was created in 2020? The only reason I can think of to use a CROSS JOIN would be if there is no logical link between the tables, but that doesn't make any sense for this, because users:orders should be a 1:M relationship. Orders don't place themselves.
I think what you might have meant would be:
SELECT
users.state,
users.city,
orders.status,
COUNT(*)
FROM users
JOIN orders ON user.id = orders.user_id
WHERE
users.state != 'us-wa' AND
orders.created_at BETWEEN '2020-01-01' AND '2021-01-01'
GROUP BY 1, 2, 3
LIMIT 10;
Though without an ORDER BY, this has no significant meaning, and is a random sampling at best.
Also, if you or anyone else is creating a schema like this, _please_ don't make this denormalized mess. `orders.status` is going to be extremely low cardinality, as is `users.state` (to a lesser extent), and `users.city` (to an even lesser extent, but still). Make separate lookup tables for `city` and/or `state` (you don't even need to worry about pre-populating these, you can use GeoNames[0]). For `status`, you could do the same, or turn them into native ENUM [1] if you'd like to save a lookup.
[0]: https://www.geonames.org
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-enum.html