Business
Trump tees up tariff hikes on top trading partners. What's at stake for California?
WASHINGTON — When President-elect Donald Trump announced he would impose sweeping tariffs on key trading partners on his first day in office, he signaled a return to a favorite strategy: a reverse carrot-and-stick that applies the stick of dire consequences in order to force countries to give him what he wants. In this case, that means a tougher crackdown on illegal migration and the movement of drugs into the U.S.
The risk of applying this tactic to foreign trade is that the whole U.S. economy is so reliant on the status quo that any miscalculation could have damaging consequences, especially in California and other trade-dependent states.
To some extent, that happened in Trump’s first term, when selective tariff increases set off costly trade wars with China and others.
The fallout from tariffs could have major damaging effects on California’s globally integrated economy, affecting thousands of businesses and many more jobs, consumer prices and choices of goods. And, if trading partners retaliate, tariff increases could hurt the state’s sales of farm goods, electronics, transportation equipment and other leading exports. Mexico and Canada are the top two destinations for California exports, and China and Mexico account for the bulk of the state’s imports.
Even uncertainty over such possibilities can cause havoc in financial markets and raise fears of higher prices, as well as disruptions to vital businesses dependent particularly on Mexico and the Pacific Rim.
Trump posted on his Truth Social site late Monday that on his first day on the job he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico, and also tack on an additional 10% levy on Chinese imports. He said these countries — which are the United States’ top three trading partners — would be paying the price for not doing enough on illegal migration and drugs flowing into the U.S.
“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump wrote.
The reality is that illegal border crossings from Mexico have fallen dramatically in recent months as the Biden administration has tightened up especially on asylum arrivals.
And U.S. drug seizures along the Southwest border have changed little in recent years, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics.
For years, China has been a major producer of fentanyl coming into the U.S., and Trump said in his post that Beijing has failed to clamp down on drug suppliers as it had promised.
Canada is not a big source of illicit drugs or illegal migration into the U.S., although there has been a sharp increase in unauthorized crossings along the northern border in the last year, driven in large part by Indians. Trump didn’t explain why Canada was targeted, but some analysts said he may be viewing the drug and migration situation as a North American problem.
U.S. stock markets, which had been on a run in recent days, opened mixed Tuesday but ended the day higher, suggesting that investors are familiar with Trump’s playbook and that these three countries could avoid the tariffs if they present a credible plan to curb the drug supplies and secure the borders, said analysts at Capital Economics. Mexico staved off a similar Trump threat over illegal migration in 2019.
But Trump’s salvo just three weeks after the election, plus his frequent campaign promises of hiking tariffs, suggests that he will move more quickly in carrying out his trade agenda than in his first term.
Trump has said he would slap tariffs of 10% to 20% on goods from around the world, and up to 60% on imports from China.
The consequences could be dire for California’s economy, given its heavy trade with China and Mexico.
Imports from China ($120 billion) and Mexico ($62 billion) accounted for a full 40% of the $450 billion worth of foreign products that entered California last year. And Mexico, Canada and China rank as the state’s top three export markets.
Overall, international trade and investment and related commerce employ hundreds of thousands of Californians and are a major economic engine for the state.
At the Port of Los Angeles, China’s share of all cargo, as measured by containers, has fallen to 43% from 57% in 2022. But the Port of L.A., the busiest in the nation, has kept growing in overall volume due to increased shipments from other Pacific Rim countries.
With U.S.-China relations worsening over the last decade, many manufacturers in California, as elsewhere, shifted at least some production and suppliers away from China to other sites in Asia and also to Mexico. But the scale of tariffs that Trump is announcing, whether 10% across the globe or separate duties on Chinese, Mexican and Canadian goods, would be too great for other countries to make up.
Much of U.S. imports from China and Mexico are consumer goods and intermediate parts that go into autos, appliances and other products. Southern California apparel companies have for years been sending clothes to be sewn and finished in Mexico, duty-free. Vehicle components often cross North American borders back and forth several times before final assembly — and tariffs added along the way will mean higher prices for everybody.
Now those long-established supply chains may be in jeopardy as analysts expect Trump to try to remake trade deals with North American partners, among others, using tariffs and the big American economic market as leverage.
“It’s going to be a jolt to the system, and at the end of the day it will be impactful to consumer pocketbooks,” said Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Assn. She said her member companies have been trying to get ahead of higher tariffs by ordering products before Trump takes office.
“From a California perspective, it’s going to be alarming because the cost of living here is higher,” Michelin said. “We really are pricing people out of living in California.”
In Trump’s first term, China and other countries hit back by raising tariffs on sensitive American farm goods, including soybeans and wine. But overall trade also slowed, with U.S. companies scurrying to file for tariff exemptions and trying to curry favor with his administration for relief.
Jock O’Connell, a California trade specialist at Beacon Economics, said the Trump administration’s trade skirmishes with China in 2017 caused a dramatic falloff in the state’s trade volume. California exporters learned to diversify their markets. This time around, he said, the state may have even fewer options.
“There’s not going to be a lot of political payoff” in helping California, O’Connell said. “Can you imagine [Gov.] Newsom flying to Washington to meet with trade officials in the White House to deal with tariffs?”
Greg Danenhauer, co-owner of Parker Boiler, a manufacturer in City of Commerce, said he still buys some steel and cast iron burners from China, but overall looks to China for less than 18% of his supplies, compared with as much as 25% in 2016. Parker Boiler also buys temperature controls and other products from Mexico.
Danenhauer said Trump’s earlier tariffs on Chinese products actually helped level the playing field for domestic makers such as himself. And he’s not worrying about higher tariffs down the road.
“To me, everybody is panicked about it,” he said. “But we don’t know yet” what’s coming, he said.
Dan Ujczo, a trade lawyer at the Ohio-based firm Thompson Hine, drew a distinction between Monday’s tariff announcement, which he said was “very tactical and transactional, targeted for a specific purpose,” and Trump’s plans on universal tariffs and those aimed at China. The latter “are more transformative or transitional when it comes to global trade,” he said, adding that they are likely to be proposed later and closer to when tax cuts and other fiscal plans are ready.
During his first term, Trump often used threats such as high tariffs to browbeat America’s allies into concessions. On defense policy, for instance, he famously raised doubts about continued U.S. participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; European allies responded by boosting their contributions to the cost of mutual defense.
Chinese imports are already subject to U.S. tariffs of 10% to 25% stemming from Trump’s actions in his first term and which were left in place by President Biden. That helped Mexico overtake China in 2021 as the United States’ top two-way trading partner. Still, the United States’ biggest trade deficit, by far, remains with China, in excess of $279 billion last year, according to the Census Bureau.
Trump’s tariffs announced Monday, if implemented, would almost certainly cause significant disruptions for industries and raise consumer costs for gas, autos and all sorts of other products, possibly reigniting inflation, which appeared to be a key factor in his election victory.
The U.S. imported a total of about $1.3 trillion worth of goods from those three countries last year, and about two-thirds of that amount came in tariff-free, thanks to the U.S. free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.
Despite that trade pact, experts said Trump could impose the tariffs by using the statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which he cited extensively in his first term, including in his dealings with Mexico and China.
Whether tactical or not, the tariff threats could escalate — Mexico already said it could retaliate with counter-tariffs. And some economists warned that Trump’s plans could backfire.
“It’s a reckless grenade toss,” said Michael Clemens, an economics professor at George Mason University who specializes in international migration. “Harming American consumers and workers with a trade war will do nothing at all to address their concerns about immigration and drugs.”
Walmart is rapidly expanding its network of electric vehicle chargers designed for customers to use while they shop.
The network could help fill gaps in EV infrastructure in states with greater need for chargers. Walmart, which has more than 5,000 locations in the U.S. and hundreds in California, says more than 90% of Americans live within 10 miles of one of its stores.
The chargers also offer an incentive for customers to choose Walmart — Walmart Plus members will receive a 10% discount off an average price of $0.46 per kilowatt-hour of energy at the company’s chargers.
Walmart chargers are already available at more than 75 locations in 17 states, with Texas boasting the most charging stations, followed by Florida and Arizona.
Matthew Nelson, Walmart’s director of energy policy, said last week on LinkedIn that the network will soon reach 29 states, including California.
“We are delivering on the promise of affordable, reliable and convenient charging,” Nelson said in his post.
According to Walmart’s website, six charging stations are coming to California soon, though the company did not offer a specific timeline.
The chargers will be installed at stores in Antelope, Brea, Fresno, Stockton, Suisun City and Vallejo.
Most charging sites in California will include eight to 16 fast-charging stalls, said Walmart spokesperson Kelsey Bohl.
The company first announced plans in April 2023 to install its own EV chargers at Walmart and Sam’s Club stores, with a goal of installing thousands of chargers by 2030. Partnering with ABB E-Mobility and Alpitronic, it added 25 new charging sites this past May and six more in June.
“Walmart is building a leading retail-integrated EV fast-charging network, focused on delivering an affordable, reliable and convenient charging experience where customers already shop,” Bohl said in an emailed statement. “Customers can charge while they shop, access stations through the Walmart app they already use, and benefit from affordable pricing.”
The charging stations already available include 612 individual charging stalls using 400-kilowatt chargers. Each stall has a dual charging cord with both Combined Charging System and North American Charging Standard connectors. The standard connectors, designed by Tesla, are smaller and lighter than the combined systems.
The primary way to pay for the chargers is through the Walmart app, but the company is also experimenting with built-in credit card readers to allow those without the app to use the stations.
Customers can check charger availability on the Walmart app. The company said the chargers will be available 24 hours a day.
Robotaxis could be turning into robocops.
A self-driving Waymo reported two teens to San Mateo, Calif., police on Monday after they were found drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns in the back of the vehicle.
According to a social media post from the San Mateo Police Department, officers detained two 15-year-olds after the Waymo they were riding in contacted the department and stopped in a parking lot until law enforcement arrived.
“Parents do you know where your teens are?” the San Mateo Police Department wrote on Facebook following the incident. “Waymo does!”
Officers removed both teens from the vehicle and determined they were using toy guns to shoot Orbeez out the windows. Orbeez are small, water-absorbing beads sold at toy stores.
“Toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye,” the Police Department said. “The simple handling of them can cause fear in [passersby].” “
A video posted on Facebook shows at least five officers and a police dog responding to the scene and approaching the Waymo with their weapons raised.
Waymo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Waymo vehicles have internal cameras and microphones that may be used in an emergency or to “promote safety and security,” according to Waymo’s online support page.
The cameras are also used to ensure the vehicles are clean and to help find lost items, according to the support page.
The company said it does not use facial recognition or other biometric identification technologies to identify individuals.
“In more urgent circumstances, support may access live video during a trip,” the Waymo page said.
The San Mateo Police Department’s Facebook post has garnered nearly 60 comments, with one user accusing Waymo of “snitching.”
“At least they got a designated driver?!” one user commented.
Business
Commentary: How right-wing anti-transgender attacks led to a Supreme Court ruling upholding sex discrimination
At the Supreme Court, the unfounded fear of boys masquerading as girls in youth sports rolled the clock back on gender equality.
On the surface, the Supreme Court’s June 30 opinion upholding state laws barring transgender girls from women’s and girl’s sports teams looks like a victory for women’s rights.
The 6-3 opinion by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh certainly presents itself that way. “Females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks.” He also asserted that “forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.”
The ruling applied to prohibitions enacted in Idaho and West Virginia against “biological” males’ participation on women’s teams in public schools. Federal judges in both states overturned the bans. The Supreme Court majority restored them. The ruling essentially upholds similar bans enacted in 25 other states.
There was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let alone any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, demolishing the Supreme Court’s argument in favor of banning transgender girls from girl’s sports
Kavanaugh, like Donald Trump and others in the anti-transgender camp, maintained that one’s gender is an immutable fact of life, established even before birth.
Anything else, Trump stated in an executive order he issued on inauguration day 2025, could only be the product of “gender ideology extremism.” The U.S., his order stated, recognizes “two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” That’s a “biological truth,” he declared.
In his own version of this overconfident and factually insupportable conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote: “As all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance.”
Science recognizes that some people are “born with sex traits that don’t fit into typical male or female patterns,” to cite a discussion on the Cleveland Clinic web page on the topic “intersex.” The condition “may involve chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs or genitals.”
From a psychological standpoint, medical science recognizes “gender dysphoria” as a real condition often requiring counseling and medical intervention such as the use of puberty blockers and hormones to stave off the development of secondary sex characteristics until the condition can be resolved.
No one disputes that there are physical differences between the sexes. Few would dispute that on average or even at the median, males may be bigger and more powerful than females, or that in certain contact sports the difference may be telling and on occasion dangerous.
But that’s not the same as asserting that the physical differences between males and females invariably mean that men will invariably prevail over women in all competitions or that their participation will endanger women.
The International Olympic Committee — in a policy statement Kavanaugh cited incompletely — says that in “most running and swimming events,” males have a 10% to 12% advantage over women. That’s a range that would accommodate the full spectrum of outcomes — transgender females win, cisfemales win, they tie. (The “cis” prefix denotes those living consistent with their birth gender.)
West Virginia and Idaho addressed this ambiguity by banning transgender women from all girls’ teams. So under their rules transgender girls can’t play football or soccer with cisgirls. But what’s the argument in favor of banning them from the 100-yard dash, or cross-country track, or diving, or archery?
But something else is going on here. The Supreme Court’s ruling was almost preordained, given the years-long campaign by conservatives to demonize transgender individuals as if they’re members of an alien species.
It will be recalled that during his presidential campaign, Trump spun a despicable fantasy in which children were kidnapped in school and secretly subjected to sex-change operations.
Trump’s executive order wiped out policies aimed at protecting transgender adults from discrimination. He moved to outlaw gender-affirming medical therapies for anyone under 19 by cutting off federal funding for healthcare institutions that provide such care.
He banned transgender individuals from serving in the military and ordered federal prison officials to move transgender inmates into the general populations consistent with their birth genders, which exposes them to physical assault. (Federal Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington, D.C., has blocked the government from transferring three transgender women into the male prison population or terminating their hormone treatments.)
I wrote during Trump’s first term, when his anti-transgender policies were still gestating, that the goal was to show that “one can target any community, as long as it doesn’t have a strong political voice or political power. These are the actions of bullies and cowards, pretending to be strong.”
Last year, the Supreme Court struck its first blow against transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee law banning transgender care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors. Similar laws have been enacted in 25 other states. The majority in that ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was identical to the one in the June 30 ruling — Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Who are the targets of this ideological campaign? They number only about 1.6 million U.S. adults, or one-half of 1% of the U.S. population. About 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17, or 1.4%, identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA School of Law.
In West Virginia, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in her dissenting opinion, “there was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let along any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.”
In endorsing the flat bans directed at transgender women in Idaho and West Virginia, Kavanaugh argued that any attempt to implement case-by-case judgments of students’ requests to join sports teams inconsistent with their biological gender would create “an enormous practical and administrability problem.”
Is that so? That wasn’t the case in Maine, where the annual K-12 population is more than 170,000. There, a committee was charged with determining whether a student’s participation in a sport consistent with their gender identity but inconsistent with their biological sex would “result in an unfair athletic advantage” or present a risk of injury to others. The committee held 56 hearings from 2013 through 2021, or an average of seven per year. During the entire time span, only four involved transgender girls. (The outcome of those hearings couldn’t be learned.)
It was Maine’s policy, one might recall, that provoked a confrontation between Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills at the White House last year, when Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from the state unless it barred transgender students from competing on women’s sports teams. “We’ll see you in court,” Mills snapped.
Whether the Idaho and West Virginia laws genuinely protect girls from unfair competition is questionable. (The Idaho law is styled the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”) In practice, the laws may subject women in public schools to “invasive sex verification procedures,” as educational expert George Theoharis of Syracuse University wrote after the court ruling.
They’re also based on a retrograde view of women as fragile creatures needing men’s protection, Theoharis wrote — “the same logic that has historically been used to justify excluding women from making their own healthcare decisions and girls from rigorous math and science; that physically demanding work is simply beyond them.” (There don’t appear to be any state laws barring transgender women from competing in men’s sports.)
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, in which she is identified only as B.P.J., is the only transgender girl who sought to join girl’s teams — track and cross-country — in the state. That was in 2021, just after West Virginia passed its law and she was about to enter sixth grade. She didn’t appear to pose any competitive risk to others on the track and cross-country teams she applied to join — her lawyers told the Supreme Court that on those no-cut teams, she “came in near the back.”
Anyway, she had not gone through male puberty, which theoretically might have endowed her with a competitive advantage, because she had been taking puberty blockers and female hormones.
Thanks to the court’s ruling, Sotomayor observed in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, West Virginia can deny Becky access to school sports “because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
B.P.J., Sotomayor wrote, “cannot practice on girls’ teams, even if she would not take anyone’s spot in an eventual competition, even if everyone who tries out for the team makes it, and even if having the chance to participate could aid immensely in treating B. P. J.’s gender dysphoria.”
So whose interest was really protected by the Supreme Court?
-
Alabama2 minutes agoMac Jones asked who was his craziest teammate at Alabama
-
Alaska9 minutes agoClimate Change Is Helping an Invasive Predator Wreak Havoc on Iconic Alaskan Fish
-
Arizona12 minutes agoArizona man pleads guilty after illegally living in forest for years among ‘1,000lbs of trash’
-
Arkansas17 minutes agoArmy names intelligence facility for Arkansas Tech graduate
-
California24 minutes agoHow California Effectively Legalized an Open-Air Sex Market
-
Colorado27 minutes agoJulian Lewis Says Deion Sanders’ Colorado ‘Wasn’t Really Looking at Defenses Much’ Last Season
-
Idaho32 minutes agoWarhawk Air Museum receives $500K grant honoring fallen Idaho soldier
-
Connecticut32 minutes agoSeveral beaches closed to swimming due to potential bacteria in the water
