Politics
A trade war under Trump would bring major losses for California agriculture, experts warn
As President-elect Donald Trump vows to impose tariffs on imports from China, Mexico and Canada, economists are warning that a retaliatory trade war could cause major financial damage for California’s agriculture industry.
In an analysis published before the presidential election, researchers examined potential scenarios of tariffs and retaliatory measures, and estimated that if a significant trade war occurs, California could see the value of its agricultural exports reduced by up to one-fourth, bringing as much as $6 billion in losses annually.
The experts at UC Davis and North Dakota State University said some of the most vulnerable commodities include pistachios, dairy products, wine and almonds, all of which are exported in large quantities to China.
“The worst-case scenario is pretty bleak,” said Sandro Steinbach, director of North Dakota State University’s Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies. “Basically, tariffs are harmful to U.S. agriculture, and to California agriculture in particular, because they will invite tariff retaliation.”
The researchers analyzed three scenarios of potential U.S. tariffs, two of them based on proposals floated by Trump and his campaign. They wrote that if the Trump administration were to impose large tariffs under the most extreme scenario, retaliatory measures by other countries “would have a ripple effect across the state, from the large almond orchards in the Central Valley to the small family vineyards scattered throughout wine country.”
Steinbach co-authored the research with UC Davis emeritus professor Colin A. Carter and North Dakota State doctoral researcher Yasin Yildirim.
They noted that California’s farmers previously experienced financial losses during Trump’s first administration, when the adoption of U.S. tariffs in 2018 prompted China to retaliate with tariffs on American agricultural goods. That hit California’s exports of major farm products, bringing losses for growers of walnuts, almonds and other crops.
The researchers said farmers in the Midwest received significant federal subsidies to cushion the blow in 2018 and 2019, but that California farmers were largely left out of the government compensation.
“If a new wave of aggressive protectionist policies is enacted, California’s agricultural exports could face similar consequences — up to $6 billion in annual losses — especially in key industries like pistachios, dairy, and wine,” the economists wrote.
“Rather than pursuing policies that invite global retaliatory measures, the United States should work toward more balanced trade agreements that protect domestic industries without sparking harmful trade wars,” they said. “All countries involved in a trade war lose, and California agriculture simply cannot afford another trade war.”
The research was published by the University of California’s Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
The researchers studied one scenario in which the U.S. would impose a 10% import tariff on all goods from every country. They also examined an extreme scenario in which the U.S. would impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a 10% tariff on imports from all other countries.
More recently, Trump has promised to impose 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico, and also an additional 10% tariff on imports from China.
“The scale of a potential trade war and subsequent retaliation is considerably larger than we have seen before,” Steinbach said.
The extent of the economic damage for California’s agriculture industry, and for producers of different crops, will depend on which approach Trump takes, Steinbach said. For example, if large U.S. tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods trigger retaliatory measures by those countries, California sellers of processed tomatoes would be hit especially hard because they depend on those countries to buy more than half of their exports.
In addition to the immediate losses the industry would face in a trade war, the costs of the disruptions probably would be lasting, Steinbach said, as foreign competitors take a larger market share and as uncertainty leads investors to put less money into California agriculture.
“We have climate uncertainty already. We have water policy uncertainty,” Steinbach said. “And if you add now an additional layer of trade and tariff policy on top of it, why would I want to invest a large amount of money into producing agricultural commodities?”
The researchers said farming areas in the Central Valley and Southern California are especially vulnerable to economic damage. They projected that five counties — Fresno, Kern, Tulare, Merced and Imperial — probably would bear the brunt of the losses in a trade war, accounting for 53% of the estimated total losses.
A majority of voters in each of those five counties voted for Trump in the election.
In the case of pistachios, the crop is considered especially vulnerable because China accounts for a large share of California’s exports. Growers have also planted vast new pistachio orchards over the last decade, dramatically expanding production as they have sought to capitalize on the lucrative crop.
The researchers said that in a worst-case scenario, pistachio exports alone could suffer annual losses of up to $1 billion.
Other commodities that are projected to see substantial declines in exports include hay, walnuts, rice, beef, grapes, oranges and cotton.
Agriculture uses much of the water that is diverted and pumped in California. But Steinbach said the potential effects on farms’ water use, both regionally and statewide, are uncertain and will depend on a complex mix of factors.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has strongly criticized Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada. During a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego County on Thursday, Newsom described the planned tariffs as a tax that would boost food prices for Americans and add to inflation.
“Don’t think for a second this won’t impact you,” Newsom said.
The governor said that California will be affected more severely than any other state, and that farmers and ranchers “will be impacted disproportionately if these tariffs go into effect.” He said that’s before considering Trump’s plan to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, who are a large portion of California’s farmworkers.
“I hope we could all agree the impacts on this region and your pocketbook will universally be felt regardless of your politics,” Newsom said. “That’s a betrayal that needs to be revealed to those that embraced and supported this agenda. That betrayal is taking place in real time. You are being betrayed by these policies.”
Trump’s transition team responded in a written statement, saying the president-elect’s policies will benefit all Americans.
“President Trump has promised tariff policies that protect the American manufacturers and working men and women from the unfair practices of foreign companies and foreign markets,” Trump transition team spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in the statement.
Shannon Douglass, president of the California Farm Bureau, said in an email that the state’s agriculture business “has faced significant challenges due to past trade disputes.”
“We advocate for fair trade practices and urge the federal government to prioritize policies that protect and strengthen the viability and sustainability of our nation’s agricultural sector,” Douglass said.
The plans for tariffs bring additional uncertainty for almond growers who have already been struggling because of declines in prices over the last decade. Some of those declines resulted from the last round of retaliatory tariffs imposed by China in 2018.
This year, almond prices have begun to increase again.
“The market’s rebounding. It’s coming back. Growers are still hurting,” said Jake Wenger, general manager of the Salida Hulling Assn., which runs an almond-hulling plant in Modesto. “This year, people should at least be able to pay their bills, but I do know of growers that have had to sell off some of their land to pay bills, to pay debts, just to stay in business.”
Wenger said there are about 110 growers in his co-op, but he hasn’t heard anyone voicing concerns about tariffs.
“I don’t think anybody’s that worried,” he said. “There are going to be some changes, yep, but we’ll see what happens, what changes do come, and we’ll roll with the punches, like farmers always do.”
Keith Schneller, the trade policy advisor for the Almond Board of California, said the almond industry “continues to support reducing barriers to trade.”
“We are following these discussions,” he said, “but until the next administration’s agriculture and trade policy positions are more defined, it is difficult to know what the implications might be for California almonds.”
Politics
Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A sweeping veterans package supporters describe as the largest expansion of veterans’ health care and benefits in more than a decade is expected to return to the House floor when lawmakers come back from the July recess, but backers warn the legislation could once again become collateral damage in the Republican standoff over the SAVE America Act.
The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act rolls roughly 60 veterans bills into a package that would dramatically expand veterans’ health care and benefits. At its core, the legislation would cement veterans’ access to community care outside the VA while increasing benefits for combat-wounded veterans, caregivers and Gold Star families, expanding mental health services and enacting dozens of additional reforms.
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., told Fox News Digital he intends to bring the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act back for a vote as soon as the House reconvenes next week.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – MARCH 17: Eugene Simpson, 29, from Dale City, Virginia goes through physical therapy at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, D.C. with Michael Minor, a kinesiotherapist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on March 17, 2006 in Washington, D.C., USA. (Photo by Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images) (Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images)
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN
The legislation was held up last month after a group of House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat a procedural vote, stopping the House from taking up the bill.
“I’m feeling good as long as my members stay with us on the rule,” Bost said. “Right now, there’s some politics being played, not about this bill, but just in general.”
The bill became entangled in a broader House Republican fight over the SAVE America Act, legislation championed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
On June 30, the House voted on H. Res. 1398, the procedural rule governing floor consideration of several bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. The rule failed after 14 Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, preventing the House from taking up the veterans package and bringing floor business to a standstill. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., claimed to have voted against the rules vote in protest against House leadership’s handling of the SAVE America Act. As a result, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sent the members home early.
Bost accused the holdouts of effectively putting veterans legislation on hold.
The US Department of Veterans Affairs building is seen in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019. (Photo by Alastair Pike / AFP) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Images) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Image)
‘IT’S A MESS’: GOP TURNS ON HOUSE CONSERVATIVES AS VOTER ID BLOCKADE STALLS TRUMP’S AGENDA
“They’re holding all bills hostage,” Bost said. “They’re not voting for any rule. Any bill that has to pass a rule before it comes to the floor—which this bill does because of its size—can’t move.”
Although Bost said he supports the SAVE America Act and has voted for it three times, he argued the Senate’s failure to act should not stop the House from advancing unrelated legislation.
“I agree with that bill,” Bost said. “But the Senate still has to do their work. We don’t stop our work because the Senate isn’t doing it.”
With 23 legislative days left in the Congressional session, Concerned Veterans for America Strategic Director John Byrnes, a supporter of the bill, said time is of the essence.
“There are lots and lots of things that have to get done,” Byrnes told Fox News Digital. “There’s also the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a must pass every year, so these things eat up time. There’s requirements to have debate on these, which eat up session time.”
Byrnes argued that every procedural delay pushes other legislation further down the calendar.
“This bill will save lives in 2027,” Byrnes said. “If we lose veterans because they could have had faster, better access to health care, we’re never going to get those veterans back.”
Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. ( )
TRUMP’S SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE IN THE SENATE DESPITE REPUBLICAN REVOLT
But Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who also voted no on the procedural vote, told Fox News Digital that he has concerns about how the bill is financed.
“I appreciate what the chairman’s trying to do in some respects, but there’s a few issues,” Roy said.
Among them, Roy pointed to provisions offsetting new spending through changes affecting other veterans.
“You’re taxing certain veterans to provide some sort of benefits and changes to other veterans,” Roy said. “There are concerns about some of the pay-fors.”
Veterans of Foreign Wars has also taken issue with Section 108 of the bill, warning that it would codify changes to future disability ratings for tinnitus and sleep apnea to help finance other veterans priorities.
But Bost said this is inaccurate.
“No veteran is going to have their benefits reduced,” Bost said. “If you’re receiving a benefit right now, that’s not going to be reduced at all.”
Roy, who previously served two years on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said he supported a lot of what the bill was seeking to accomplish; but said other pieces of legislation are priorities, too.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“There is a block of us for whom border security, the SAVE Act and demonstrating our leadership on major issues is critical,” Roy said. “Some of these other bills may or may not get hung up based on a desire of many in the conference to see movement on other things.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Luna’s office and the White House for comment.
Politics
Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame
WASHINGTON — Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.
It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.
Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.
Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.
Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.
At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.
Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.
(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.
Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.
A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”
“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.
“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”
Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.
“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”
The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.
“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”
The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.
The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.
Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.
But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.
“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”
“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”
Politics
Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.
Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.
“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning.
The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.
President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN
Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.
Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.
“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”
Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”
It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.
Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.
“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”
The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.
Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.
“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”
Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON
Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.
The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.
Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.
“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.
Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”
-
Detroit, MI25 seconds agoPhillies end the Tigers’ winning streak at 6 with a 4-2 victory
-
San Francisco, CA8 minutes agoGiants select Barry Bonds’ nephew Peyton in third round
-
Dallas, TX15 minutes agoMark Cuban takes legal action against the Dallas Mavericks ownership over proposed arena deal
-
Miami, FL18 minutes agoSouth Florida businesses report economic boom, as FIFA officials estimate a billion dollar economic impact
-
Boston, MA23 minutes agoForecast: Looking ahead to toasty temps next week
-
Denver, CO30 minutes agoDenver weather: Warming trend continues this weekend and into next week
-
Seattle, WA33 minutes agoTech Investor Vinod Khosla to Acquire the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks for $9.6 Billion
-
San Diego, CA38 minutes agoEndo injury overshadows 2-0 Angel City victory over San Diego – Equalizer Soccer