A wave of corporate relocations is reshaping the U.S. economy, and Texas is emerging as the clear winner.

According to a report by CBRE, one of the nation’s largest commercial real estate brokerage firms, 561 companies have relocated their headquarters nationwide since 2018. The research shows many companies are reassessing tax climates, operating costs and growth prospects as they consider a move. 

That’s significant because these moves are often driven by long-term financial and growth strategies, not just geography — giving business-friendly states a competitive edge. 

From Texas to Tennessee, those states are racking up new headquarters, while blue strongholds like California and New York are losing companies at a notable clip.

DALLAS MAYOR PREDICTS ‘AVALANCHE’ OF NYC FINANCIAL FIRMS FLEEING NEW SOCIALIST POLICIES UNDER MAMDANI

The Lone Star State clearly dominates the relocation map. Dallas-Fort Worth captured 100 headquarters moves between 2018 and 2024 — the most of any metro in the country — while Austin secured another 81 and Houston added 31. Combined, those three markets accounted for more relocations than most entire states, cementing Texas’ outsized role in reshaping the corporate landscape.

Meanwhile, California metros saw the steepest net losses, led by the San Francisco Bay Area with a net loss of 156 headquarters over the same period. 

As blue states debate regulation and tax policy, Texas business leaders say the state’s approach is paying off. Megan Mauro, interim president and CEO of the Texas Association of Business, points to the state’s tax structure and lighter regulatory climate as key draws.

“We have a light regulatory touch and no personal or corporate income tax,” Mauro said, citing Texas’ recent $25 billion surplus as evidence of what she calls a competitive tax environment.

Her argument aligns with research from CBRE, which found that companies most often cite lower taxes, reduced operating costs and stronger growth opportunities when relocating their headquarters.

The shift has intensified scrutiny of tax policy in high-cost states. Steve Moore, economist and co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, said those states risk driving away wealth and investment.

“It is common sense for business leaders to pick places for future financial success rather than economic suffocation,” Moore told Fox News Digital.

CALIFORNIA’S LOOMING CAPITAL FLIGHT PROBLEM COULD RESHAPE STATE IN 3 KEY AREAS

He argued that proposals such as California’s 2026 Billionaire Tax Act are accelerating the outflow of the state’s ultra-wealthy residents to lower-tax states like Texas and Florida. 

“These business tycoons are running to states like Florida and Texas because of lower taxes, economic freedom and future economic prosperity,” he said, describing it as “voting with their feet.”

That shift is also reflected in population data.

From 2021 to 2024, Texas and Florida posted the largest net population gains, while California and several northeastern states recorded some of the steepest losses, according to IRS and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Moore added that the broader economic implications extend beyond corporate balance sheets.

Growth in states like Texas can expand the tax base and provide additional funding flexibility for infrastructure, education and other priorities — often without raising tax rates.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Economic performance frequently shapes midterm messaging, and migration trends like these are poised to feature in debates over tax competitiveness.

Whether those patterns endure remains to be seen. For now, though, population flows are reinforcing a broader argument: tax policy is no longer an abstract debate — it’s shaping where Americans choose to build their futures.

Related Article

“America First” has been more than a slogan for President Trump. It has become a governing framework and near-mandate for his administration. America First policy decisions have manifested across immigration strategy, energy regulation, and, perhaps most clearly, trade policy.

The beef market has been in desperate need of an America First recalibration after President Joe Biden’s failed policies. Ground beef prices have become astronomical, reaching an average of $6.69 per pound in December, the highest price since tracking began in the 1980s.

These price increases are outpacing those of other food categories due to structural problems within the domestic beef market. Analysis from the American Farm Bureau Federation shows the domestic herd has fallen to a 75-year low and is continuing to shrink as fewer calves are retained for breeding. As a result, the U.S. cattle herd is unlikely to expand until at least 2028.

From my time as governor of Texas and agriculture commissioner for the nation’s leading cattle-producing state, I understand both the gravity of this situation and the need for a deliberate policy response.

In October, President Donald Trump addressed the need for beef affordability measures and signaled plans to increase imports, which he recently finalized through an executive order, opening the U.S. to an additional 80,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings from Argentina this year.

This step is valuable because the U.S. does not produce enough beef to meet domestic demand, necessitating imports. Argentina is a strategic and well-suited partner to remedy our beef shortage because they specialize in lower-cost, lean beef. These trimmings from Argentina will be blended with fattier domestic beef to produce hamburgers and ground beef products – affordable staples in high demand.

Importing the specific type of affordable beef directly addresses supply and aligns with an America First approach. Expanding lean beef imports will reduce pressures on our beef supply, thus reducing costs for consumers while protecting cattle ranchers’ premium production.

THE SURPRISING REASON WHY AMERICANS COULD FACE HIGH BEEF PRICES FOR YEARS

The impacts of these smart imports are complemented and multiplied by broader efforts to strengthen the cattle sector, including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ October plan to fortify the American beef industry and President Trump’s directive for the Department of Justice to crack down on foreign-owned meat packing cartels.

Beyond these efforts, the administration should reassess the existing allocation of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), which were configured in 1995. Reworking would acknowledge shifts in global production patterns and domestic market needs, putting U.S. ranchers in a better position.

Today, the overwhelming share of tariff-free beef imports are dedicated to Australia and New Zealand. Both countries focus heavily on premium, grass-fed exports – products that compete directly with higher-end U.S. beef in domestic and international markets.

By contrast, lean beef imports from South America primarily serve the lower-cost blended segment. Ranchers and their supporters criticizing the import increase from Argentina, but failing to push back about the near-unlimited market access Australia and New Zealand have are fighting the wrong battles.

The beef market has been in desperate need of an America First recalibration after President Joe Biden’s failed policies. 

Advertisement

Some policymakers have raised concerns that imports would sideline American ranchers and that we should focus on cutting red tape, lowering production costs and supporting cattle herd growth. These priorities are valid – but they’re not mutually exclusive with strategic imports.

RFK JR BACKS BEEF, DECLARING ‘WAR ON PROTEIN IS OVER’ AS HE THANKS AMERICA’S CATTLE RANCHERS

The notion that imports should be avoided is misguided and ignores structural supply realities. Strategic imports like lean trimmings can stabilize prices while allowing U.S. producers to concentrate on premium markets, where profitability is strongest. This is how we pave the path for rancher success.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

If U.S. ranchers are forced to simultaneously try and dominate serving both low-margin ground products and high-margin premium markets with higher-end cuts, they may become overwhelmed. From a long-term market perspective, overextension can discourage heifer retention and delay necessary herd rebuilding.

President Trump and his team are on the right path with the Argentina deal. This expansion should be defended unapologetically, incorporated beyond just 2026, and considered as part of a long-term strategy rather than a temporary measure.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Permanently expanding Argentina’s tariff-free access to the U.S. market for lean beef trimmings is how we ensure prices stop rising. The administration should also consider opportunities for expanded imports from other South American nations, such as Paraguay and Uruguay, where production aligns with U.S. market gaps.

Building an American First beef market requires precision and long-term thinking. The current policy shifts are moving in the right direction, which will support ranchers, strengthen our market and deliver affordability for American consumers.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RICK PERRY

Related Article

An appellate court found on Wednesday that Texas can enforce a law regulating drag shows in public places and in the presence of minors, scrapping a lower court order that had enjoined the state from doing so.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reaffirmed its November ruling, saying Texas can enforce the 2023 law regulating “sexually oriented performances.” The two-judge panel said only one plaintiff in the case had standing and sent the lawsuit back to the lower court to reevaluate the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is a candidate for Senate, framed the decision as a “major win” in a statement on social media.

“I successfully defended a law protecting children from being exposed to sexually illicit content at erotic drag shows,” Paxton said. “I will always work to shield our kids from exposure to erotic and inappropriate sexually oriented performances.”

The lawsuit, brought by numerous self-described LGBTQ organizations, centered on a state Senate bill that defined sexually oriented performances as visual performances that feature a nude person or sexual conduct and “[appeal] to the prurient interest in sex.” Under the law, a person could be prosecuted for causing a performance to occur in the presence of minors.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, an appointee of President Donald Trump, authored the opinion and was joined by Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

The judges found that most of the plaintiffs, including a nonprofit called Woodlands Pride, did not have standing to bring First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the law because the groups’ performances were benign and therefore not relevant to the Texas law.

The judges said, however, that a group called 360 Queen Entertainment did engage in explicit enough performances, sometimes in the presence of minors, and therefore had standing.

APPEALS COURT SAYS TEXAS CAN ENFORCE DRAG SHOW BAN, SUGGESTS NOT ALL DRAG SHOWS VIOLATE STATE LAW

“Based on the evidence introduced at trial, 360 Queen’s performances arguably include proscribed conduct,” Engelhardt wrote. “The owner described one performance where a drag queen, who was wearing a ‘very revealing’ breastplate, pulsed the breastplate in front of people and put the breastplate in people’s faces.”

Sometimes those performances were visible to children, Engelhardt noted.

The panel ordered the district court to evaluate whether 360 Queen was right to claim the Texas law violated its free speech rights under the First Amendment.

In a statement, Brian Klosterboer of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas said the 5th Circuit effectively deemed some drag performances “family-friendly” but that the law, which will go into effect in March, still had perceived constitutional problems.

“The law’s vague and sweeping provisions still create a harmful chilling effect for drag artists and those who support them, while also threatening many types of performing arts cherished here in Texas, from theater to ballet to professional wrestling,” Klosterboer said.

In 2023, Judge David Hittner, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, found Texas’ law was unconstitutional. It is “not unreasonable” to think it could affect activities like live theater or dancing, Hittner wrote.

Last November, the 5th Circuit vacated that order. On Wednesday, it reaffirmed that decision and denied the plaintiffs’ request to rehear their appeal.

Related Article