Trade war escalation: Texas to face the biggest blow from Trump's tariffs
Why it matters: If foreign goods cost 25% more, someone has to absorb the difference — either businesses or consumers.
Some estimates suggest the new tariffs could cost the average U.S. household $830 a year — and that's before factoring in likely retaliatory tariffs from Canada, China and Mexico.
State of play: Trump triggered a global trade war with the biggest U.S. trade partners on Tuesday by slapping 25% tariffs on exports from Canada and Mexico and 20% on China.
The tariffs on imported goods could cost the Texas economy an estimated $47 billion, per economic research firm Trade Partnership Worldwide.
The big picture: The tariffs will affect big-ticket items like cars and machinery, but also consumer staples — everything from groceries to beer and oats.
The impact will be especially sharp on goods that are harder to produce domestically, including agricultural products.
Threat level: Because Texas is deeply integrated with supply chains — from Mexico, in particular — the state will more heavily feel the strain, Tony Payan, the director of the Center for the U.S. and Mexico at the Baker Institute, tells Axios.
"Because Texas is the origin, destination or transit point of two-thirds of binational trade, clearly, Texas will be more affected than other states that are not as integrated," he says.
What they're saying: "Texas values the strong economic partnerships we have built with Mexico and Canada, our two largest trading partners," Justin Yancy, president of the Texas Business Leadership Council said in a statement.
"The imposition of these tariffs on our neighboring countries will disrupt supply chains, increase costs for businesses and families and create unnecessary barriers to economic cooperation," Yancy added.
Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Texas Association of Business, told Texas Public Radio that his organization is very concerned tariffs will "harm what has been record employment in the state of Texas."
"And I'll also say we're concerned for the consumer," Hamer added.
Case in point: Texas-based automotive giants General Motors in Arlington and Toyota in San Antonio face mounting pressure. Arlington Mayor Jim Ross and San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg warn that rising production costs could lead to higher car prices, weakened demand and potential job losses in their cities.
Zoom in: China is Houston's top trade partner, followed by Mexico, with $31.8 billion and $28.7 billion, respectively, in trade value in 2023, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.
If Mexico retaliates with its own tariffs, Houston's oil and gas industry — which supplies oil to Mexico — will take a hit, Payan says.
What we're watching: How the cards fall, how businesses respond, which countries retaliate and how it'll impact Americans wallets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Do Wall Street Analysts Like Valero Energy Stock?
With a market cap of $41.4 billion, Valero Energy Corporation (VLO) is the largest independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products in the United States, operating in multiple countries. It operates through three segments - Refining, Renewable Diesel, and Ethanol, producing and marketing a wide range of petroleum-based and low-carbon fuels under brands such as Valero, Beacon, Diamond Shamrock, Ultramar, and Texaco. Shares of the San Antonio, Texas-based company have underperformed the broader market over the past 52 weeks. VLO stock has declined 9.7% over this time frame, while the broader S&P 500 Index ($SPX) has rallied 18.8%. Moreover, shares of the company are up 8.7% on a YTD basis, compared to SPX's 9.8% gain. More News from Barchart Warren Buffett Warns Investing At 'Too-High Purchase Price' Even for 'an Excellent Company' Can Undo a Decade of Smart Investing BitMine Immersion Now Holds 1.15 Million Ethereum Tokens. Should You Buy BMNR Stock Here? Why Archer Aviation's (ACHR) Post-Earnings Tailspin Looks Like a Favorably Mispriced Opportunity Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. Looking closer, shares of Valero Energy have also lagged behind the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund's (XLE) 5.1% dip over the past 52 weeks. Despite beating Wall Street's Q2 2025 estimates with EPS of $2.28 and revenue of $29.9 billion, shares of VLO fell 4.9% on Jul. 24. The renewable diesel segment posted a $79 million operating loss, a sharp drop from a $112 million profit last year. Additionally, investor sentiment was pressured by news of the planned April 2026 closure of the Benicia refinery, which would remove about 5% of Valero's total refining capacity and 9% of California's crude oil capacity. For the fiscal year ending in December 2025, analysts expect VLO's EPS to drop 16.6% year-over-year to $7.07. The company's earnings surprise history is mixed. It met the consensus estimates in three of the last four quarters while missing on another occasion. Among the 19 analysts covering the stock, the consensus rating is a 'Moderate Buy.' That's based on 12 'Strong Buy' ratings, one 'Moderate Buy,' and six 'Holds.' This configuration is less bullish than three months ago, with 15 'Strong Buy' ratings on the stock. On Jul. 16, Morgan Stanley increased its price target for Valero to $160 and maintained its 'Overweight" rating on the stock. As of writing, the stock is trading below the mean price target of $158.06. The Street-high price target of $186 implies a potential upside of 38.8%. On the date of publication, Sohini Mondal did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
