California's Economy Has a Trump Problem

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Californian economy is expected to undergo "a mild contraction," with unemployment expected to hit 6.1 percent this year according to a new report by UCLA's Anderson Forecast, which makes projections about both the state and the national economy.
The report attributes the contraction in part to the impact of the White House's policies on tariffs and its crackdown on illegal immigration, which it projects will fuel inflation and drag on economic growth for the remainder of 2025.
Why It Matters
President Donald Trump was inaugurated for the second time in January with the promise of delivering a new "golden age" for the United States.
However, if the Anderson Forecast is correct, and his flagship policies on tariffs and immigration are causing economic growth to drag, the president will come under pressure to explain how this pledge will be met.
The Anderson Forecast, produced by UCLA's Anderson School of Management, is one of the most closely watched set of predictions for the economy of California.
What To Know
The forecast projects that the Californian economy "will grow slower than the U.S.'s in 2025, with several quarters of negative job growth" and says it is "already experiencing a mild contraction, with job losses and stagnation in key sectors."
This, and the projected slowdown in the national economy resulting in "near zero" real GDP growth in the second half of 2025, are attributed to "aggressive trade policies, fiscal instability and labor market disruptions" fueled by the federal government. The forecast projects the national economy will make only a "modest recovery" through 2027.
According to the Anderson Forecast, the Californian economy will grow by just 0.1 percent in 2025, followed by 0.8 percent in 2026 and 2.5 percent in 2027. Non-agricultural payroll jobs will decline slightly in the state this year, while inflation will hit 6.1 percent in 2025 before falling back to 4.4 percent in 2027.
Stock image of the California state flag hanging from a downtown office building in San Francisco. President Donald Trump, inset.
Stock image of the California state flag hanging from a downtown office building in San Francisco. President Donald Trump, inset.
Smith Collection/Gado/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/GETTY
The report says that the sectors "that have historically driven California's superior growth," such as technology, entertainment and durable goods manufacturing, "are either stagnant or contracting." It reports that the Californian housing sector is also under pressure as a result of "rising input costs owing to tariffs" and "deportations reducing the construction workforce."
On the national level, the forecast says tariffs "are increasing costs across manufacturing and trade-related sectors, contributing to inflation and weakening the competitiveness of U.S. goods."
On April 2, which he dubbed "Liberation Day," Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs targeting most of America's trade partners, including levies of 20 percent on the European Union and 34 percent on China, which came on top of another 20 percent he had already imposed.
Following a negative market reaction, most of these tariffs were paused and replaced with a flat 10-percent rate, but some higher duties remain in place, including a 25-percent rate for automobile-related imports.
Trump has also imposed a major crackdown targeting illegal immigration, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement stepping up raids across the country and speeding up deportation proceedings.
What People Are Saying
Speaking to Newsweek, Professor Jerry Nickelsburg, director of UCLA's Anderson Forecast, said: "In the first three months of 2025, California lost 50,000 payroll jobs. The growth sectors over the past year have stopped growing and tech, manufacturing and entertainment have yet to take off. Income growth will be positive, but it is likely that employment growth will be slightly negative."
Professor Chris Tilly, who teaches at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, told Newsweek that "the impact of President Trump's tariff policies and immigration crackdown will be severe nationwide, and especially severe in California."
He said: "In California, one in three jobs is filled by an immigrant, and a large minority of California's immigrant workforce is undocumented. Critical California industries such as agriculture, construction, restaurants and hotels, and manufacturing are dependent on immigrant workforces, including undocumented workers.
"Undocumented families in California, most of whom are long-term residents at this point, also make up an important part of the consumer base. Already, many undocumented migrants are not showing up for work, and are shopping less. Even legal immigrants and Latino citizens are going out less, and therefore spending less, out of fear of being stopped and questioned. If this continues, the effects on the California economy—as well as the economy of many other states—will be devastating."
Tilly added: "The probable impact of Trump's tariffs is less certain, in part because there is so much uncertainty about what his tariff policy will end up being. But already there are major depressing effects on the ports and warehousing that are important contributors to California's economy. To the extent that other countries retaliate with tariffs on key California exports such as agricultural goods and high-tech products, that will further batter the economy."
Professor Robert Blecker, an economist who used to teach at the American University in Washington, D.C., told Newsweek: "Trump's massive deportations of immigrant workers are likely to cause labor shortages and drive up labor costs in key sectors such as agriculture, construction, and services, while his on-again, off-again tariffs have depressed consumer and business confidence and threaten to drive up costs for households and firms alike."
What Happens Next
It remains to be seen if the Anderson Forecast's projections for the U.S. and Californian economies for the remainder of this year are correct. If they are, Trump is likely to come under heightened pressure over his economic and social policies, including tariffs and mass deportations.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

13 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Trump claims tariffs could 'eliminate' income tax for Americans making under $200,000

Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. President Donald Trump says tariffs could deliver a financial windfall for everyday Americans — by wiping out their income taxes. 'When tariffs cut in, many people's income taxes will be substantially reduced, maybe even completely eliminated,' Trump declared in a Truth Social post on April 27. 'Focus will be on people making less than $200,000 a year.' That's a bold promise, especially considering that only 14.4% of U.S. households earned more than $200,000 annually in 2023, according to Census Bureau data. In other words, if Trump's vision holds true, the vast majority of Americans would pay no income tax at all. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) But don't celebrate just yet. While Trump is optimistic, experts say the math simply doesn't add up. Economists Erica York and Huaqun Li of the Tax Foundation were blunt, explaining in a response on April 28 that 'the individual income tax raises more than 27 times as much revenue as tariffs currently do,' and 'even eliminating income taxes for a subset of taxpayers, such as those earning $200,000 or less, would require significantly higher replacement revenues than tariffs could generate.' They estimate that the tariffs Trump has imposed and scheduled as of April 2025 would generate nearly $167 billion in new federal tax revenue in 2025 — covering less than 25% of the cost of eliminating income taxes for people earning below $200,000. While Trump's proposal faces serious doubts, policy changes aren't the only route to lowering tax bills. Here are two powerful assets that everyday investors can use to their advantage. Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business, once said that if you're trying to build wealth, you have 'an obligation to pay as little tax as possible.' His advice? Keep it simple: 'You buy stocks, you never sell them, you borrow against them.' Galloway broke it down with an example: 'You own $100 in Amazon stock. You need money to buy something. Instead of selling the stock, and let's say it's gone up 50% ... You would have to realize a capital gain and pay long-term capital gains [tax] on that $50 gain. No, just borrow against it and let the stock continue to grow.' This strategy allows investors to tap into the value of their portfolios without triggering a taxable event. Because capital gains are only taxed when realized, borrowing against appreciated assets lets investors access cash while deferring taxes. Meanwhile, the investments themselves can continue to grow. And since the interest on the loan is often smaller than the tax bill from a sale, this approach can be a powerful tool for preserving and compounding wealth over time. Of course, not all investors want to pick individual stocks — and you don't have to. Warren Buffett, one of the most successful investors of our time, recommends a much simpler path: buying a cross-section of the American economy. 'In my view, for most people, the best thing to do is own the S&P 500 index,' Buffett has stated, meaning invest in an S&P 500 index fund. This straightforward approach gives investors exposure to the top American companies on the stock market, providing diversified exposure without the need for constant monitoring or active trading. The beauty of this approach is its accessibility — anyone, regardless of wealth, can take advantage of it. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — Real estate has long been a go-to asset for building wealth — and one of the reasons is the generous tax treatment it receives. When you earn rental income from an investment property, you can claim deductions for a wide range of expenses, such as mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance and ongoing maintenance and repairs. Real estate investors also benefit from depreciation — a tax deduction that recognizes the gradual wear and tear of a property over time. Today, you don't need to be a millionaire or buy property outright to benefit from real estate investing. For example, Homeshares opens the door to the $30-plus trillion U.S. home equity market — a space that was once reserved almost exclusively for institutional investors. With a minimum investment of $25,000, accredited investors can gain direct exposure to hundreds of owner-occupied homes in top U.S. cities through their U.S. Home Equity Fund — without the headaches of buying, owning or managing property. With risk-adjusted target returns ranging from 14% to 17%, this approach provides an effective, hands-off way to invest in owner-occupied residential properties across regional markets. If you're an accredited investor looking for larger returns through commercial real estate, First National Realty Partners (FNRP) could be a better fit with a $50,000 minimum investment requirement. Specializing in grocery-anchored retail, FNRP offers a turnkey solution for investors, allowing them to passively earn distribution income while benefiting from the firm's expertise and deal leadership. FNRP has developed relationships with the nation's largest essential-needs brands, including Kroger, Walmart and Whole Foods, and provides insights into the best properties both on and off-market. And since the investments are necessity-based, they tend to perform well during times of economic volatility and act as a hedge against inflation. You can engage with experts, explore available deals and easily make an allocation, all in one personalized, secure portal. JPMorgan sees gold soaring to $6,000/ounce — use this 1 simple IRA trick to lock in those potential shiny gains (before it's too late) This tiny hot Costco item has skyrocketed 74% in price in under 2 years — but now the retail giant is restricting purchases. Here's how to buy the coveted asset in bulk This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs Millions of Americans now sit on a stunning $35 trillion in home equity — here's 1 new way to invest in responsible US homeowners This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio

Chicago Tribune

16 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran

Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.

Newsweek

17 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Satellite Images Show 'Unusual' Activity at Iran Nuclear Site Before Strikes

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Satellite imagery captured ahead of U.S. strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites showed "unusual" movement around the entrance to Iran's Fordow enrichment facility. Pictures captured on Thursday and Friday showed "unusual truck and vehicular activity" close to the entrance of the underground Fordow complex south of Tehran, satellite imagery giant Maxar said late on Saturday U.S. time. A total of 16 cargo trucks were spotted on the access road leading up to the Fordow tunnel entrance on Thursday, but most of the trucks had relocated to one kilometer (0.6 miles) northwest of the access road by the following day, Maxar said. New trucks and multiple bulldozers had appeared close to the main entrance by Friday, with one truck very close to the main tunnel entrance, the satellite imagery provider said. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday evening the U.S. had bombed the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan sites in central Iran in "massive precision strikes" to take out Tehran's nuclear enrichment facilities and Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon. Satellite imagery captured by Maxar on June 19 showing cargo trucks close to the underground entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility, prior to U.S. air strikes on the underground complex. Satellite imagery captured by Maxar on June 19 showing cargo trucks close to the underground entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility, prior to U.S. air strikes on the underground complex. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies The strikes were a "spectacular military success," Trump said. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Israel launched strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and scientists, as well as the country's ballistic missile sites and other military assets, late on June 12 U.S. time. Iran responded with drone and ballistic missile barrages. Israel targeted Natanz and Isfahan, but experts said only the U.S.'s B-2 heavy stealth bombers and 30,000lb "bunker buster" bombs could successfully take out Fordow, a complex built deep into a mountain roughly 60 miles from Tehran. Fordow's existence was secret until 2009. This is a developing story and will be updated.