California’s merchandise export trade was valued at $15.932 billion in July (the latest data), according to Beacon Economics’ analysis of the latest statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division. That represents a 6.4% increase over the $14.978 billion in exports recorded in July 2024.

Over the same period, U.S. exports rose by just 3.7% to $175.111 billion from $168.813 billion. As a result, California’s share of the nation’s merchandise export trade climbed to 9.1% from 8.9% one year earlier.

Exports of California’s manufactured products in July rose to $9.987 billion from $9.399 billion, a 6.3% increase year-over-year. Meanwhile, the state’s shipments abroad of non-manufactured commodities jumped by 15.4% to $1.953 billion from $1.693 billion. Re-exports advanced by 2.7% to $3.992 billion from $3.886 billion in July 2024.

“Tariffs, or tariff threats, propelled a summer surge in shipments of computer and electronics equipment from California to Taiwan, the home of semiconductor manufacturing giants like TSMC, UMC, and the consumer electronics firm Foxconn,” said Jock O’Connell, Beacon Economics’ International Trade Advisor. “Otherwise, the export scene was largely recorded in red ink.”

During the year’s first seven months, California’s merchandise export trade totaled $109.496 billion, up 5.2% from $104.038 during the same period last year.

California Accounts For One-Fifth Of All U.S. Imports In Latest Data

The U.S. Commerce Department reports that California was again the nation’s leading state-of-destination for imported goods. Still, while the state’s 19.9% share of all U.S. merchandise imports in July was valued at $43.582 billion, that figure represented a 4.6% decline from the $45.683 billion in imported goods that entered the state in July 2024.

• Manufactured imports in July dropped by 3.6% to $39.106 billion from $40.557 billion one year earlier.
• Non-manufactured imports were valued at $4.476 billion, down by 12.7% from the $5.126 billion in non-manufactured goods the state imported in July 2024.  

Please note that Beacon Economics has long taken a skeptical view of the federal government’s state-of-destination statistics. The data’s fundamental shortcoming is that they capture not just goods consumed by California residents or used by California businesses but also a sizable quantity of imported merchandise that is offloaded at California ports but is bound for markets elsewhere in the country.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE NUMBERS

As always, Beacon Economics advises against reading too much into month-to-month fluctuations in state export statistics, especially when focusing on specific commodities or destinations. Significant variations can occur due to unusual developments or exceptional one-off trades and may not be indicative of underlying trends. For that reason, Beacon Economics compares the latest three months for which data are available (i.e., May-July) with the corresponding period one year earlier. Please note that the numbers cited in this report are nominal values.

LEADING EXPORT COMMODITIES

The table below displays year-over-year changes in California’s merchandise exports. In recent years, eleven commodity groups have posted three-month export totals exceeding $1 billion.

DESTINATIONS

Fourteen foreign markets recorded one billion dollars or more in imports from California in this year’s May-July period. Remarkably but unsurprisingly, shipments to China and Hong Kong continued their precipitous declines as both Japan and Taiwan claimed larger shares of California’s transpacific export trade.
 

In this year’s May-July period, the state’s merchandise export trade with the economies of East Asia rose by 4.3% as the value of shipments across the Pacific totaled $16.557 billion, up from $15.878 billion one year earlier. Meanwhile, California’s exports to the European Union jumped by 13.2% to $7.821 billion from $6.911 billion. The state’s exports to Latin America and the Caribbean (excluding Mexico) dropped by 5.9% to $2.164 billion from $2.300 billion. Finally, California’s shipments to the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa plummeted by 22.9% to $153 million from $199 million.

Mexico and Canada, America’s partners in the Canada-Mexico-US Free Trade Area, combined to account for 26.4% of California’s $48.028 billion merchandise export trade in this year’s May-July period as the nominal value of shipments to our immediate neighbors declined by 5.1% to $12.680 billion from $13.367 billion.

MODE OF TRANSPORT

Over half (52.5%) of California’s $48.028 billion merchandise export trade in this year’s May-July period was shipped by air, while waterborne transport accounted for 23.7% of the state’s outbound trade. The balance of the state’s exports largely travelled overland to Canada and Mexico. 

THE PORTS

• Total export trade at California ports from May-25 to Jul-25 was up 0.7% over the same period last year. Exports were up through airports (11.5%) during this period, but down at land ports (-13.2%) and seaports (-6.8%).
• Total import trade at California ports was up 0.6% over the same period last year. Imports were up through airports (29.9%) over this period, but down at land ports (-0.7%) and seaports (-8.6%).
• California ports accounted for 10.7% of all exports from the United States in Jul-25, down 0.3 percentage points from the same period one year ago.
• California ports accounted for 20.7% of all imports into the United States in Jul-25, up 0.2 percentage points over the same period one year ago.
• Container counts at the Port of Long Beach fell by 8% from July 2024 to July 2025. 
• Container counts at the Port of Los Angeles fell by 2.3% from July 2024 to July 2025.

THE OUTLOOK

If it’s not one thing…

Just as the considerable volume of dust kicked up by President Trump’s frequent and disparate tariff proclamations had finally begun to settle enough for analysts to venture qualified guesses about the future of the global trading system, along came last week’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District affirming an earlier ruling that Mr. Trump lacked the constitutional authority to unilaterally impose most of the tariffs he has been levying against imported merchandise. Recognizing that the administration would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the appellate body delayed implementation of its ruling until sometime next month.

So now experts on international trade must now defer to constitutional lawyers, seldom a group known for consensus interpretations about how the Roberts’ Court might rule. From a layperson’s perspective, there is ample evidence that SCOTUS has been extremely deferential to President Trump. Indeed, it has been more likely to overrule lower court rulings that were seen to limit the chief executive. Even before President. Trump’s re-election, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority had all but embraced the “unitary executive” theory that accords the president a degree of administrative sway not accorded previous White House occupants.

Leaving aside the finer points of constitutional law, the fundamental question before Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues is whether they are prepared to risk a direct confrontation with Mr. Trump that could precipitate a constitutional crisis that would relegate the court itself to a much diminished role in American jurisprudence. Does the court, in short, concur with the appellate body’s ruling of last week and, if so, does President Trump dare the court to find the means of imposing its will over his.

Under circumstances defined by raw political power, we expect that Justice Roberts will try to craft a decision that permits Mr. Trump to continue to decide foreign trade policy without actually ruling that Congress’s fundamental prerogatives over foreign commerce would be permanently and irrevocably abrogated.

So, for the time being, uncertainty will continue to plague business decision making and cloud the crystal balls of trade analysts.