California’s merchandise export trade was nominally valued at $15.092 billion in April (the latest data), a 4.9% increase over the $14.391 billion recorded in April 2024, according to a Beacon Economics’ analysis of the latest statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division.

However, over the same period, U.S. exports in April jumped by 9.9% to $188.593 billion from $171.673 billion. As a result, California’s share of the nation’s merchandise export trade fell to 8.0% from 8.4% one year earlier.

Exports of California’s manufactured products in April grew by 2.4% year-over-year to $9.466 billion from $9.248 billion. Meanwhile, the state’s exports of non-manufactured commodities leapt by 12.4% to $1.952 billion from $1.737 billion. Re-exports rose by 7.9% to $3.674 billion from $3.406 billion in April 2024.

“The latest figures reflect surges in exports of aircraft equipment and computer components as well as sharp declines in shipments of computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment,” said Jock O’Connell, Beacon Economics’ International Trade Advisor. “As the world adjusts to higher tariffs and to the possibility of outright trade wars between the U.S. and its major trading partners, we expect smaller volumes of both exports and imports in the coming months.”

California Imports Decline

The U.S. Commerce Department reports that California was again the nation’s leading state-of-destination for imported goods, accounting for more than one-eighth of all U.S. merchandise imports in April. Still, while the state’s 13.8% share of all U.S. merchandise imports in April was valued at $38.010 billion, that figure represented a 10.0% decline from the $42.214 billion in imported goods in April 2024.

• Manufactured imports in April dropped by 10.5% to $33.695 billion from $37.668 billion one year earlier.  
• Non-manufactured imports were valued at $4.315 billion, down by 5.1% from the $4.546 billion in non-manufactured goods the state imported in April 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., February-April) with the corresponding period one year earlier. Please note that the numbers cited in this report are nominal values.

LEADING EXPORT COMMODITIES

The tables below display year-over-year changes in California’s merchandise exports. In recent years, eleven commodity groups have posted three-month export totals exceeding $1 billion. In the latest three month, that number has grown to twelve as exports of Used or Second-Hand Merchandise have topped the billion-dollar mark.

DESTINATIONS

Twelve foreign overseas markets recorded one billion dollars or more in imports from California in the latest three-month period. Remarkably, China was overtaken by both Japan and Taiwan in the latest list of leading destinations for California exports. Shipments to Malaysia, formerly a billion dollar market, fell beneath the billion dollar mark in this latest period.

In the February-April months of this year, the state’s merchandise export trade with the economies of East Asia was essentially flat as the value of shipments across the Pacific totaled $14.744 billion, up a modest 1.8% from $14.488 billion one year earlier. Meanwhile, California’s exports to the European Union increased by 11.8% to $7.787 billion from $6.966 billion one year earlier. The state’s exports to Latin America and the Caribbean (excluding Mexico) jumped by 20.4% to $2.442 billion from $2.027 billion. Finally, California’s shipments to the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa fell by 16.7% to $138 million from $167 million.

Mexico and Canada, America’s partners in the Canada-Mexico-US Free Trade Area, combined to account for 28.6% of California’s $46.526 billion merchandise export trade in the latest three-month period as the nominal value of shipments to our immediate neighbors grew by 3.3% to $13.305 billion from $12.880 billion.  

MODE OF TRANSPORT

Nearly half (49.1%) of the state’s $46.526 billion merchandise export trade in this year’s February-April period was shipped by air, while waterborne transport carried 24.9% of the state’s outbound trade. The balance of the state’s exports largely travelled overland to Canada and Mexico.  

THE PORTS

Trade through California ports has remained stable over the last five years, however the mode by which goods are moved has shifted. Airports and Seaports continue to be the primary way by which goods are exported from California ports, but exports have declined at Seaports (-9%) over the last five years. In contrast, exports from Land Ports have grown a substantial 45.6% over this period.

Imports through California ports are up 59.5% over the last five years. Seaports continue to account for the majority of imports through California ports, however these imports have only grown 51.9% over the last five years. Imports through California Airports have doubled over the last five years.

• Total export trade through California ports from January 2025 to March 2025 was up 9.0% over the same period last year. Exports were up through Land Ports (3.2%) and Airports (21.4%), but down at Seaports (-1.4%).
• Total import trade at California ports was up 16.6% over the same period last year. Imports were up through Airports (41.3%), Seaports (11%), and Land Ports (6.6%).
• California ports accounted for 10.6% of exports from the United States between January 2025 and March 2025, up 0.5 percentage points over the same period one year ago.
• California ports accounted for 18.4% of imports into the United States from January 2025 to March 2025, down 1.7 percentage points from the same period one year ago.
• Container counts at the Port of Long Beach grew 27.3% from March 2024 to March 2025.
• Container counts at the Port of Los Angeles grew 8.8% from March 2024 to March 2025.

THE OUTLOOK

Increasingly, it’s McKinley’s and not Biden’s fault that America’s economy is veering into a recession. As much as Trump administration officials seek to blame the economy they inherited from former President Joe Biden for the encroaching malaise, it may actually be former President William McKinley’s doing. After all, in Donald Trump’s oft-repeated version of American economic history, the country was never in better shape economically than it was in the late 1890s, when it flourished behind a wall of high tariffs President McKinley had erected.

Some six score and four years after McKinley’s residence in the White House was abruptly ended by an assassin’s bullet in September 1901, President Trump is vigorously pushing the constitutional boundaries of presidential authority by imposing or threatening to impose draconian levies on nearly all imported goods. As the president has often insisted, the level of tariffs President McKinley imposed were key to the economic power.

A number of challenges to President Trump’s actions have been filed in federal courts – including one by California Attorney General Rob Bonta — questioning whether the president has the legal prerogative to follow McKinley’s lead. Separately, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against Trump on May 28, saying he did not have the constitutional authority to aggressively impose tariffs.

Ultimately, the matter will go before the U.S. Supreme Court, which seems unlikely to rule on the issue before it adjourns its current session later this month. Even if it does concur with the Court of International Trade, it is unclear whether the president would obey a Supreme Court ruling that challenges his authority. One way or another, the current uncertainty surrounding tariffs will probably continue to cloud the outlook for international trade.

A large part of the problem is the fundamental inconsistency of President Trump’s trade policy objectives. On the one hand, his objective of using tariff revenues to offset the financial consequences of his “One Big Beautiful Bill” demands that current tariffs remain in place for much of the next decade. Likewise, his goal of using high tariffs to induce more companies to locate manufacturing facilities in this country necessitates that high tariffs remain more or less permanent. Otherwise, there is little incentive to invest in U.S. operations if the prospect of a favorable return-on-investment is threatened by a president eager to negotiate trade agreements that would almost necessarily involve a lowering of tariffs.

So the clouded outlook over the next several months calls for declining volumes of trade as importers cope with high U.S. tariffs while exporters are confronted by the tariffs and other trade barriers that have been erected in retaliation.

Meanwhile, U.S. exporters must cope with a dollar that, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Dollar Index, has lost 7.8% of its value since President Trump’s inauguration. That represents how much deeper foreign buyers of American goods are having to dig into their pockets to import the same volume of U.S. products. And, later this year, there lurks an additional burden to exporters as well as importers in the shape of large fees to be assessed to the great majority of ships transporting goods through U.S. ports.