The Brief

President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are putting many California businesses, jobs and the state budget at risk. They’re affecting not only long-term relationships with trading partners, but an intricate web of ecosystems and supply chains.

The California business owners and groups grappling with the tariffs — wine shop owners, winery founders, farmers — say the precise effects on their industries are unclear so far. They hope there will be an upside.

But for those who have a broad view of trade, things look grim.

The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, the busiest ports in North America, both saw first-quarter increases in imports, but declines in exports, year over year.

Gene Seroka, executive director for the Port of Los Angeles, attributed the higher volume of cargo being moved to “front-loading as a hedge against tariffs” during a recent media briefing. But he said his port saw year-over-year declines in exports for the fourth month in a row, “raising concerns for our [agriculture] and manufacturing partners as counter-tariffs on exports begin to take effect.”

Seroka — who said companies have been telling him they are holding back on hiring and capital investments — predicted a slowdown in cargo movement beginning in May, and expects a 10% drop in volume from July until next year. His predictions are already beginning to show up in the port’s import volume.

Some of that may be due to a decline in Chinese imports. On April 9, Trump raised his tariff on China to 145%, although he later exempted certain electronics, such as laptops and smartphones. China responded on April 12 with 125% tariffs on U.S. products. Chinese goods represent 40% of the imports that pass through the Port of Los Angeles, Seroka said.

A decline in volume will affect port jobs, though he doesn’t anticipate mass layoffs, he said. More than 1.5 million jobs are tied to the two Southern California ports.

The effects of decreased trade will vary for different businesses in the state — even within the same industries.

The California wine industry

A wine merchant in Walnut Creek who sells mostly European wines — on which the president has threatened 200% tariffs — said he’s going to have to make adjustments, like carrying more California wines, or consider closing up shop.

“I’d have to think about whether it’s worthwhile staying in business,” said Igor Ivanov, owner of wine shop Vinous Reverie. He added that the tariff issues are just the latest of the wine industry’s woes, which include the fact that people just aren’t drinking as much alcohol as they used to.

On the other hand, increased tariffs on European wine could help boost California wine.

Natalie Collins, president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, said tariffs on competing wines could help local wine growers.

Bruce Lundquist, co-founder of Rack & Riddle, which he said is the largest custom producer of sparkling wine in the nation, agreed with Collins: “I wish Americans would look at wines grown in their backyard.”

Lundquist said so far Healdsburg-based Rack & Riddle is OK — the company is stocked up on supplies that he orders from different places, both in and out of the country. But he can’t say what his winery and retail clients might be going through. Lundquist worries about tariff uncertainty dragging on, say through next year.

“There would have to be a reckoning if this thing were to go on,” he said. “It’s already hard enough to run a winery.”

What’s at stake as the U.S. wine industry grapples with tariffs: $86 billion in annual sales, U.S. Census Bureau data said. California exported $1.3 billion worth of wine in 2022, per the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Farmworkers work at the Heringer Estates Family Vineyards and Winery in Clarksburg on March 24, 2020.

(

Rich Pedroncelli

/

AP Photo

)

Even if the wine produced in this country stays here, tariffs mean winemakers face higher costs on everything from bottles — glass mostly imported from China — to labels and corks, to metal posts and wooden stakes for the vines. As for U.S. wine exports, 95% of those come from California, says Gino DiCaro, spokesperson for the Wine Institute.

And 35% of exports go to Canada, which now has a serious don’t-buy-American, don’t-go-to-America campaign in effect because of the U.S. president’s threats about tariffs and annexing Canada.

Canadians "are voting with their feet, and there's a real sense of betrayal and a sense of shock,” said Rana Sarkar, consul general of Canada in San Francisco. “Economic crisis within Canada will no doubt ensue from this, but it will also be deeply painful in the United States.”

California recently became the first state to sue the Trump administration over tariffs. Gov. Gavin Newsom said the tariffs’ trade and geopolitical effects are “outsized,” while Attorney General Rob Bonta said the president bypassed the power of Congress to tax and regulate commerce by declaring a national emergency. California’s lawsuit seeks to pause the tariffs immediately.

But in some cases, the damage is already done. The office of U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat whose district includes Napa’s Wine Country, shared anonymized anecdotes from winery owners and managers, who the congressman’s staff said are afraid to go on the record. Thompson’s constituents say their Canadian business partners have canceled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of orders, and that potential sales to Mexico or the European Union are on hold. One medium-size winery in St. Helena told Thompson’s staff that since the tariffs Trump imposed during his first term, it has lost 90% of its business with China and is no longer seeking to sell there: “China has turned to other wine regions across the globe and we believe rebuilding this market will take over 20 years.”

In addition, “the uncertainty itself has had damage, even though we [may not] get the tariffs,” said Daniel Sumner, economics professor and director of the University of California Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis.

California and other producers of agricultural products want to be able to tell customers they’re reliable suppliers, Sumner said. “But you can’t do that if prices can go up. That’s a real problem,” he said.

Sumner added: “A major concern for any industry is the increased likelihood of a global recession and slower growth in general.”

Investment banks and economists have said a recession is likely. Citing Trump’s tariffs, the International Monetary Fund has slashed its forecast for U.S. and global economic growth this year.

Farming: Almonds, dairy and other crops

Ryan Talley is vice president of Talley Farms in Arroyo Grande, in San Luis Obispo County, which was started in the 1940s by his grandfather. Now his children are the fourth generation of his family to work for the farm, which grows a few dozen crops.

Ryan Talley, vice-president and co-owner of Talley Farms, in Arroyo Grande on April 14, 2025.

(

Julie Leopo-Bermudez

/

CalMatters

)

Talley said his medium-size farm is still able to sell spinach to Canada, but he’s concerned about being able to sell bell peppers to the country, because harvest season for those won’t come until August through November. He hopes the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will protect those sales — but Trump has threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico a few times.

Talley Farms’ other crops — including cabbage, kale, lettuce and corn — are distributed domestically but are highly perishable. Talley said that means it’s tough to adjust operations to any tariffs because of changes to fuel, fertilizing or other supply costs.

“We don’t have months to wait something out,” he said. “We have to continue our operations at the intensity that we currently farm.” He added that “we’re going to have to take those rising prices and deal with it the best we can.”

In addition, Talley worries that one possible effect of tariffs is a glut of domestically grown crops. “If the majority of U.S. farms weren't able to export their product, everything would stay here, which would completely flood the market and send prices down,” he said. “It would be great for consumers [in terms of prices] but in the end it would hurt the American farmer.”

But Talley’s biggest concern is his farm’s workers, who could be affected by Trump’s stated intent of mass deportations: “I can withstand an increase in fuel prices and fertilizer prices and regulatory burden to an extent. But if you take away my labor overnight, it would be hard for us.”

It’s almost impossible to find a part of California agriculture unaffected by Trump’s tariffs.

Shawna Morris, executive vice president of trade policy at the National Milk Producers Federation, said she is concerned about California’s dairy exports to Mexico, including cheese. The other really big market for California dairy products is China, which has already “pulled the trigger” on retaliatory tariffs, Morris said. California’s dairy exports totaled $3.2 billion in 2022.

California’s biggest export, almonds, had $4.7 billion in foreign sales in 2022. Their longer shelf life is a plus, said almond farmer Jenny Holtermann, in Kern County. “We harvest once a year, then [our processor partners] sell throughout the year,” she said. “The tariffs won’t affect us instantly.”

Crops are harvested at Talley Farms in Arroyo Grande on April 14, 2025.

(

Julie Leopo-Bermudez

/

CalMatters

)

Crops are harvested at Talley Farms in Arroyo Grande on April 14, 2025.

(

Julie Leopo-Bermudez

/

CalMatters

)

Holtermann has experience from the tariffs the president imposed during his first term. She would not share specific numbers for her own farm — which has also been in her family for four generations — but acknowledged those tariffs hurt the almond industry, which is “just now starting to rebound.”

Almond growers saw their prices drop from $2.50 a pound to $1.40 a pound after Trump’s tariffs in 2018, according to research from the University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.

Holtermann said farmers’ costs have only gone up, so her farm has adjusted by using less fertilizer, buying fewer tractors or letting trucks run a little longer before replacing them.

But she said she thinks the president’s tariffs are part of “a long-game approach … to get our country back to the economic powerhouse we’re supposed to be.”

Besides, Holtermann is counting on a couple of things. One is California almonds’ dominance: The state produces 80% of the world’s almonds, says the Almond Alliance.

The other thing she’s hoping for is another possible federal bailout, which reportedly has been discussed by the Trump administration. During the Trump 1.0 trade war, the federal government provided farmers with “market facilitation funds” of $23 billion to try to offset the business they lost as a result of China’s retaliatory tariffs on the United States, the Government Accountability Office said in a 2021 report.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has not responded to CalMatters’ questions.

Those funds helped her farm last time, Holtermann said, so she’s hoping for more of the same. “I do know he supports agriculture,” she said of the president. “He’s had a lot of meetings with agriculture organizations.”

Still, she expects to take a short-term hit from tariffs this time around, including losing business from certain countries. “I’m not naive,” Holtermann said. “I’m sure we will miss a portion of that market share.”

But Shannon Douglass, president of the California Farm Bureau, is concerned about getting global buyers to return once they switch to other sources. “We know the last round, almonds and pistachios saw a 20% drop in exports,” she said. “Once they have moved it can take a long time to get those markets back.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Companies backing data center construction are flooding Sacramento with cash, hoping to stop or defang seven bills that would regulate the facilities as they head toward approval in the California Legislature this week.

The pro-data-center spenders include Big Tech companies like Amazon and AI titan Anthropic. But they are led, dollar-wise, by old school utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric, which earlier this year clocked its second biggest lobbying quarter since 1999.

The financial push comes a year after four bills that attempted to regulate data centers died or were diluted after lobbying from the industry. But as artificial intelligence fuels an unprecedented facility buildout, public backlash is transforming data center construction into a major issue for candidates in upcoming elections.

A May Gallup poll found seven in 10 Americans oppose data center construction in their communities, while a Public Policy Institute of California poll in July found similar opposition statewide. Rising public anxiety over utility costs, water use, and grid strain has driven California lawmakers to propose strict new data center rules — igniting a high-stakes lobbying push by the industry.

Hundreds of cities have considered or passed project bans this year, including in Monterey Park, where voters passed a ballot measure to permanently ban data centers, and Bay Area cities like Pittsburg, which backtracked on approvals following public outcry.

State law requires businesses and groups that engage in lobbying to report their overall quarterly spending, but does not require a breakdown of exactly how much is being spent on each bill. An analysis by CalMatters of lobbying activity for the first six months of 2026 found that utilities, tech companies and their proxies have spent millions of dollars lobbying state lawmakers, with data center bills emerging as a primary focus.

By Monday, it will be clear which bills made it out of the Legislature and onto Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature or veto by the end of September.

The fate of the measures could have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only data center development but environmental regulation, utility rates, and how freely California’s tech giants can operate in the state. Nationally, advocates and lawmakers agree that California’s regulation around data centers could be an important bellwether for how similar fights will play out elsewhere.

“The level of awareness is through the roof, and the level of concern and sensitivity is through the roof — it's bipartisan, it's national, and it's across the board,” California Sen. Steve Padilla, a Democrat from Chula Vista who is author of two pending data center bills, told CalMatters.

Who is lobbying on data centers?

During the first half of 2026, Amazon paid more than $500,000 to lobby lawmakers on 33 pieces of legislation, including several data center bills and matters related to antitrust and artificial intelligence. Amazon spent more than $1.7 million lobbying in California last year.

Meanwhile, AI company Anthropic, which sent its first lobbyists to Sacramento last year, has spent nearly $90,000 to influence decisions made by the California Legislature so far this year and, according to the Financial Times, nearly tripled its federal lobbying spend in the same time period. Last year, Anthropic spent over $200,000 lobbying in the state.

Although Anthropic paid a lobbyist to influence lawmakers decisionmaking on data centers, a spokesperson said the company does not support or oppose any specific bills in California. The company, the spokesperson said, is also interested in working with lawmakers “on AI safety and other relevant issues." Representatives for Amazon did not respond to a request for comment from CalMatters.

Utility giant PG&E’s latest filing shows that it spent $2.86 million lobbying in California between April and June — its second highest quarter since 1999 (only surpassed since then by 2018, the year of the deadliest wildfire in state history, later linked to its equipment). A spokesperson for PG&E said the company has engaged on a “broad scope” of issues facing the industry during this legislative session, adding that “less than 5% of our spending was on data-center related issues,” amounting to approximately $143,000.

Groups acting as proxies for data center operators and tech companies have been especially active this year in California’s capitol, critics say. Business interests say they are trying to ground policy conversations in reality.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Other utilities, like Southern California Edison, and unions representing utility workers, like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, have also invested in lobbying efforts on the bills.

Utilities providers are particularly motivated to influence bills because the development of new data centers represents a historic opportunity for expansion and grid upgrades, according to Matthew Freedman, senior staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network. Under the current regulatory framework, he said, the cost of expanding transmission lines is spread across all grid users, which means everyday consumers foot the bill.

But several of this year’s data center bills would change that, shifting costs back toward data center operators. “The groups that have been the strongest opponents of the bills this year include the proxies for the data centers and the tech companies,” Freedman said, referring to industry groups such as the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the California Chamber of Commerce. “They serve as a mouthpiece for the tech industry.”

Filings do not show that tech giants like Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft are lobbying lawmakers directly on data centers this session. Instead, the business groups Freedman referenced, which represent the Big Tech firms, carry the weight.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents companies including Apple and Amazon, has so far spent over $100,000 lobbying on bills including the various data center measures this year and is on track for its highest annual lobbying spend since tracking began in 2005.

The Data Center Coalition, which counts companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI among its members, has logged its second and third highest-ever spending quarters so far this year. It has spent roughly $60,000 lobbying state lawmakers and the governor’s office to voice opposition to nearly every bill that would regulate data centers.

The bills and the backlash 

The measures before the Legislature this session include:

• Bills to shift electric infrastructure costs toward data center operators and away from residential customers: SB 1168, SB 886 and AB 2383.
• Bills mandating disclosures or estimates of water usage (and sometimes usage of other resources): AB 2619 and two bills that cleared the Legislature Thursday, AB 1577 and AB 2469.
• SB 887, which would require all data center projects to undergo environmental reviews and offer fast-tracked approval for facilities that meet standards for water and energy conservation.

Business interests opposed to the bills argue they would stifle tech companies’ ability to innovate and compete, tie up critical infrastructure in red tape and unfairly burden the construction of data centers versus the construction of other types of projects.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas told CalMatters that he sees public debate over data centers as fueled by “strong anti-AI sentiment,” and that industry groups like his aim to “ground the conversation in reality” about the ways consumers rely on data center infrastructure for everyday services.

Advocacy groups counter that transparency is vital to protect the environment and public resources, and that everyday consumers should not be affected by increased infrastructure and utilities costs.

Britt Smith, who is part of a community group organizing against a controversial $2 billion Amazon data center project in Gilroy south of San Jose, said corporate opponents of the bills are “spending so much because there’s so much at stake,” adding, “Our future, our safety, is not for sale.”

This robust fight stands in stark contrast to last year, when the only bill signed into law was stripped down to just a requirement for state energy regulators to publish an environmental impact study on data centers’ electricity demand. Newsom also vetoed a water usage disclosure bill, citing concerns that regulation could stifle AI growth.

Whether this year's intensified lobbying will yield similar results remains uncertain, but lawmakers say shifting voter sentiment heading into the midterms has altered the political landscape.

“When you're looking down the barrel of public outcry that says we don't want [data centers] at all, and you've got localities that are saying they’re going to ban them, then you know the atmosphere has changed,” Assemblymember Diane Papan, a San Mateo Democrat who authored two of the bills, told CalMatters. “We are in a totally different environment this year.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Topline:

Why oysters? Oysters filter and improve water quality … and can help prevent coastal erosion. Yet native species have been nearly wiped out since the Gold Rush era sparked overharvesting and coastal development. The nonprofit Orange County Coastkeeper has been working to restore oysterbeds along the OC coast for more than a decade.

What to expect: Oysterpalooza will feature speakers highlighting the group’s restoration efforts, as well as local food, beer and sustainable product vendors. Of course, there will be oyster tasting too!

The details: You can join a beach cleanup beforehand at 9 a.m., or just get straight to the party, which starts Saturday at 11 a.m. and runs until 4 p.m. at Sunset Beach Community Center in Huntington Beach. Sign up for the beach cleanup and get full festival details here.

Go deeper: Your shucked oysters could help shore up the Orange County coast

After opening a modern Korean pub called Yi Cha in 2025, chef Debbie Lee decided to pay homage to her heritage with Mokja, this time serving Korean goods and convenience.

Lee sat down with AirTalk Friday host Austin Cross to talk about her vision for gourmet Korean style snacks in L.A.

Grab-and-go convenience with a twist

Lee says the idea behind Mokja was to take the model of American convenience stores and blend it with Korean flavors.

It’s a place for people who want to grab something for the road, stop by for a quick snack or even meal prep for the week. The store also partnered with Frank and Michele La, creators of Be Bright Coffee, to offer Korean-style coffee drinks to pair with the snacks.

Daru Yu, Frank La, Debbie Lee and Michelle La

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

The Korean word Mokja translates to "let's eat."

“If your mom or your grandma was calling you over the table, they'd say, ‘Bali Mokja,’ which means, ‘Hurry, let's eat’”

What you’ll find at Mokja

One of the quick, to-go items you’ll find is Lee’s northern style mandu dumplings, stuffed with fatty pork and shrimp and inspired by her grandmother’s recipe.

Build your own ramen tray

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Build your own Ramen station

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Grab n' Go Banchan

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

For optimal convenience, the king-sized dumplings are offered in the grab-and-go fridge. Lee recommends popping them in the microwave at the store and enjoying them with a coffee.

Mokja also features a make-your-own ramen station, which Lee says has become incredibly popular for families with kids.

Korean hand pies with southern flair

One of the highlights on the menu is the oxtail hand pie, which features a braised Korean-style oxtail known as kkori-jjim. It’s inspired by southern soul food influences her parents picked up on.

Braised Oxtail aka “Gori Jjim” Hand Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

“My mom learned how to cook from the Black cooks in Jackson, Mississippi, and she learned good old soul Southern food.”

Kimchee Cheese Biscuits

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Yuja Cha Ice Box Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Lee said Mokja is all about telling the story through food.

The restaurant also features other Korean/Southern fusion, including a Yuju cha ice box pie and Kimchi cheese biscuits.

State lawmakers have reached a deal that would provide school districts some relief from the costs of childhood sexual abuse lawsuits filed after a 2020 law allowed victims to sue for abuse by public employees going back decades, EdSource has learned.

It was not immediately clear Thursday afternoon whether the last-minute deal, brokered days before the legislative session is set to end on Aug. 31, has enough support to reach Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

At issue is Assembly Bill 218, a law that lifted the statute of limitations to sue for childhood sexual abuse and enabled a blitz of costly litigation against schools and public agencies. In some cases, victims have received tens of millions of dollars for sexual assaults and abuses they say took place decades ago at the hands of teachers and other public employees.

Details of the deal are included in amendments made to Senate Bill 577 co-authored by Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. According to the amended bill text, the deal would raise the legal standard required for people who are 40 years or older to sue for sexual assaults that occurred before Jan. 1, 2024. It also calls for schools and other agencies to have sexual assault prevention plans and codes of conduct.

“California stands with survivors, whose voices have shaped this process every step of the way, and the Legislature is taking action to defend and preserve survivors’ path to justice — that is not negotiable,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said in a statement. “With this solution, the state is safeguarding schools and public services, while investing in prevention and protecting against future abuse. California is committed to the safety of every child.”

The amendments do not appear to address a limit or cap on jury awards or settlement amounts for childhood sexual abuse cases in the state. Caps were a major demand from public agencies, including schools, counties and obscure agencies called joint powers authorities that serve as insurance pools for school districts.

Laird, who had attempted to pass an AB 218 reform bill last year, said in a phone interview Thursday evening that the negotiations that led to the compromise were difficult. Putting a complete cap on settlement amounts “was a bridge too far” for many lawmakers, Laird said.

Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association, said the group was grateful for lawmakers’ efforts, but added that it’s “highly questionable” whether the deal would do enough to prevent school districts from getting slammed with seven-figure settlements.

“We’re grateful to Speaker Rivas and Pro Tem (Monique) Limón for their efforts to address this issue,” Ben Adler, director of public affairs for the California State Association of Counties, said in a statement. “It’s clear the status quo is broken, and the unintended consequences have grown out of control.”