How are state legislatures reacting to Tariffs?

State legislatures are limited in the actions they can take in response to the Trump Administration’s trade policies. Using the Scholar’s Edge search engine (concept search), we can look back on the 2025 legislative session to see which states directly responded to the new tariffs and what strategies they employed. The prompt and concepts used for this search can be found at the bottom. This search was run 1st shot and without refinement and therefore may have missed some relevant bills.

For legislation that overtly expressed concern or condemnation of the Trump Administration’s tariffs, the most common type was resolutions that called on the federal government to consider the harm the tariffs would cause to their respective economies.

Resolutions do not change policy and are thus relatively low cost, fiscally and politically. However, they do send an important signal that politicians see political advantage in staking out a public position against tariffs. In one case, a resolution even expressed support for the tariffs.

The second most common strategy was resolutions focused on reaffirming positive relations with foreign countries, such as Canada and Mexico. These were concentrated on the US-Canadian border.

These states, more so than most others, are integrated with the Canadian economy. When I lived in Burlington, Vermont, summer tourism from Canada helped offset the loss of university students for local businesses. These legislators are distancing themselves from federal policy and thus, hopefully, project to Canadians that they are welcome in their state.

Less was actual legislation, bills that aimed to change policy. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement of Liberation Day tariffs, businesses quickly realized that their actual tax burden was extremely difficult to calculate. If an individual business couldn’t predict the fallout of the tariffs, how could a state? What would the impact on state revenue and unemployment be? Thus several legislatures pushed to study the impact of import tariffs on their economies.

In a more aggressive push to reveal the cost of tariffs, New York proposed several bills to require sellers to inform buyers of increased costs due to tariffs. Neither of these have moved from committee- I suspect due to the fact that it’s very hard for downstream sellers to calculate their actual tariff costs, particularly when the rates and pause periods changed week to week.

Only three bills aimed to directly influence prices, two from New York and one from Oregon. The two bills from New York aimed to cap price increases whereas Oregon aimed to subsidize losses due to tariffs.

In general, resolutions were able to progress further than bills and most legislative actions did not reach passage- an expected result. However, the distribution of these bills does appear to reveal a pattern, states that were more integrated with international trade- either globally like in California and New York or by neighboring Canada were more likely to be willing to directly address tariffs than other states.

For example, Hawaii is in the unenviable position of having to import many basic goods due to their island economy. HCR 209 Import Substitution; Economic Growth and Diversification is in response to disruptions in global trade caused by COVID19, but the report's findings could just as easily apply to the newly imposed tariffs. Over the past half decade, COVID19 has pushed supply chain policy at the federal and state levels into the forefront of some legislators' minds- with tariffs heightening it even further.

State programs and policy that promote local agriculture and small businesses, often labeled ‘Buy Local’ bills may be more likely to succeed in response to high federally imposed tariffs. For example, Maine’s S.P. 728 “An Act to Promote Local Seafood in Schools” is a traditional ‘Buy Local’ type bill that subsidizes school purchase of locally harvested fish. While it may not be as efficient as purchasing fish from other countries, it helps maintain the local aquaculture industry and thus provides stability in the event that a 20 or 50 percent tariff is suddenly imposed of foreign fishmongers.

Lastly, I want to address Texas HB 89 Relating to the establishment and powers and duties of the Texas Advisory Committee on Geopolitical Conflict. This bill, while not directly mentioning tariffs, does express concern over “a significant deterioration of diplomatic ties or economic engagement between the United States or its allies and another nation that threatens the status quo of trade, travel, and military operations or exercises in the Pacific Ocean region.” Beyond cost of living increases, loss of local businesses, and challenges importing components for US manufacturing, there exists the possibility of a total collapse in trade relations between the US and China- with the US dependent on many basic components operating just about anything in the US, including our military. In the case of Texas, they are preparing for the worst outcome of a trade war, an actual war.

Prompt used:
I am interested in legislation that aims to combat the effects of the recently imposed tariffs on imports. These imports are widespread, impacting nearly all goods, and on almost all countries in the world. Some states are attempting to block companies from raising prices, others are performing studies to see which parts of their economies will have the most impact, and both are relevant for my search. To reiterate, I am looking for bills in reaction to the liberation day tariffs. Bills that are generally about trade or cost of living are not relevant. I am looking specifically for REACTIONS to newly imposed tariffs.

Concepts used:
logistical bottlenecks, cost recovery, forecasting for ports, shifting trade routes, government-imposed tariffs, tariff-related costs, standing of the United States on the global stage, land ports of entry, trade stabilization, trade patterns, foreign reciprocal tariffs, prohibition on increasing charges, tariff pass-through, tariff impact study, section 9795 of government code, goods from Asia, import/export restrictions, exportation of goods, international relationships, exports from California, tariffs imposed by United States, higher tariffs on 57 countries, rescinding tariffs, trade volume reduction, tariff impact, port or harbor districts, state freight plan, tariffs on importation, international trade, international emergency economic powers act (IEEPA), United States relationships with foreign nations, loss of seaport revenues, tariffs on exportation, 2025 national emergency declaration, federal tariffs, tariffs on 57 countries, unpredictable tariff periods, costs for importers, open trade policy, prohibition on passing costs to ratepayers, import tariffs, freight advisory committee, increase in price of goods, mitigation of adverse effects, reduced volume of trade, reciprocal tariffs, importers, importation of materials, tariff-related cost increases, trade route diversion, prohibition on passing along costs, price increases on essential goods, quotas on imports, regional economies, Trump administration, tariff-related cost recovery, shipping volume at ports, massive global tariffs, tariff consequences, foreign reciprocal tariffs on exports, tariff impact mitigation, stabilization of trade, increase in cost of living, undermining U.S. global standing, investment in port infrastructure, legislation to blunt effects of tariffs, costs incurred by corporations, Japan, nonrevenue-based expenses, tariffs on imports, tariff policies, foreign goods, global chaos, price controls, publicly owned land ports, export tariffs, Liberation Day tariffs, supply chain disruption, international trade policy, land ports, increase in costs of everyday goods, food exports, tariff increases, importation of goods, trade disruptions, increase in tariff rates, tariff policy, assessment of trade barriers, tariff disputes, tariffs imposed by the United States, trade volume, 10-percent base tariff, resolution transmission to federal officials, prohibited cost recovery mechanisms, tariffs imposed by foreign governments, promotion of trade and commerce, costs for exporters, international trade and commerce, revenues at airports, United Kingdom, prohibition on tariff pass-through, trade, future trade agreements, prohibition on cost pass-through, Peter Navarro (Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing), unpredictable tariffs, assessment of nontariff barriers, model for assessment of tariffs, South Korea, export losses for California agribusiness, shipping volume decline, free trade, tariff impact assessment, tariffs imposed by political subdivisions outside the United States, nontariff-based barriers to trade, intermodal cargo, future tariff increases, cargo-owner customers, tariffs imposed by foreign political subdivisions, bases for assessment of tariffs, the case for fair trade, loss of cargo, foreign goods imports, foreign countries’ reciprocal tariffs, international trade policy impact, loss of cargo and trade diversion, import/export of goods, assessment of tariff impacts, export losses, loss of cargo at California ports, exporters, future declarations of emergency, diversion of intermodal cargo, distribution of resolution, trade barriers, exportation of materials, agricultural exports, impact on port operations, combating effects of tariffs, study on tariff impacts, tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, increase in everyday goods costs, resolution urging rescission of tariffs, foreign tariffs on exports, President Donald J. Trump, United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, assessment models for tariffs, exports, coffee, reduced trade volume, agribusiness export losses, imposition of tariffs, imports, seaports, tariffs on exports, importation of services, tariffs imposed by political subdivisions, prohibition on increasing charges due to tariffs, tariffs on all imported goods, trade policies, tariff-related surcharges