(The Center Square) – The U.S. is set to meet with China for the first time in the trade war begun just over a month ago, and while it could lead to real negotiations down the road, many observers see it as a preliminary meeting.

President Donald Trump raised tariffs with many of America’s trading partners, including China, on April 2, causing many countries to reach out to the U.S. to negotiate trade deals, according to the administration (though the White House has only shared the framework details of one deal made with the United Kingdom). But China chose to raise its tariffs in response, sparking a trade war that has resulted in a 145% tariff on Chinese imports to the U.S. and a 125% tariff on American goods imported to China.

Trump has said he has been talking with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but neither country had released any details about those conversations, and China denied they happened. Several economists The Center Square spoke to weren’t optimistic that the meeting would yield big results. 

“By all accounts that we can locate, it appears that it’s a meeting to talk about a meeting,” said director of education and senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, Ryan Yonk.”Which isn’t a big surprise. That’s how these things tend to begin, where behind the scenes, there is movement likely on both sides… to begin to talk about how will they actually set up a way to have more formal discussions.’”

Alex Durante, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation who previously worked for the Federal Reserve Board and the Council of Economic Advisers, agreed. 

“I think it’s possible that maybe both sides reach some kind of agreement and tariffs maybe on certain kinds of goods are lowered or removed, but I’m a bit skeptical that we’re going to get something very remarkable,” Durante told The Center Square.

Part of the skepticism is due to an episode of déjà vu – the first Trump administration also had specific aspirations for U.S.-China trade relations which largely never materialized. Trump also raised tariffs on China then to establish a better trade relationship. China, as it has now, responded in kind. In January 2020, the Trump administration signed the ‘Phase One’ trade agreement, which included commitments from China to increase U.S. imports by $200 billion and strengthen protections on intellectual property. But China ultimately fell short of its purchasing commitments, partly due to the pandemic. Trump had also sought to further address non-tariff barriers such as forced technology transfer and state subsidies, but those deeper issues remained unresolved.

“They never got to some of the real issues – that is, the problems of the state capitalism characteristics that really hamper trade and investment with not just the United States but others – the kinds of things about technology transfer, about subsidies, about favoritism to state-owned companies,” said Claude Barfield, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former consultant to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Some of these issues were spoken about in a congressional hearing earlier this year that focused on the Chinese Communist Party’s influence on American investment. China reportedly pressures companies to share proprietary technology to gain access to the Chinese market, and it employs other business practices in its international deals that don’t comply with World Trade Organization regulations.

More skepticism comes from the fact that both sides have invested far more than merely economics in the outcome of their negotiations.

“You [have] two regimes that are unlikely to make decisions on pure economic outcomes, as much as we think they should,” Yonk told The Center Square. 

China has undergone a marked real estate crisis and faces other economic challenges, and the U.S. is adjusting to new economic policies under the Trump administration, the after-effects of a jarring inflationary period and the looming question of a recession.

“There’s been massive capital investment [in China] that really hasn’t panned out in the way they expected,” Yonk said. “In large part, China had messaged their legitimacy by what they could deliver economically. When that changed, there was a pivot to more Chinese nationalism as the justification, which means it’s no longer about just getting an economic deal that’s going to work for China, there’s also now a much more nationalistic question that’s on the table about respect and sort of world influence.”

Barfield also described economic problems in both countries. Xi has “internal issues,” Barfield said, while Trump, elected for his economic policies, faces pressures at home. 

“Has he done things to help him on the issues that got him elected?” Barfield remarked to The Center Square. “Certainly, throwing tariffs all around the world isn’t going to help. We don’t know yet, but it may not end up in inflation over the whole U.S. economy rather than just sort of price hikes in different sectors, but it’s something he and his people are now worried about.” 

The administration has acknowledged the existing rates are unsustainable, but it’s unclear which side will make concessions first.

“I think it’s a bit of a pick ‘em [whether] one side or the other gives in first, and I actually think we’re not likely to see evidence that one side or the other did. I think both sides will claim the other did and the question will be, can the other side accept that narrative and still go forward with some sort of trade deal. I think it’s gonna be a long road to a trade deal with China that is really sort of substantial and far-reaching,” Yonk said.

Trump did post to Truth Social on Friday, saying a lowered 80% tariff on China “seems right” but that it was up to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, but this was after saying earlier in the week that the U.S. would not lower tariffs on China to prompt concessions from the Chinese.

“I think the best outcome would be sort of a cooling off period, if they agree to actually have discussions after Saturday,” Yonk said.

(The Center Square) – California legislators have been told to expect a deficit of $10 billion or more even if revenues do not fall due to higher than anticipated spending, reports Politico.

Critics note that the $10 billion figure matches estimated costs of the state’s expansion of eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s taxpayer-financed health care system, to all income-qualifying illegal immigrants. 

“What a fiscal coincidence: precisely the estimated cost of Gavin Newsom’s plan to extend state Medi-Cal to illegal immigrants,” said Will Swaim, president of the conservative California Policy Center on X. 

Earlier this week, the state-funded Legislative Analyst’s Office warned the state’s economy is “stagnant” and “fragile” and that the budget is reliant on an “unsustainable” stock market. Earlier Friday, the LAO urged lawmakers to consider the possible negative downturn that tends to but does not always accompany significant decreases in consumer sentiment. 

“If hard economic data fall in-line with worrisome economic indicators, the state’s revenue outlook will turn more negative; however, recent history suggests this outcome is far from certain,” wrote the LAO. “As such, we urge policymakers to weigh the risks of both the possibility of a further downturn and of better than expected growth when making budget decisions.”

Last year, the state narrowly closed a $73 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, deferrals, shifts, and reserve withdrawals. 

Now, even if state tax revenue remains steady, rising non-discretionary spending, such as from Medi-Cal, combined with possible cuts or funding withholding at the federal level could leave the state billions of dollars short yet again. 

Federal spending in California is set to be $171 billion this year.

In February, state officials said California had spent $9.5 billion thus far on Medi-Cal services for illegal immigrants, The Center Square first reported, resulting in California Gov. Gavin Newsom requesting a $6.4 billion emergency bailout to fund the program for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

In April, Newsom bragged about the strength of the California economy, sharing it’s now the world’ fourth-largest economy in U.S. dollars — due to the relative decline of the Japanese yen to the dollar. After accounting for the high cost of goods and services, California only barely edges out low-performing Italy, and the state has shed hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs amid lower projected sales and corporate tax revenue. 

(The Center Square) − As Louisiana’s legislative session continues, lawmakers are considering multiple bills aimed at increasing oversight of regulatory actions and tightening the rules for how taxpayer money is spent.

One of the early measures gaining traction is Senate Bill 59 by Sen. Mike Reese, R-Leesville, which would require legislative approval before any state agency rule with a significant fiscal impact — defined as at least $200,000 per year or $1 million over five years — could take effect. The bill passed a key Senate vote and now awaits consideration in the House.

Supporters say the bill would improve accountability by ensuring that major regulatory decisions are reviewed by elected officials. The proposal is similar to the so-called “REINS Act” model being promoted in legislatures across the country.

Under current Louisiana law, agencies must include fiscal impact statements with proposed rules, but they are not always subject to legislative approval. SB 59 would expand that oversight, requiring the fiscal office to assess potential costs and trigger committee hearings for high-impact rules. Emergency regulations would also be subject to additional fiscal scrutiny under the bill.

Meanwhile, another piece of legislation — SB184 by Sen. Heather Cloud, R-Allen — would implement new standards for nongovernmental organizations that receive public dollars.

The bill, which is scheduled for further debate in the Senate Finance Committee, would require recipient organizations to provide detailed financial audits, outcome data, and statements of public purpose before receiving state appropriations.

Nonprofits would also need to be registered in Louisiana for at least one year, keep administrative costs under 15% of expenditures, and maintain a physical office in the state. Groups that fail to submit required documentation could face a five-year ban from receiving state funds.

The legislation would consolidate existing data into a searchable portal through Louisiana’s Checkbook platform to allow the public and lawmakers to better monitor how funds are spent.

“These bills are part of a broader effort to increase transparency and ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer money,” Cloud said during a recent hearing.

In addition to the legislative activity, Governor Jeff Landry has launched a new initiative—the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE)—tasked with identifying ways to reduce waste and improve performance in state government.

Landry appointed Steve Orlando as Fiscal Responsibility Czar, who is expected to work closely with the Louisiana Legislative Auditor.

A news release from the governor’s office says residents are encouraged to submit suggestions for improving government efficiency via email.

The DOGE initiative has drawn both support and criticism. Supporters see it as a step toward greater fiscal accountability, while critics, including some legislators, question whether it duplicates existing oversight functions already handled by the legislature and the state auditor.

“Legislators create and pass the state’s annual budget, which the governor then signs, with a line-item veto,” Rep. Mandie Landry, D-New Orleans, said in a statement. “A new, bureaucratic entity cannot and should not supersede these constitutional powers.”