As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to form his cabinet, individual state governments across the United States are strategizing their own responses to his administration’s policies. California Governor Gavin Newsom is at the forefront, organizing a coalition of blue states to resist what he sees as the potentially detrimental “Make America Great Again” agenda. This group of Democratic governors is focused on maintaining sanctuary cities to protect against immigration enforcement, establishing independent clean energy mandates, and safeguarding funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. These efforts come in direct response to the anticipated cuts and rollbacks from a Trump administration, which they believe could undermine progressive initiatives and local governance.
In contrast, governors from red states express a willingness to collaborate with Trump, aiming to facilitate the implementation of the administration’s policies. However, the Trump administration is likely to encounter significant hurdles. Resistance will emerge not just from Democratic state leaders, but also from Congress, the judicial system, and a deeply entrenched federal bureaucracy. Furthermore, many of the country’s pressing issues are inherently localized and may not be effectively addressed at the federal level, revealing a complex web of governance that complicates reform efforts.
One crucial issue that emerged during this transition is the burgeoning national debt, which has reached an alarming $36 trillion. Despite being a substantial economic concern, the national debt did not figure prominently in the discussions leading up to the 2024 election, with Trump seemingly conceding that meaningful solutions would be politically unfeasible. This reality places the onus on individual citizens to mitigate potential risks stemming from fiscal mismanagement. As the likelihood of a debt crisis looms, investing in tangible assets such as physical precious metals becomes increasingly relevant. These moves are seen as a necessary safeguard against the possible depreciation of the U.S. currency.
Some states have taken proactive measures to insulate their citizens from poor fiscal policies, with several enacting pro-sound money legislation in 2024. Initiatives driven by organizations like Money Metals and the Sound Money Defense League have led states such as Alabama and Nebraska to exempt bullion transactions from income taxes. Meanwhile, states like Wisconsin and New Jersey have abolished sales taxes on precious metals. These developments highlight a growing recognition of the value of sound money principles, even in a legislative environment often characterized by partisan divisions.
The progress in some states does not tell the whole story, however, as states like Vermont, Maine, and California pose challenges to precious metals investors. Even so, common-sense reforms can gain traction despite differing political climates, as evidenced by bipartisan successes in states like New Jersey, which have passed legislation to remove taxes on precious metals. Taxation on exchanges of fiat currency for bullion is viewed by advocates as both unfair and detrimental to economic competitiveness, suggesting that state policies that support investment in precious metals may better position themselves against broader financial instability.
Ultimately, states that prioritize the elimination of taxes on gold and silver, incorporate these metals into their official reserves, and recognize them as legal tender may find themselves more resilient in the face of economic turmoil. By doing so, they can create an environment that embraces sound money principles while providing their citizens with a pathway to financial protection. This approach may be particularly relevant during Trump’s upcoming presidency, which promises to be marked by significant economic challenges and debates surrounding fiscal responsibility.