By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Texas Governor Greg Abbott posted on X that he would impose a 100% tariff on New Yorkers moving to Texas if Democrat Zohran Mamdani, the frontrunner, is elected mayor. This statement was made on the eve of the New York City mayoral election and appears to be a response to concerns about New Yorkers leaving the city. Legally, such a tariff would be unconstitutional because states cannot impose tariffs on other states, and the right to travel and become a resident of another state is protected. The post garnered reactions ranging from criticism, acceptance, and uncertainty over whether it was a joke.
Read the original article here
Greg Abbott threatens “100% tariff” on New Yorkers moving to Texas. This whole thing feels like a fever dream, doesn’t it? It’s like someone threw a bunch of political buzzwords into a blender and hit “puree.” The core of the issue is Governor Abbott’s pronouncement about slapping a “100% tariff” on anyone moving to Texas from New York City. The intent, seemingly, was to express disapproval of Zohran Mamdani’s potential victory in the mayoral election and discourage New Yorkers who might consider relocating to Texas as a result.
The core problem, as many people have pointed out, is that the statement doesn’t make any sense, legally or practically. Tariffs are taxes on goods, imposed by governments, typically on imports. They’re not something you apply to people, and certainly not something a state governor can unilaterally impose on residents of another state. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles and governmental authority. It raises the question: what exactly would be taxed? The person? Their possessions? Their dreams? It’s all quite baffling.
The fact that it makes zero sense is probably the point. Abbott’s audience, it would seem, are the same voters that fall for the oldest tricks in the book. It’s a classic example of political theater, playing on anxieties about the political climate, perhaps even the specter of a changing demographic makeup in Texas. By using the word “tariff,” he evokes a sense of economic protectionism, appealing to those who might be worried about the effects of increased immigration or different political leanings in their state. It’s about rallying the base with a statement designed to stir up emotions rather than make logical sense.
It also highlights the lack of understanding of the concept itself, something that would be required in order to make it feasible. The very concept is being misused as a talking point with no grounding in reality. The statement’s absurdity also raises questions about who exactly he’s trying to target. Is it New York Republicans he’s trying to deter? One could imagine him hoping to attract a certain type of voter, perhaps those aligned with the losing political party, but then to turn around and claim they’re not welcome seems to defy basic political strategy.
The whole thing could have the opposite effect: Maybe his supporters would want these fleeing Republicans to come to Texas. That logic is almost completely absent here. This sort of messaging, even if it is completely unrealistic, is a symptom of a larger trend. It taps into a broader narrative about political division and the perceived threat of opposing ideologies.
The entire episode also gives off a strong vibe of contempt for his audience. It is clear that he understands this is an absurd statement, and also that his target demographic likely does not. He could have made a statement without this glaringly obvious fact, but he chose not to.
The rhetoric also feeds into a common theme in modern American politics: the idea of two distinct nations living under one flag. If you are one to believe this rhetoric, the sentiment is that one can’t imagine wanting to move to Texas from New York, or vice versa. The political divide has grown so large that even the most basic of needs, such as a roof over your head, becomes impossible.
Ultimately, Abbott’s statement, and the furor surrounding it, serve as a reminder of the state of political discourse. It’s an easy-to-digest headline that prioritizes inflammatory language over factual accuracy. It’s a testament to the fact that, in today’s political climate, it’s often more important to trigger an emotional response than to make a coherent argument. It’s a sad state of affairs, indeed.