Trump tariffs: US slaps 17% duty on Mexican tomato imports; commerce department calls move fair protection for farmers
The US government on Monday announced a 17% import duty on most fresh tomatoes from Mexico, aiming to protect and revive its own domestic tomato industry.
The move comes after talks with Mexican officials collapsed without reaching a new agreement to avoid the tariff.
Mexico currently supplies about 70% of the US tomato market, up from just 30% two decades ago.
The new duty, which took effect immediately on Monday, is expected to raise tomato prices in the US while benefiting American growers.
Supporters of the move argue that it is essential to support US agriculture. Robert Guenther, executive vice president of the Florida tomato exchange, called the tariff 'an enormous victory for American tomato farmers and American agriculture.'
The decision marks the end of the 2019 tomato suspension agreement between the two countries, which allowed Mexico to export tomatoes to the US under strict price rules and other conditions to avoid being accused of dumping, selling produce at artificially low prices.
According to the US commerce department, the deal is being scrapped due to overwhelming complaints from American tomato producers who say they are unable to compete fairly with cheaper Mexican imports.
'Mexico remains one of our greatest allies, but for far too long our farmers have been crushed by unfair trade practices that undercut pricing on produce like tomatoes. That ends today,' said commerce secretary Howard Lutnick.
However, critics say the duty will hurt consumers by driving up prices and reducing variety. 'As an industry, we are saddened that American consumers will have to pay a tomato tax, or duty, for a reduced selection of the tomatoes they prefer, such as tomatoes on the vine, grape tomatoes, Romas, cocktail tomatoes and other specialty varieties,' said Lance Jungmeyer, president of the Fresh produce association of the Americas.
Tim Richards, an agribusiness professor at Arizona State University, estimated that the tariff could push up retail tomato prices by about 8.5 per cent. Jacob Jensen, a trade policy analyst, said that areas more dependent on Mexican tomatoes may see price jumps as high as 10 per cent, while others could experience a 6 per cent rise.
Business groups have also warned of other consequences. In a letter to the commerce department, the US chamber of commerce and 30 other organisations said the move could trigger retaliation from trade partners and harm industries beyond tomatoes.
'We are concerned that withdrawing from the agreement – at a time when the business community is already navigating significant trade uncertainty – could lead to retaliatory actions by our trading partners,' the letter read.
Furthermore, state leaders expressed concerns. Texas governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, and Arizona governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, had urged the government to preserve the agreement to avoid harming their local economies.
The new policy aligns with US President Donald Trump's broader trade approach and comes shortly after his announcement of a separate 30% base tariff on goods from Mexico and the European Union.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
21 minutes ago
- Mint
Harvard Nemesis Wants Trump's College Crusade to Reach Every Campus
Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist who has been influential in the White House's efforts to reshape higher education, now wants to expand the campaign well beyond the elite schools that have borne the brunt of the pressure. Rufo says the Education Department is considering a proposal that would ensure all US universities that receive federal funding — the vast majority — adopt many of the same conditions that Columbia University agreed to in a deal this week. He sees the plan, which he first outlined with the Manhattan Institute this month, as a way to swiftly broaden President Donald Trump's higher-education agenda. 'I know for a fact that it circulated through the White House and through the Department of Education,' Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said in an interview in Gig Harbor, Washington, where he lives and works. The Trump administration has used federal funding as leverage to press schools to align with its priorities, from battling campus antisemitism to reassessing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. This week, the White House finalized a $221 million agreement with Columbia that imposes new conditions tied to these issues, the first such deal with an Ivy League school. Harvard, a primary target, is fighting the administration's efforts in court even as it negotiates a possible settlement. Talks are underway with Cornell University, Northwestern and Brown to reinstate previously frozen funds, while institutions such as Duke and Johns Hopkins are facing mounting pressure as grant suspensions threaten to disrupt research programs and international student pipelines. Under Rufo's proposal, schools would be subject to demands including purging their institutions of diversity initiatives or other programs focused on specific minority groups; harsh and swift disciplinary measures for student protesters; the publicization of demographic data in admissions decisions; and hiring conservative faculty. The terms would be baked into universities' contracts with federal agencies for research funding — and, if taken a step further, could be incorporated into the powerful accreditation system that determines colleges' eligibility to receive federal financial aid. 'Columbia has its unique issues, Harvard has its own unique issues. But after you go through the list of the next six or seven universities, there has to be a point where there's a general, blanket policy,' said Rufo, 40. 'The particular negotiations, in that sense, are just the opening bid.' Secretary of Education Linda McMahon appeared to endorse the proposal last week when she congratulated Rufo in a post on X and called the plan 'a compelling roadmap to restore integrity and rigor to the American academy.' When reached for comment, an Education Department spokesperson referred Bloomberg to McMahon's post and said there was no mention of implementation plans. But Rufo said he is optimistic that the statement will turn into policy sometime in the next few months. 'This set of principles is a fairly reasonable compromise,' Rufo said. 'I think the president should just impose it as a condition.' The efforts are already spreading piecemeal to an increasingly broad swath of higher education. On Wednesday, the Education Department announced civil rights investigations into scholarship programs at five colleges, including the University of Michigan, the University of Miami and the University of Nebraska Omaha. A series of federal investigations at George Mason University, a regional public college in Virginia, seem aimed at forcing out president Gregory Washington over his past support for DEI initiatives — a move that successfully led to University of Virginia president Jim Ryan's resignation last month. But while they've been indirectly affected by the chaos, most of the country's patchwork of 4,000 colleges and universities have escaped direct federal threats. Robert Kelchen, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, said the administration is clearly laying the groundwork for a more wide-ranging attack on higher education. 'I think they're trying to move in that direction, especially on things like DEI,' he said. 'It's clear the administration is using every lever they can think of.' Rufo isn't a White House adviser or a federal employee, but he has strong influence among conservative education reformers, including many currently working for the Trump administration. He rose to prominence crusading against DEI programs and played an instrumental role in Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' education agenda in 2023. His profile rose higher still after he spearheaded a public campaign to oust former Harvard president Claudine Gay over plagiarism allegations — one of the initial seismic reverberations of the campaign to change higher education. One of Rufo's main proposals is tied to accreditors, historically powerful but until recently largely uncontroversial entities that focus on ensuring educational quality and financial health. They also are responsible for determining if institutions are eligible for federal student aid. Rufo said the White House should 'turn the screws' on accreditors and then use them as a proxy for reform. 'We want to say that every accreditor needs to have these minimum principles and enforce them at universities,' he said. Trump has called accreditation his 'secret weapon,' and in April he issued an executive order calling for reform. He threatened to strip federal recognition from accreditors 'engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of federal law.' For Rufo, the stakes of that order are clear: Accreditors must enforce the conservative view of antidiscrimination law, including by ensuring colleges aren't engaging in DEI initiatives. Almost every accreditor has already eliminated language in their standards around diversity and inclusion, but Rufo said they should go a step further and adopt some version of the standards laid out in his proposal. 'The goal is to extend all of this basically to federal financial aid,' Kelchen said. 'The administration so far has not gone after that, maybe because it could be seen as political overreach. But they can work through the accreditors to do that.' If that happens, Rufo said it would 'shift the whole university sector on a new course.' 'That's my goal: To change the culture of the institutions as a whole,' he said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
BMW, Mercedes avoid €4 billion tariffs in EU-US trade reprieve
BMW AG, Mercedes-Benz Group AG and other European automakers are getting a €4 billion ($4.7 billion) earnings lift from the trade deal the European Union struck with the US, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. The trade deal offers a measure of clarity in a key market for Mercedes, BMW, Porsche AG and Volvo Car AB. European auto stocks rose on Monday over news that the rate on car imports from the EU would be lowered to 15% from 27.5%. BMW and Mercedes are also benefiting from tariff exemptions for about 185,000 cars they export annually from their American factories, BI analyst Michael Dean said in a note. The trade deal offers a measure of clarity in a key market for Mercedes, BMW, Porsche AG and Volvo Car AB. Since Trump imposed the tariffs in April, automakers have warned of billions of dollars in added costs and supply-chain complexity, with several of them scrapping or lowering financial forecasts for the year. 'It's the best result out of what was looking like a bad situation,' auto analyst Matthias Schmidt said in comments late Sunday. 'I think German and Swedish CEOs will be sleeping more soundly tonight than they have in recent weeks.' Still, the new rate is significantly higher than the 2.5% duty in place before Trump made his trade moves, and it forces companies to weigh whether to raise prices or move more production to the US. Germany's VCI chemical-industry association — which includes manufacturers such as BASF SE that supply carmakers — warned that the new tariffs still hurt Europe's industry. 'If you're bracing for a hurricane, you're grateful for a storm,' VCI President Wolfgang Große Entrup said in a statement. 'Nevertheless, the agreed tariffs are too high. Europe's exports are losing competitiveness.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Judges Continue to Block Trump Policies Following Supreme Court Ruling
WASHINGTON—When the Supreme Court issued a blockbuster decision in June limiting the authority of federal judges to halt Trump administration policies nationwide, the president was quick to pronounce the universal injunction all but dead. One month later, states, organizations and individuals challenging government actions are finding a number of ways to notch wins against the White House, with judges in a growing list of cases making clear that sweeping relief remains available when they find the government has overstepped its authority. In at least nine cases, judges have explicitly grappled with the Supreme Court's opinion and granted nationwide relief anyway. That includes rulings that continue to halt the policy at the center of the high court case: President Trump's effort to pare back birthright citizenship. Judges have also kept in place protections against deportations for up to 500,000 Haitians, halted mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services, and prevented the government from terminating a legal-aid program for mentally ill people in immigration proceedings. To accomplish this, litigants challenging the administration have used a range of tools, defending the necessity of existing injunctions, filing class action lawsuits and invoking a law that requires government agencies to act reasonably: the Administrative Procedure Act. It is a rare point of consensus among conservative and liberal lawyers alike: The path to winning rulings with nationwide application is still wide open. 'There are a number of highly significant court orders that are protecting people as we speak,' said Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that has brought many cases against the Trump administration. 'We're continuing to get that relief.' Conservative legal advocates also continue to see nationwide injunctions as viable in some circumstances. 'We're still going to ask for nationwide injunctions when that's the only option to protect our clients,' said Dan Lennington, a lawyer at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which has challenged race and sex-based preferences in federal policies. The Supreme Court's decision was long in the making, with Democratic and Republican administrations in turn chafing against their signature policies being held up by a single district court judge. The 6-3 ruling said that when judges find that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, their injunctions against the government can't be broader than what is needed to provide complete relief to the parties who sued. Trump's birthright policy would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one of their parents was a citizen or permanent legal resident. Judges in the weeks since the high court decision have ruled that blocking the policy everywhere remains the proper solution. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston again said a ruling with nationwide application was the only way to spare the plaintiffs—a coalition of 20 Democratic-run states and local governments—from harm caused by an executive order he said was unconstitutional. The judge noted that families frequently move across state lines and that children are born in states where their parents don't reside. 'A patchwork or bifurcated approach to citizenship would generate understandable confusion among state and federal officials administering the various programs,' wrote Sorokin, 'as well as similar confusion and fear among the parents of children' who would be denied citizenship by Trump's order. In a separate decision last week involving a different group of states that sued Trump, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reached a similar conclusion. Both rulings showed that state attorneys general remain well positioned to win broad injunctions against the federal government when they can demonstrate executive overreach. 'You've got these elite litigation shops in the states,' Tennessee's Republican attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, said of offices such as his. 'You're gonna figure out a way to continue to be one of the most active participants in the judicial system.' A New Hampshire judge has also blocked Trump's birthright order after litigants in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, used another pathway the Supreme Court left open: filing class-action lawsuits on behalf of a nationwide group of plaintiffs. Recent cases also underscore that the Administrative Procedure Act, long a basis for lawsuits against administrations of both parties, remains a potent tool. The law allows judges to set aside agency actions they deem arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Judges have blocked Trump policies in a half-dozen cases in the past month under the APA, and in almost every instance have specifically said they aren't precluded in doing so by the Supreme Court. Zach Shelley, a lawyer at the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen, filed a case using the APA in which a judge this month ordered the restoration of gender-related healthcare data to government websites, which officials had taken down after an anti-transgender executive order from Trump. The act was the obvious choice to address a nationwide policy 'from the get-go,' Shelley said. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., said administration officials ignored common sense by taking down entire webpages of information instead of removing specific words or statements that ran afoul of Trump's gender order. 'This case involves government officials acting first and thinking later,' Bates wrote. Nothing in the high court's ruling prevented him from ordering the pages be put back up, the judge said. The Justice Department argued that Trump administration officials had acted lawfully and reasonably in implementing the president's order to remove material promoting gender ideology. The department is still in the early stages of attempting to use the Supreme Court's ruling to its advantage, and legal observers continue to expect the decision will help the administration in some cases. In one, a New York judge recently narrowed the scope of a ruling blocking the administration's attempts to end contracts with Job Corps centers that run career-training programs for low-income young adults. If the lawsuit had instead been filed as a class action or litigated in a different way, though, 'the result may very well be different,' Judge Andrew Carter wrote. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Mariah Timms at and Jess Bravin at
