The political landscape has become increasingly intertwined with food prices as U.S. President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade policies, including tariffs, stir global disputes. With these tariffs targeting key agricultural products and manufactured goods, consumers are bracing for the economic consequences that may ripple across borders.
Trump’s tariff strategy, which includes a proposed 25% tariff on imports from U.S. neighbors Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% levy on Chinese goods, is sparking uncertainty. While the immediate impact may be most felt by the targeted countries, economic experts warn that U.S. consumers will ultimately bear the brunt of the higher costs.
The U.S. imports a significant portion of its food from Mexico, including 90% of the avocados consumed in the country. The imposition of tariffs on Mexican goods is expected to raise prices on avocados, tomatoes, tequila, and other staples like strawberries. Canada is also a key supplier of grains, livestock, meat, and maple syrup, making its trade relationship with the U.S. pivotal for grocery pricing.
The tariff on Chinese goods, although less impactful on food, will likely lead to increased prices on everyday consumer goods such as electronics, footwear, and toys. Economists caution that goods like smartphones, video game consoles, and appliances may become more expensive for American consumers. Interestingly, much of the Trump-branded merchandise, from hats and T-shirts to golf products, is manufactured in China, highlighting the complexity of the tariff wars.
In response, China has implemented countermeasures, including tariffs on American farm equipment, raising costs for Chinese farmers. While the full impact of this retaliation has yet to be seen, it may eventually affect Hong Kong consumers, especially if they are involved in sending goods like dried jerky between countries.
As economic tensions rise, nationalist movements are beginning to emerge, such as the “buy Canadian” movement in Canada, where consumers are opting for locally grown produce instead of imports from the U.S. Notably, a Montreal-based bagel shop, Fairmount, has joined the trend by selling a red-and-white “Canada” bagel to symbolize national pride. These symbolic gestures, though heartfelt, may seem trivial in hindsight.
Humorous as it may seem, political food protests often take on absurd forms. In the past, Americans renamed French fries as “freedom fries” after France’s refusal to participate in the 2003 Gulf War. Similarly, sauerkraut was rebranded as “liberty cabbage” during World War I due to anti-German sentiment. The cultural impact of such gestures is often fleeting, leaving a legacy of symbolic, yet ultimately meaningless, actions.
The question remains: How far will these political food disputes go? In Canada, might French fries be mandated to be topped with cheese curds and gravy, creating a national poutine law? In Mexico, will baristas refuse to serve Americano coffee until Trump changes his rhetoric regarding their shared body of water? These playful protests highlight the absurdity of food-based political statements.
In Hong Kong, we could even take part by calling an Americano “Covfefe,” a term coined by Trump himself that inadvertently aligns with Cantonese for “coffee.” If history teaches us anything, it’s that these symbolic actions rarely have lasting impact—except, perhaps, in the humor they inspire.
Ultimately, the intertwining of trade politics and food is a stark reminder that consumer prices may continue to rise as international tensions play out, with everyday goods becoming pawns in a larger political game. Whether or not such actions lead to meaningful change, the economic and cultural consequences of these food-related protests are already evident.
Related topics
