News
Why Trump's tariffs on Mexico would mean higher avocado prices at the grocery store
Avocados grow on trees in an orchard in the municipality of Ario de Rosales, Michoacan state, Mexico, on Sept. 21, 2023. Tariffs on Mexican imports would have a big effect on avocados in the U.S.
Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images
Of all the products that would be affected by President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Mexico, avocados stand out: 90% of avocados consumed in the U.S. are imported. And almost all of those imports come from Mexico.
Trump has said he plans to impose a blanket tariff of 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada, along with an additional 10% tax on goods from China.
It’s unclear whether the tariffs will be implemented or if they will serve merely as a negotiating tactic.
If enacted, they could have multiple effects on the avocado industry.
“Broad tariffs, like what’s being proposed, is not something that we’ve seen” before, says David Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University. “We had the trade war with China back in 2018 that affected steel and aluminum, but when it comes to food, these types of policy proposals are not something that are very common or that we’ve seen recently.”
With one of the biggest guacamole-eating events of the year — the Super Bowl — approaching in February, here’s what to know about avocados, tariffs, and why so many avocados are grown in Mexico.
Prices will rise
Avocados are displayed in a grocery store in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 2022. Experts predict avocado prices will rise in the event of tariffs on Mexican imports.
Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
First, a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico would lead to higher avocado prices at the grocery store.
But estimating just how much higher is hard to say. It’s possible that producers and importers will absorb some of the costs to keep prices down and stay more competitive.
Ortega says there could be “pretty significant increases in the price of avocados. Maybe not the full 25%, but pretty close, given that there’s very little substitute ability with regards to where we would source avocados.”
But he cautions that because the tariffs apply only to the product’s value at the border, and not to other costs like transportation and distribution within the U.S., prices may not go up by the full 25%.
Regardless of these potential price increases, however, people in the U.S. love their avocados and they’re willing to pay more. Avocado consumption tripled in the U.S. between 2000 and 2021.
“Given that avocado is a staple of our consumption here, I would say that the elasticity is not very high, meaning that even with a big increase in price, consumption is not going to change that much,” says Luis Ribera, a professor and extension economist in the agricultural economics department at Texas A&M University.
Why Mexico
A farmer works at an avocado plantation at the Los Cerritos avocado group ranch in Ciudad Guzman, state of Jalisco, Mexico, on Feb. 10, 2023. Most of the avocados consumed in the U.S. are grown in Mexico.
Ulises Ruiz/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Ulises Ruiz/AFP via Getty Images
Mexico is the biggest producer of avocados in the world and exported $3.3 billion worth of avocados in 2023. A study funded by the industry estimated that avocado production supports 78,000 permanent jobs and 310,000 seasonal jobs in Mexico.
“It’s a very important business in Mexico, very lucrative,” Ribera says.
Mexico emerged as the largest foreign supplier of fruits and vegetables to the U.S. for a few reasons, he says. One: Its proximity to the U.S. market. With a perishable product, closer is better. Peru is the second-largest source of foreign avocados in the U.S., but its greater distance means avocados need to be shipped farther.
The other reasons for Mexico are favorable weather that allows for year-round production of avocados and access to cheap labor, according to Ribera.
Avocados are grown in the U.S. too, mostly in California and to a lesser extent Florida and Hawaii, but U.S. growers can’t meet Americans’ big appetite. Avocado production in the U.S. has declined, even as Americans grew fonder of the green fruit, according to the USDA.
California avocado growers have faced droughts and wildfires in recent years, making it difficult to offer the year-round availability that American consumers crave, Ortega says. In addition, land is expensive and water is limited.
If the goal of implementing tariffs is to force avocado production to move somewhere besides Mexico, that isn’t easy.
It takes about eight years for avocado trees to produce fruit, according to the USDA. “This is not a product that you can just simply plant more of this season and you get more of in a few months,” Ortega says.
Other countries where the U.S. sources avocados — Peru, the Dominican Republic and Chile — “just simply don’t have the production capacity to replace Mexico’s supply,” he says.
Tariffs could impact the organic avocado market
Tariffs could also alter the market dynamic when it comes to organic vs. conventional foods.
If prices rise across the board, consumers who typically buy organic avocados might switch to conventional ones to save money. Organic produce makes up about 15% of total fruit and vegetable sales in the U.S., according to the Organic Trade Association, which represents hundreds of organic businesses and thousands of farmers.
“My hypothesis is that the price of conventional products would increase more than the premium organic product,” Ortega says. He reasons that because people who are used to buying organic avocados would move to buy conventional ones, “that in turn increases the demand and would make prices rise more for that category.”
Matthew Dillon, co-CEO of the Organic Trade Association, says those in the organic food industry are looking at diversifying their supply chains away from Mexico, but there’s a three-year transition period required for farmers to switch from producing conventional to organic produce.
“Supply chains are not incredibly elastic in organic. It takes more time to pivot and change when there’s a supply chain disruption. And tariffs are in some ways a form of supply chain disruption for a company, because it creates unpredictable pricing,” he says.
Together with grocery prices that have gone up more than 26% since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s plans for tariffs on Mexico, along with mass deportations, could create “a perfect storm of high inflationary pressure on the organic sector,” Dillon says.
Furthermore, retaliatory tariffs from Mexico could have their own impacts.
Avocado producers face uncertainty as Trump’s return looms
Avocados in boxes are pictured at a packing plant in the municipality of Ario de Rosales, Michoacan state, Mexico, on Sept. 21, 2023.
Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images
Aside from the threat of tariffs, the avocado industry has other challenges to deal with: climate change presents several problems, and avocados require a large amount of water to grow. Meanwhile, environmentalists say some avocado growers are cutting down forests to plant avocados.
Producers also face extortion from criminal gangs in Mexico.
And now with Trump’s tariff threats, producers are left to wonder about their next steps.
“Producers, they react to market fundamentals,” Ribera says. For example, people can foresee how bad weather in Mexico would affect avocado prices. Producers and retailers will adjust to higher and lower demand.
“The issue with a tariff is it’s not a market fundamental — it’s a policy. It’s a political move,” he says. “It could happen or it could not happen, or it could be increased or it could be decreased, you know. So it’s hard for the whole supply chain to adjust.”
President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.
Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.
A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.
The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.
The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”
Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”
But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.
In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.
Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.
Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.
Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.
Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jesus Vargas/Getty Images
Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.
The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.
The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.
According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.
Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.
“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”
Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.
The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.
Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.
The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.
Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.
Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.
Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.
Republicans are seeking a way around a filibuster on D.H.S. funding.
The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.
“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”
In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.
The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.
Democrats used the moment to hammer Republicans on affordability.
Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.
“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”
Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.
Republicans blocked Democrats’ proposals to address high living costs.
The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.
Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.
Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.
Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.
Republicans sought to amplify their hard-line messages on immigration, voter I.D. and transgender care.
While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.
Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.
Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.
The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.
-
Massachusetts5 minutes agoThe Arc of Massachusetts recognizes Vanna Howard as 2026 Legislator of the Year
-
Minnesota11 minutes agoNuggets-Timberwolves takeaways: Jaden McDaniels backs up his talk, as Minnesota dominates Game 3 with defense
-
Mississippi17 minutes agoFederal relief available for Mississippi farmers impacted by ongoing drought
-
Missouri23 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 winning numbers for April 23, 2026
-
Montana29 minutes agoMontana Student Loan Assistance Program Preserves Family Farms and Ranches
-
Nebraska35 minutes agoSergeant Mad Bear Recreation Area opens in Gretna
-
Nevada41 minutes agoHistoric Nevada elementary school to close this summer
-
New Hampshire47 minutes agoBank Robber, Sexual Assaulter, With 40-Plus Year Criminal History, Wanted On Parole Violation: NH DOC