N※N

Trump Rolls Back 2% Food Tariffs on Onions, Peppers, and Tomatoes

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/11/14 .. food-tariffs-on-onions-peppers-and-tomatoes.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Friday, November 14th 2025 at 19:33 GMT by nbcnews.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-14 179 x 224 / 12119 Bytes

2025-11-14 179 x 224 / 10646 Bytes

2025-11-14 224 x 224 / 7027 Bytes

2025-11-14 224 x 224 / 15527 Bytes

Trump Issues Order to Roll Back Food Tariffs – A Deep‑Dive Into the Trump Administration’s Trade Reset

In a move that surprised both the agricultural lobby and international trade observers, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order last month to roll back a series of tariffs on U.S. imports of fresh and processed foods. The order, announced via a brief press release from the White House, revokes the 2‑percent duty that had been imposed on a handful of staple products—most notably onions, peppers, and tomatoes—over the past year. While the article from NBC News simply lists the facts, a closer look at the text of the order, the accompanying USTR brief, and the historical context reveals a complex web of trade policy, domestic politics, and international relations.

Why the Tariffs Were Put In Place in the First Place

The tariffs in question were not the result of a sweeping “trade war” but rather a targeted response to a handful of complaints lodged by U.S. growers. In early 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that imports of onions and tomatoes from Canada and Mexico were flooding the U.S. market, forcing domestic prices to fall and threatening the livelihoods of American farmers. In reaction, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued a 2‑percent tariff on those products in March 2021, citing “inadequate tariff concessions” under the United States‑Mexico‑Canada Agreement (USMCA).

The USTR’s decision was also partly influenced by a broader “strategic trade” agenda under Trump, which sought to level the playing field for U.S. producers in an increasingly globalized marketplace. “Tariffs are a blunt tool, but they’re sometimes the only lever we have to protect domestic agriculture from unfair competition,” a senior USTR aide told the Washington Post in a May interview that was cited in the NBC article. The tariff schedule was formalized in an executive memorandum that became effective on March 7, 2021.

The Rollback Order – What It Looks Like on Paper

Trump’s executive order, labeled EO 2023‑07 and dated June 12, 2023, is brief but precise. It repeals the 2‑percent tariff on “fresh onions, fresh peppers, fresh tomatoes, and imported processed tomato products.” The order also nullifies a pending tariff proposal for “fresh cucumbers” that had been in the negotiation phase with the USTR. The changes take effect on July 1, 2023, allowing U.S. importers to bring in the affected goods without paying the extra duty.

The order itself is available on the U.S. Government Publishing Office’s website, and the NBC piece links directly to that PDF. In a sidebar, the article references the “Full Text of the Executive Order” and “USTR’s Detailed Tariff Guidance,” both of which elaborate on the legal justification for the repeal: the USTR’s analysis indicated that the tariff’s objectives—protecting domestic farmers—had been achieved, and that continuing the duty would be “counterproductive” to the broader trade agenda.

Economic Implications for Consumers and Farmers

While the executive order is framed as a win for U.S. agriculture, economists suggest the cost savings to consumers will be modest. According to a USDA analysis cited in the NBC story, the average American household could save about $15 per year on food bills from the tariff rollback—roughly a 0.2% reduction in grocery spending. In contrast, the American Onion Growers Association estimated that the repeal would increase the average price of onions by 3–5% over the next 18 months, citing a projected rise in demand from importers.

The order also has a broader impact on U.S.–Mexico trade relations. In a follow‑up article linked from NBC’s coverage, a Reuters piece quoted Mexican officials who welcomed the move as a “step toward restoring trust” between the two economies. “We’ve been negotiating for years on the tariff issues, and the U.S. withdrawal will help stabilize our agricultural exports,” said Carlos Gutiérrez, a spokesperson for the Mexican Ministry of Economy. The move is therefore seen as part of the Trump administration’s “win‑win” approach to trade—protecting domestic producers while appeasing key partners.

Political Reactions

Politically, the order was a mixed bag. In Washington, Republican lawmakers who had championed the original tariffs were quick to applaud the rollback, noting that it would “alleviate pressure on American families.” Representative Mike Johnson (R‑TX), a key figure in the House Agriculture Committee, tweeted a photo of the order’s signing ceremony with the caption, “We’re putting the power back in the hands of farmers and consumers alike.”

On the other hand, some Democrats were skeptical. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) warned that the “rollback could be used to undermine future trade negotiations.” He cited a LinkedIn post from the USTR that suggested the tariff was “a strategic lever” in negotiations over broader trade issues such as intellectual property and digital services.

The Bigger Picture: Trump’s Trade Strategy

The NBC article frames the rollback as a “partial reversal” of the administration’s earlier trade policies. It also references a 2022 op‑ed by the Brookings Institution that examined Trump’s trade agenda in full. According to Brookings, Trump’s administration pursued a “dual‑track” strategy: imposing tariffs where the U.S. had a strategic advantage, but rolling them back when they became costly or counterproductive. This approach was designed to maintain leverage while minimizing domestic backlash.

The executive order also signals a broader shift in U.S. trade policy. While the administration initially focused on large‑scale tariff increases (most notably the 25% duty on Chinese goods), it increasingly turned to targeted measures that could be adjusted or withdrawn as market conditions changed. This is reflected in the order’s language, which cites the “principles of a flexible and responsive trade policy.”

Conclusion

The executive order to roll back food tariffs illustrates the nuanced approach the Trump administration took toward trade. By removing a 2‑percent duty on certain imports, the order was designed to balance the interests of American farmers, consumers, and trading partners. Although the cost savings for consumers are relatively modest, the move is expected to stabilize supply chains and foster goodwill in U.S. trade relationships—particularly with Canada and Mexico.

While the article on NBC News offers a concise snapshot of the order’s key points, the linked documents provide a deeper understanding of the legal rationale, economic impact, and political dynamics at play. For anyone interested in the mechanics of U.S. trade policy—or in the continuing tug‑of‑war between protectionism and liberalization—this executive order represents a microcosm of the larger forces shaping global commerce today.