Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive congresswoman from New York, recently took aim at President Donald Trump’s tariff dispute with Colombian President Gustavo Petro. The conflict began when Petro refused to accept two deportation flights carrying illegal immigrants from the U.S. to Colombia. In retaliation, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Colombian goods and imposed a series of other measures, including banning travel and revoking visas for Colombian officials.
Ocasio-Cortez responded by criticizing Trump’s tariff plan, arguing that American consumers would bear the brunt of the consequences. She claimed that by imposing tariffs, Trump would essentially force everyday Americans to pay higher prices for goods like coffee, which Colombia is known for exporting. She also suggested that Trump’s approach would only worsen inflation and hurt working-class families, while benefiting wealthy elites.
While her comments sparked a significant response, especially from her supporters, many conservatives were quick to counter her argument. They pointed out that coffee comes from various countries, not just Colombia. If Colombia became an unreliable partner in trade due to its stance on immigration, the U.S. could easily find alternative suppliers, particularly from other major coffee producers like Brazil and Vietnam.
Other critics emphasized that Ocasio-Cortez misunderstood how tariffs work. While tariffs are paid by the importer, not the country exporting the goods, critics noted that higher tariffs could lead U.S. businesses to seek coffee suppliers from countries that have more stable trade relations with the U.S., potentially avoiding price hikes for consumers. They also argued that if Colombia continued to obstruct U.S. immigration policy, it could ultimately harm its own economy by discouraging investment and trade.
Although Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet gained traction among her base, conservatives pointed out that her analysis was oversimplified. The dispute over tariffs between the U.S. and Colombia underscores the complexities of international trade and the delicate balance between foreign policy and economic strategy. As Trump’s supporters have noted, the U.S. can always find alternatives when dealing with unreliable trade partners.