Skip to main content

Americans could soon pay a lot more for strawberries

(CNN) — Strawberries offer a taste of summer, even when they are eaten in the dead of winter. But the year-round treat Americans have grown accustomed to could soon get more expensive.

The Trump administration is investigating whether Mexican growers are selling winter-harvested strawberries in the United States at unfairly low prices, a determination that could lead to tariffs on those imports and, ultimately, higher costs for shoppers.

If that happens, it would mark a break from decades of largely duty-free trade for Mexican strawberries under US free trade agreements. It could also add to affordability concerns heading into the pivotal midterm elections, as consumers already feel the squeeze from higher gas prices.

At first glance, these kinds of investigations may seem counterproductive for American consumers. If a foreign country can sell goods more cheaply, shouldn’t consumers be allowed to benefit from those lower prices? Generally, yes. But US law draws a line when foreign goods are sold at unfairly low prices and those imports cause significant harm to American businesses.

A whopping 98% of US strawberry imports came from Mexico last year, with shipments worth more than $1 billion, according to data from the US Department of Agriculture. The US becomes particularly reliant on Mexican strawberries during the winter months, when domestic production slows. But it’s unclear the extent to which pricing is causing the US to look more to Mexico, too.

The case was brought by Strawberry Growers for Fair Trade, a coalition of Florida strawberry producers, whose berries are typically harvested during the winter months.

Mexican imports have grown faster than demand for winter strawberries, taking market share from US growers by selling at lower prices, said Daniel Pickard, the lead counsel for the coalition. If the case succeeds, he expects the tariffs to have a “relatively modest” impact on consumer prices while helping US farmers compete.

There’s a recent example of how complicated that can be in practice. Tomato prices were 12.8% higher last month than a year earlier, according to the Consumer Price Index. That comes after the US imposed a roughly 17% antidumping duty on most Mexican tomatoes last July.

But it would be a mistake to attribute that increase entirely to the tariffs: Adverse weather conditions in tomato-growing regions of Mexico and freezing temperatures in parts of Florida during the first two months of this year also played a role, an April report from the US Department of Commerce found.

The Commerce Department is expected to release its preliminary finding in the strawberry case, which could call for higher tariffs, by August 18. It will likely be several months before a final determination is made.

Even after Commerce issues its preliminary finding, the tariff rate could still change. That happened last year in the case of certain Italian pasta imports, when Commerce initially proposed additional antidumping duties as high as 92% before ultimately lowering the rates to below 10% after reviewing additional information from the pasta makers.

The lower rates helped avert the prospect of dramatically higher prices — or potentially reduced access to some Italian pasta brands — for US consumers.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Paramount wants a $1.9 billion bond from state AGs fighting the Warner Bros. merger

(CNN) — Paramount wants the states that are suing over the Warner Bros. Discovery deal to post a $1.9 billion bond. The states are scoffing at the idea.The media company made the request in a motion on Monday, asserting that “this is a textbook case for requiring bond.”It remains to be seen if the judge overseeing the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguín, will agree, but there is reason to be skeptical.Such bonds are up to the judge, and earlier in the case Martinez-Olguín waived the bond requirement because, she wrote, the states had demonstrated that they were bringing the suit “to enforce important public interests.”The argument in Monday’s motion revolves around the “ticking fees” that make the acquisition of WBD, CNN’s parent, more costly for Paramount starting in October. The fees are a part of the merger agreement that the companies signed last winter. The agreement remains in place until June 2027.“Each day that passes after September 30th without the merger closing, Paramount must pay roughly $7 million in ‘ticking fees’ to Warner Bros. stockholders and yet more fees to its financing sources for maintaining their commitments,” the motion states.An antitrust trial is slated for March. By the time the judge rules, Paramount “will have incurred $1.3 billion in unrecoverable financial losses” from the fees, the motion states.And so the company says the states and the other plaintiff, the Writers’ Guild of America, should be on the hook. If Paramount prevails in court, it would be paid the bond, thereby compensating for the ticking fees and other costs.The coalition of 12 state attorneys general that sued to block the deal last month notched an early win when Martinez-Olguín issued a temporary restraining order. At that time, she declined to require a bond.Paramount and the plaintiffs then agreed to skip a preliminary injunction hearing and move straight toward trial, despite the likelihood that the “ticking fees” would start to add up.Antitrust experts have asserted that Paramount is trying to pressure the states into a pre-trial settlement. Some have also suggested that the company is laying the legal groundwork for a fast-track appeals process.“Regardless of when the judicial process concludes, Paramount is certain to suffer serious financial loss,” the motion states.The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition, responded in a statement Monday afternoon by pointing out that Paramount agreed to the “ticking fee” terms while knowing “this merger would undergo regulatory review.”“What’s more, Paramount itself stipulated to the timing it is now protesting — they agreed to the dates and did not request a bond as a condition of agreeing not to close until after the trial, and potentially as late as June 2027. Now, they’re trying to get a do-over,” a spokesperson said.“Paramount went into this process with eyes wide open,” the spokesperson added. “They are lying in a bed of their own making, and once again, trying to blackmail us to get us to back down.”Bonta has previously dismissed the idea that taxpayers “would pay for what Paramount agreed to pay.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story