“reshoring” and “friend-shoring”
1. Increasing Coffee Prices Are Damaging Consumers Since last year, coffee prices in the United States have jumped close to 21%. For some, this isn't just an item on an expense sheet—it's part of their daily routine, their comfort, their "wake-up moment." When prices go up, it hits disproportionatelRead more
1. Increasing Coffee Prices Are Damaging Consumers
Since last year, coffee prices in the United States have jumped close to 21%. For some, this isn’t just an item on an expense sheet—it’s part of their daily routine, their comfort, their “wake-up moment.” When prices go up, it hits disproportionately hard on households with tighter pockets because coffee, as seemingly innocuous as it might be, is enjoyed by millions.
These increases in price are tied directly to tariffs already being levied on coffee imports from primary producing nations such as Brazil and Vietnam, from 10% to 50%. Consider the small Brazilian coffee farm or the Vietnamese processing facility—the tariffs add additional costs at each point in the supply chain that ultimately get transferred on to the consumer within American shops and restaurants.
2. Economic Pressure on Businesses
Coffee is not only a beverage—it’s an economic ecosystem. Cafes, restaurants, and small-scale roasters are taking a hit. Margins are constricted because they either need to absorb the increased cost (damaging profitability) or charge it to customers (damaging sales). Legislators view this as a pragmatic issue: if tariffs keep driving up prices, small businesses—particularly those that are already struggling post-pandemic—may end up closing shop or laying off workers.
3. Global Trade Considerations
Coffee is among the world’s most traded commodities. The United States imports most of its coffee, and tariffs upset a fragile supply-and-demand balance. Exempting coffee from tariffs, lawmakers say, will stabilize the market, ensure imports continue to flow uninterrupted, and preserve healthy trade with nations producing the lion’s share of the world’s coffee.
It’s also a gesture of goodwill. Vietnam and Brazil are important trade partners, and relaxing tariffs indicates good faith, which can translate into concessions on other products and sectors.
4. Political and Public Pressure
There is a political dimension, too. Coffee has cultural importance—it’s one of the U.S.’s most popular drinks. When it increases in price sharply, it’s something visible and something tangible to the public. Legislators are reacting to constituents who are growing tired of “tariff tax increases” on common items. Presenting a bipartisan bill to exempt coffee is partly a gesture to indicate that they are hearing about common concerns and doing something to shield consumers.
5. A Wider Economic Symbol
Waiving tariffs on coffee is not just a product-specific gesture; it’s emblematic of a wider policy: that trade policy should not end up punishing ordinary consumers in pursuit of strategic goals. It’s a reminder that policies, particularly trade policy, have real effects on the morning rituals, pockets, and lives of tens of millions of Americans.
Short, U.S. legislators are urging an exception to coffee from tariffs due to the existing import duties creating tremendous economic and social tension: consumers are paying extra, companies are suffering, and trade relations are in danger of being strained. By focusing on coffee, lawmakers want to minimize the daily burden, help small firms, and make a statement that trade policy is to be for people—not simply abstract economic purposes.
See less
Why tariffs do nudge companies to reshore or friend-shore Cost pressure from tariffs. When imported goods face new taxes, sourcing abroad becomes less attractive. U.S.–China tariffs, for example, raised the cost of importing everything from machinery to electronics. For firms with thin margins, thatRead more
Why tariffs do nudge companies to reshore or friend-shore
Cost pressure from tariffs. When imported goods face new taxes, sourcing abroad becomes less attractive. U.S.–China tariffs, for example, raised the cost of importing everything from machinery to electronics. For firms with thin margins, that price hike makes domestic or “friendly” suppliers more appealing.
Uncertainty. Even when tariffs are moderate, the risk that they could go higher in the future makes long-term supply contracts riskier. Companies prefer to hedge by relocating production to “safer” trade jurisdictions.
Signaling and risk management. Investors, boards, and governments are pressuring firms to reduce overreliance on politically fraught supply chains. Moving to “friendlier” countries reduces reputational and regulatory risks.
Why it’s not just tariffs — the broader forces at work
Geopolitics. Rising U.S.–China tensions, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and Taiwan-related security concerns have made executives rethink global exposure. Even without tariffs, firms might diversify to avoid being caught in sanctions or sudden trade bans.
Pandemic scars. COVID-19 disruptions exposed how fragile “just-in-time” global supply chains can be. Container shortages, port delays, and factory shutdowns made companies want more local or regional control.
Subsidy pull. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan, and similar incentives are attracting firms with tax breaks and grants. Sometimes reshoring is less about tariffs pushing them away and more about subsidies pulling them home.
Automation and technology. With robotics and AI, labor-cost gaps between rich and developing countries matter a little less. That makes reshoring feasible in industries like semiconductors and advanced manufacturing.
Brand and politics. Companies want to be seen as “patriotic” or “responsible” in their home markets. Publicly announcing reshoring plans wins political goodwill, even if the actual moves are modest.
What the evidence shows (real moves vs rhetoric)
Partial shifts, not wholesale exodus. Despite big headlines, data suggests that very few firms have completely left China or other low-cost hubs. Instead, they are diversifying — moving some production to Vietnam, India, Mexico, or Eastern Europe, while keeping a base in China. This is more “China+1” than “China exit.”
Sectoral differences.
Semiconductors, batteries, defense-related tech: More genuine reshoring because governments are subsidizing heavily and demanding domestic supply.
Textiles, consumer electronics: Much harder to reshore at scale due to cost structure; many companies are only moving some assembly to “friends.”
Announced vs delivered. Announcements of billion-dollar plants make headlines, but many are delayed, scaled down, or never completed. Some reshoring rhetoric is political theater meant to align with government priorities.
Risks and trade-offs
Higher consumer prices. Reshored production usually costs more (higher wages, stricter regulations). Companies may pass those costs to consumers.
Supply-chain inefficiency. Over-diversifying or duplicating factories for political reasons may reduce global efficiency and slow innovation.
Job creation gap. While politicians promise “millions of new jobs,” advanced manufacturing often uses automation, so the actual employment impact is smaller than the rhetoric.
Geopolitical ripple effects. Countries excluded from “friend” lists may retaliate with their own trade barriers, creating a more fragmented global economy.
The humanized bottom line
Tariffs are one piece of the puzzle — they make foreign sourcing more expensive and less predictable, nudging firms to move production closer to home or to allies. But the bigger story is that companies are now managing political risk almost as seriously as they manage financial risk. The real trend is not pure reshoring but strategic diversification: keeping some production in global hubs while spreading out capacity to reduce vulnerability.
So when you hear a politician say “companies are bringing jobs back home because of tariffs,” that’s partly true — but it leaves out the bigger picture. What’s really happening is a cautious, messy, and uneven reorganization of global supply chains, shaped by a mix of tariffs, subsidies, security concerns, and corporate image-making.
See less