For President Donald Trump’s second administration, international trade realignment is again one of his primary crusades. Driven by his inherent view that the country has long been taken advantage of by others, he has made the goal to “rebuild the U.S. industrial base, rebalance trade relationships, enforce reciprocity… and use America’s market power to secure better terms with trading partners.” For the fresh produce sector, the prospects for real trade gains or losses aren’t taken lightly.
As we approach the third year of this trade agenda in action, let’s compare the regional market landscapes of North America and Southeast Asia. The former obviously encompasses Canada and Mexico, the top two export markets for fresh produce collectively (fruits, vegetables and tree nuts). For the latter I highlight Vietnam and Thailand, as I had the great opportunity to travel to both countries earlier this year as part of a specialty crop technical trade mission.
Vietnam and Thailand
Southeast Asia market development is of high interest, especially as the China market dims (more on that later). Of the 11 nations that comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc, Vietnam and Thailand respectively have the third- and fourth-largest populations and similar nominal GDP levels of roughly $500 billion. While Vietnam is still dominated by traditional and smaller outlets, last year supermarkets grew 13 percent and food e-commerce grew 29 percent. Consumers are becoming more selective of food sources and ingredients, and key sectors are getting better at accommodating high-value products, including more sophisticated retail, tourism and food processing. While Thailand’s food market is farther along and more developed in all these aspects, it is still projected to grow at an average annual rate of nearly 5 percent over the next four years. Over the past decade, U.S. fresh produce exports to both countries have increased nearly 60 percent, reaching $795.7 million in 2025.
This June, a small group of industry representatives, technical experts and U.S. Department of Agriculture staff traveled overseas to meet with counterparts in the governments and private sectors. This trip was far more technical in nature than promotional and was organized and supported through the USDA Assisting Specialty Crop Exports (ASCE) Program. ASCE is a $65 million multi-year undertaking to comprehensively tackle non-tariff barriers into markets, especially missing or challenging maximum residue levels (MRL). Nearly three years in, it has arguably been one of the most effective USDA-driven efforts in some time, elevating several crop-chemistry combinations into several countries in one big swing.
We came at a time when Vietnam has been weathering public pressures to tackle corruption in government. The result has been substantial bureaucratic changes and shifting agency responsibilities, so for us there was an immediate need to understand ‘who’s on first’ now with ag import, food safety and crop protection oversight. In Thailand, there is palpable activism against pesticides domestically, including calls for the country to mirror European Union standards. As a result, the consideration of new products has stalled for years and now there could very likely be reforms to the overall registration and regulation process. Given how domestic policy changes can often impact channels for our exports, it was a timely discussion.
From our on-the-ground observations and conversations in both countries, recent U.S. policies and politics fortunately haven’t tarnished the reputation of U.S. ag products being among the safest and highest-quality in the world. From the regulatory and political officials, they were generally open to explaining how their systems work and what their goals for successful ag trade are. Conversely, they asked many questions about how the U.S. manages food, including FDA’s handling of imports and EPA’s oversight of chemicals.
The grocery stores we visited rivaled American ones in terms of quantity, variety, cleanliness and marketing, including displays and aisles dedicated exclusively to U.S.-origin products. Value-added products, tree nuts and premium fruits are overwhelmingly driving the demand. For vegetables not nearly as much, given how much is already grown domestically or is sourced much more closely from neighbors like China. While geography is possibly the greatest disadvantage, the confidence in U.S. foods’ safety is still the key advantage, and a couple off-hand remarks and presentations made mention of certain specific vegetable categories of interest that left me with some (perhaps naïve) optimism that a narrow opening for some U.S. vegetables could be possible in the future.
There were several takeaways from our six-day venture. Both countries are emboldened to strengthen their own domestic policies and economic output. Real changes have and will continue to come for the mechanisms that manage food safety, pesticides and even packaging. At the same time, there is still a constructive attitude toward current U.S. diplomacy and a desire for U.S. products. There is also active interest in multilateral trade dealings, not just bilaterals. The participation from these countries is crucial toward another ASCE initiative: creating a regional import MRL approval process within the ASEAN region.
Mexico and Canada
For all the energy and interest into Southeast Asia, it and practically every other market region in the world are still eclipsed by the sheer volume and value of the Mexican and Canadian markets combined. For 2024 and 2025, the U.S. exported $12.4 billion in fresh produce and nuts, and WG’s four home states were responsible for over 44 percent of that. For U.S. vegetables alone, 87 percent of all exports are destined for Canada and Mexico annually.
As such, we immediately took notice that these countries were among the first targeted by President Trump for higher tariffs and national security demands. All things considered, the relationship with Mexico has continued to be relatively stable and collaborative. With our neighbor to the north, it is a different story and arguably the story of the past two years.
President Trump’s words and actions toward Canada have been especially pointed, frequent and personal. The effect is that it has stirred up anti-American sentiment to a degree we are not seeing anywhere else, nor have probably seen in our lifetime. In a private conversation between California ag stakeholders and U.S.-based diplomatic officials this July, the message was clear: “It cannot be overstated just how [upset] Canadians are.” Franker language was used. Every day there is another media report interviewing Canadian retailers, describing customer demand to stock more Canadian-grown, or at least stock less of U.S.-grown. From direct talks with several WG exporting members, they have been on the receiving end of this ire directly with cancelled or reduced orders, demands that they share in added financial costs and pressure to source product grown in other countries.
Will this all blow over once this administration has moved on in two years? For comparison, January 2018 saw the first shots fired in the U.S.-China trade conflict, and two years later the Phase One deal was signed. Further focus and tariffs on China continued under the Biden Administration, and this second Trump term has again had flare-ups, cool downs and another truce since last year. All told, since 2017 the average tariff rate into China for all U.S. goods has increased from 8 percent to 31 percent. For some fresh fruits and tree nuts that previously had major inroads into China, exports have dropped 20 percent or more since 2016.
Other tree nuts had marked recoveries after the first trade war, but exports collapsed again last year when tariffs came back in the spotlight. As for the systemic non-tariff barriers that hinder greater access to China—barriers the first Trump Administration made so central to its trade agenda—the needle has simply not moved. Today, U.S. ag exports still face an additional 10 percent baseline retaliatory tariff into China that has been kept since 2018.
If history repeats itself, our industry stands to lose a lot in an unresolved U.S.-Canada conflict with little to gain. In response to initial U.S. tariff actions last year, Canada imposed a 25 percent retaliatory tariff on many U.S. products, including 12 fresh produce items. The tariff was in place only from March to July last year, but for those targeted categories there was a collective 33 percent decline when compared to the same period in 2024. If this snapshot gives us any indication as to how a broader and longer imposition of tariffs could go, it’s clear the impact would be substantial.
Even if or when the verbal sparring cools and deals are ostensibly reached, some actions and shifts will likely stay the course. In Canada there are proposals for greater self-sufficiency and moving away from the U.S. as a primary source. Its recently announced National Food Security Strategy proposes $750 million toward controlled environment agriculture to “grow more vegetables and fruits in more places, making Canada less dependent on imports of these products.” Producers understand the time and effort it takes to build relationships with buyers and consumers, and what it means to rebuild. The value of diversifying markets notwithstanding, there is simply no replacing Canada or Mexico.
We recognize the fluidity and politics surrounding international trade right now is especially heightened and sensitive. Nonetheless, WG has been vocal since day one that foreign competition is already tough in many markets, and further ruptures and lingering uncertainty give them more opportunities to keep displacing us. For these reasons we must capitalize on opportunities for new footholds in developing markets overseas, and we must diligently preserve—and build upon—what has long been established here in North America.
[Author’s Note: Cited statistics are generated from USDA and Congressional Research Service databases and sources.]