
Tariffs Are Coming For The Menu
She began stocking up on ingredients like asafetida, black salt, and chilies from both India and Mexico, she says. But spices go stale, and some fresh ingredients are becoming more difficult to source. 'We have suggested to our bar manager switching acids, or developing a menu less citrus heavy — limes are $74 a case right now and steadily climbing,' she says. Fish sauce, too, has jumped from $2.99 to $8 a bottle. 'We have dropped avocados for now, and will just be watching like everyone else [to see] what happens.'
'What happens?' is a lingering question, as every day, Trump seems to change his mind about what tariffs are in effect and when. Here's a relatively updated list of the tariffs that may or may not have been invented by ChatGPT, but the numbers matter less than the overall intention — whether it's by 10 percent or 27 percent, Trump means to apply reciprocal tariffs widely, affecting everything from cars to fast fashion.
Even the most locavore restaurants rely on ingredients and supplies from overseas, whether that's European wine, Brazilian coffee, or takeout boxes manufactured in China. And Trump's tariffs, whether they've been implemented or not, are having a profound effect on the industry. Some restaurateurs suddenly can't afford ingredients that have been the backbone of their menus, while others must switch to domestic alternatives that require complete menu revamps.
As Top Chef has drilled into the collective consciousness, the mark of a good chef is the ability to adapt. Which one must do when suppliers text you and say everything is going to cost 20 percent more than it did the day before, as recently happened for chef Nick Wong of the newly opened Agnes and Sherman in Houston. Ingredients like rice flour, tofu, and spice mixes — crucial for the Asian-American diner concept — are suddenly far more expensive than when they planned out the business.
Through one lens, the tariffs (or threat thereof) are having the intended effect of encouraging chefs to buy local. Wong says he's begun working with a local tofu purveyor, Banyan, which allows them to save some costs. Chef Apurva Panchal, the head chef at ROOH in Palo Alto, has also found himself leaning more into the cross-cultural California-ness of the menu. For instance, a cauliflower steak that used to use Indian red pumpkin is now made with local butternut squash. It's an 'opportunity for innovation,' he says.
But locality and seasonality can only go so far, even at restaurants that aren't immediately affected by tariffs. Chef Omer Artun describes Meyhouse, also in Palo Alto, as a Mediterranean restaurant that uses lots of fresh produce and garlic and herbs for seasoning — all cheap and plentiful in the California summer. But 'as we go into the wintertime, a lot of the tomatoes and so forth come from Mexico,' or from hothouses in Canada, he says. Currently, most goods from Mexico and Canada are subject to a 25 percent tariff, various court rulings notwithstanding.
The tariffs disproportionately affect restaurants that rely on foreign ingredients, which are often cuisines that American diners expect to pay less for — it's easier to eat the cost of a $25 increase in spices when you're charging $300 a meal for a menu in a European tradition, rather than a counter-service Mexican restaurant. But chefs are getting savvy with their buying. Uong has been adding spice mixtures to oil to extend their shelf lives and drying fresh chiles for future use. Wong says his team has reached out to other local restaurants about buying nitrile gloves in bulk so they can take advantage of discounts.
But even if you spend all summer canning American tomatoes to avoid the 17 percent tariff on those from Mexico, there is the sticking point that some ingredients just aren't grown in the U.S., nor do they have a reasonable substitute. There is no domestic cinnamon production to tap into, no American turmeric or coffee or cardamom farm big enough to supplant international suppliers. 'I think it's going to be a reckoning,' says Wong. He's trying to keep Agnes and Sherman affordable like the diners it's modeled after, but at a certain point, diners are going to have to accept the cost of flavor, or risk their favorite places going under. 'Why is my fried rice so expensive? Food is politics,' says Wong. 'You don't get to exist in a vacuum and say you didn't want this. It's gonna affect you anyway.'
Sign up for Eater's newsletter
The freshest news from the food world every day Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
A postmortem on the dismantling of USAID
On the first day of his second term, President Trump issued an executive order suspending all foreign aid expenditures, except for those providing emergency and military assistance. On March 10, the administration cancelled 83 percent of the programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development. USAID, Trump declared, had been 'run by a bunch of radical lunatics.' Elon Musk opined that the agency was 'a criminal organization.' Social media outlets spread false allegations that USAID had spent $60 million on condoms for South Africa. On May 21, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 'No one has died because of USAID.' Lawmakers presented him with credible evidence that he was wrong. By the middle of the year, 94 percent of USAID's 4,500 employees, many of them living overseas, had been laid off. As of July 1, Rubio announced, 'USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance.' The State Department would only implement existing and new foreign aid programs if they advanced the administration's 'America First' agenda by privileging 'trade over aid, opportunity over dependency, investment over assistance.' The dismantling of USAID has already had a negative impact on the lives of tens of millions of poor and vulnerable people in some 130 countries. And the evisceration of USAID is undermining our national interest. Established in 1961, USAID became the world's leading donor of humanitarian, economic development and democracy-promoting programs. The organization has had considerable success in alleviating poverty and malnutrition, decreasing the spread of infectious diseases and increasing access to safer drinking water and sanitation. Its programs helped mitigate the effect of natural disasters and achieve substantial reductions in mortality rates across all ages and causes, death rates from HIV/AIDS, malaria and tropical diseases. Working with non-government organizations, USAID provided educational opportunities for women in Afghanistan and supported independent media committed to correcting disinformation campaigns by state-controlled outlets in Eastern Europe. Although MAGA Republicans have denounced USAID as 'woke,' the agency's largest implementing partner in 2024 was Catholic Charities. In the last four years, Samantha's Purse, founded by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical minister Billy Graham, received $90 million in USAID funds. A study recently published in The Lancet, the respected scientific and medical journal, estimates that the implications of dismantling USAID could 'reverberate for decades,' with an impact 'similar in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict.' By 2030, an additional 14 million people, 4 million of them children under five years old, could die. 630,000 of those deaths would be associated with dramatic reductions in staff, medications and treatment through PEPFAR, President George W. Bush's signature foreign aid initiative. USAID is a paradigmatic example of the exercise of 'soft power,' a difficult to quantify strategy of exerting national influence through trade, economic assistance, educational exchanges, public-private partnerships and relationships with business and political leaders. China had already strengthened its global ties by investing $679 billion — more than nine times the foreign aid expenditures of the U.S. — between 2013 and 2021 to construct or repair roads, railways, airports and energy and digital infrastructure. It began filling the soft power void created by the dismantling of USAID almost immediately in Nepal and Colombia. U.S. foreign aid, moreover, is relatively inexpensive. In 2023, total expenditures for non-military foreign aid were $71.9 billion, 1.2 percent of the $6.1 trillion federal budget. USAID was responsible for $43.5 billion of the $71.9 billion. The U.S., it's worth noting, gives a relatively low percentage of its GDP in aid compared to most other wealthy nations. As Trump and Rubio surely know, a substantial majority of Americans do not understand the aims and achievements of foreign aid or know how much the U.S. spends on it. On average, Americans believe that foreign aid constitutes 31 percent of the federal budget. About 70 percent of Americans (and 9 out of 10 Republicans) think Washington spends too much money assisting other countries. Trump and Rubio are not attempting to enlighten them. The dismantling of USAID provides a teachable moment. Referring to PEPFAR, former President Bush recently asked and answered a rhetorical question: 'Is it in our national interest that 25 million people who would have died now live? I think it is.' Providing humanitarian assistance is the right thing for the wealthiest country in the world to do, whether or not there's an immediate payoff. But it is also one of many ways, in our increasingly interconnected and interdependent planet, in which a robust USAID served — and might again serve — America's national interest.

Miami Herald
22 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Federal Reserve official gives green light to July rate cut
Is tariff inflation lagging, only to then burst and slip away? Or is it here to stay? Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Just ask Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller. Waller, a Trump appointee, surprised some Fed watchers late last month. He opined the Federal Open Markets Committee should cut the Federal Funds Rate at its July 29-30 meeting, citing slower-than-expected inflation data that wasn't going to be as hot as expected. Related: JPMorgan drops blunt forecast on future interest rate cuts Waller doubled down on that position July 17, saying the latest data, including the June CPI figure at 2.7% and other recent economic numbers, show it's definitely time for the Fed's first rate cut in 2025. But will the rest of Fed leadership vote for it? Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images The tariffs, which President Donald Trump announced on "Liberation Day'' in April, now face an Aug. 1 deadline. They are the highest in nine decades, ranging from 10% to 50% on imported goods and services. An interest rate cut has been the mantra of President Trump for months, saying the current rates are holding back the American economy from robust growth. The Federal Reserve Board has one job: comply with the dual congressional mandate to maintain 2% inflation and keep unemployment rates stable with steady GDP growth. It uses interest rates as a tool to manage that balance. The Federal Open Meeting Committee (FOMC) is the Fed's 12-member policymaking panel headed by Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Related: Trump deflects reports on firing Fed Chair Powell 'soon' The FOMC has been holding the Federal Funds Rate steady at 4.25% to 4.50% in anticipation of inflation from President Trump's tariffs and trade wars. The Federal Funds Rate is the price the Fed charges U.S. banks to borrow money overnight. This, in turn, sets the pace for short-term costs of borrowing money, such as through credit cards and auto and student loans. The 10-year Treasury Bond yield is the benchmark for longer-term interest rates like the 30-year fixed mortgage, currently hovering around 6.8%. The market expectations for how the Fed will set rates in the future influence long-term rates. The president is calling for a hefty slash of 3%, saying it will benefit Americans looking to buy homes with lower mortgages and reduce interest on the trillions of dollars in the U.S. deficit. In addition, he believes it will kickstart the overall economy in tandem with the new tax reconciliation act once known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. He's also been calling Powell a rotating list of personal and professional nasty and vulgar names as well as threatening to fire him (which are likely illegal but still caused some wonky fireworks over D.C. this week.) The Trump administration and its allies say the tariffs impact will be transitory, meaning it will represent a one-time hit to prices but not multiply and ripple through permanently. And while past tariffs in modern U.S. history have proven to shock prices in the short term, they tend to settle back down over the long run, according to some economists. "I believe we should cut the policy rate at our meeting in two weeks," Waller said in a speech in New York June 17. He called for a Fed's policy rate of 3%, or 125-150 basis points lower than the current rate of 4.25%-4.5%. Waller advocated returning the Fed's policy settings to "neutral," meaning interest rates at a level that neither speeds up nor slows down business activity, The New York Times reported. "With inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate," he said. More Federal Reserve: Fed interest rate cut decision resets forecasts for the rest of this yearFederal Reserve prepares strong message on long-term interest ratesFed official revamps interest-rate cut forecast for this year Waller has in the past defended his analysis as "not political." Earlier that day, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh said in a CNBC interview that the central bank was in need of a "regime change." Warsh was quick to say the independence of the Fed is essential, but just as quickly advocated for significant monetary policy adjustments. If Waller and Warsh sound vaguely familiar, their names have been circulating as President Trump's possible replacement for Powell when the chair's term expires in May 2026. The third name on that list appears to be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Powell has said he will not resign before the end of his term and emphasizes he is focusing on maintaining the Fed's dual mandate. Given the warming inflation seen in this week's CPI numbers for June, the unimpressive jobs numbers, and the unknown impact of the tariffs, Fed watchers expect the current rates will maintain their "wait-and-see" hold at the September FOMC meeting. The widely watched CME Group FedWatch Tool forecasts a Federal Funds Rate cut at 4.7% later this month. Related: June inflation numbers reset Fed interest rate cut expectations The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.


Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
"He's a madman": Trump's team frets about Netanyahu after Syria strikes
As smoke and debris swirled over the Syrian presidential palace, the chatter in the West Wing grew louder: Benjamin Netanyahu is out of control. What they're saying:"Bibi acted like a madman. He bombs everything all the time," one White House official told Axios, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. "This could undermine what Trump is trying to do." A second senior U.S. official also pointed to the shelling of a church in Gaza this week, which led President Trump to call Netanyahu and demand an explanation. "The feeling is that every day there is something new. What the f***?" A third U.S. official said there's growing skepticism inside the Trump administration about Netanyahu — a sense that his trigger finger is too itchy and he's too disruptive. "Netanyahu is sometimes like a child who just won't behave." Netanyahu's spokesperson Ziv Agmon did not respond to a request for comment. Why it matters: Six U.S. officials tell Axios that despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire that halted this week's escalation in Syria on Friday, this week ended with the White House significantly more alarmed about Netanyahu and his regional policies. However, Trump has so far refrained from public criticism and it's unclear if he shares his advisers' frustrations. It is not totally clear whether he shares his advisers' recent concerns about Israel's actions in Syria. Driving the news: On Tuesday, Israel bombed a convoy of Syrian army tanks en route to the city of Suwayda to respond to violent clashes between a Druze militia and armed Bedouin tribesmen, which had killed over 700 people as of Saturday according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Israel claimed the convoy crossed into a zone of southern Syria it demands be demilitarized, and that the Syrian military was participating in attacks on the Druze minority, which Syria denies. U.S. envoy Tom Barrack asked his Israeli counterparts on Tuesday to stand down to allow for a diplomatic resolution, and the Israelis committed to do so, according to a U.S. official. Instead, after a pause, Israel escalated the strikes. On Wednesday, Israel dropped bombs on Syria's military headquarters and near the presidential palace. Friction point:"The bombing in Syria caught the president and the White House by surprise. The president doesn't like turning on the television and seeing bombs dropped in a country he is seeking peace in and made a monumental announcement to help rebuild," a U.S. official said. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Netanyahu and his team to stop on Wednesday. Netanyahu agreed to do so in return for the Syrian military withdrawing from Suwayda. But by then countries including Turkey and Saudi Arabia had conveyed angry messages to the Trump administration about Israel's actions, and several senior U.S. officials had complained directly to Trump about Netanyahu. Behind the scenes: Among those officials were Barrack and White House envoy Steve Witkoff — both close friends Trump's, according to a U.S. official. The general belief in the White House was that Netanyahu bombed Syria because of domestic pressure from Israel's Druze minority and other political considerations. "Bibi's political agenda is driving his senses. It will turn out to be a big mistake for him long-term," a U.S. official said. Another U.S. official said the damage the Israelis had done to their standing at the White House over the past week didn't seem to be breaking through to them. "The Israelis need to get their head out of their asses," the official quipped. Between the lines: The tensions over Syria came just days after Netanyahu's visit to D.C., in which he met Trump twice and the two leaders seemed closer than ever in the afterglow of the war with Iran. In addition to Syria and the attack on the church in Gaza, the murder of Palestinian American Saif Mussallet by a mob of Israeli settlers last weekend also sparked pushback from the Trump administration toward Netanyahu's stridently pro-settler government. Amb. Mike Huckabee, who days earlier had visited Netanyahu's corruption trial in a show of support, released a series of statements calling the attack "terrorism" and demanding answers. On Saturday, he also visited a Christian community in the West Bank that had been targeted by settler attacks. Huckabee, long an effusive supporter of Israel, also criticized the Israeli government this week for making it harder for American evangelicals to obtain travel visas. The other side: The Israelis were surprised by the U.S. pushback over the Syria strikes. A senior Israeli official said Trump had encouraged Netanyahu to hold parts of Syria during his first weeks in office and hadn't previously expressed concerns about Israel's interventions in the country. The official stressed that Israel only intervened after its intelligence indicated the Syrian government was involved in attacks against the Druze. The official denied any domestic political considerations. "The U.S. wants to keep the new Syrian government stable and doesn't understand why we attack in Syria, because of attacks on the Druze community there. We tried to explain to them that this is our commitment to the Druze community in Israel," the senior Israeli official said. State of play: The instability in Syria is a major concern to the administration. On Saturday, Rubio posted on X that the regime in Damascus needs to help bring peace and stop the killings. But a senior U.S. official said Israel shouldn't be able to decide whether the Syrian government can exert its sovereignty over its own citizens and territory. "The current Israeli policy would lead to an unstable Syria. Both the Druze community and Israel will lose in such a scenario," the official said. The big picture: This was hardly the first time Netanyahu tested Trump's patience. His gamble that Trump would ultimately back his strikes on Iran paid off in dramatic fashion. He's pressed on in Gaza for months despite Trump's desire for an end to the war. In Syria, he bet once again that he could escalate dramatically without destabilizing the region or his relationship with Trump. And Trump aides have become more and more aware in recent months of the influence far-right Jewish supremacist elements in Netanyahu's coalition have on policy. This dynamic has also become more evident to the broader MAGA movement. The bottom line: U.S. officials who spoke to Axios cautioned that Netanyahu's luck, and Trump's goodwill, could run out.