From the Desk of the CEO: March 2025

Dear Food Export Community, 

Where to Begin?

In global trade, certainty is a luxury. The past 30 days alone have seen shifts that, in another era, would have defined an entire decade of trade policy. By the time you read this, more ground will likely have shifted—and possibly shifted back—beneath our feet.

This volatility makes long-term planning especially challenging for the small- and mid-sized businesses that play a key role in US food and agriculture exports. While headlines focus on tariffs, trade deficits, and geopolitical tensions, the real concern on the ground is simpler and more urgent: U.S. companies need predictable, efficient, and fair access to international markets.

Before we dive deeper—if you’re a U.S. supplier of food, beverage, seafood, forestry, or agricultural products—make sure you’re taking full advantage of the resources available to you, especially at a time like this. Visit foodexport.org for no-cost educational resources to help you analyze what’s going on, low-cost market diversification programs, and cost-share reimbursement programs that help offset export-related marketing expenses. If you’re unsure where to start, your Food Export liaison is your best first call.

Businesses Thrive on Certainty (and Struggle Without It)

Trade policy uncertainty is not just an inconvenience, it is a direct obstacle to economic growth. Businesses don’t always need “favorable” policies as much as they need clear and consistent ones. Without that, pricing, contracts, and supply chains become an exercise in guesswork.

That stability eludes us at the moment. The trade policy of Q1 2025 has not found its footing yet.  Duty increases, exemptions, adjustments, reversals, and retaliatory measures are emerging with little notice and from disparate sources, forcing all of us to react in real-time without a full picture.

Trade – particularly on goods with a shelf life — relies on precision and structure, yet today’s exporters are scrolling through their newsfeeds asking questions like:

• Which products (determined by HS Code) are affected?
• How will the duties compound with previous ones?
• When does the policy take effect?

For large corporations, these questions are frustrating but more manageable. They have internal legal teams, diversified supply chains, and financial reserves to hedge risks. But for small and mid-sized exporters this uncertainty can be crushing.

• A single canceled contract can wipe out a year of progress in a new market.
• Financial strain from unexpected tariff hikes can make expansion impossible.
• Risk-averse buyers will bypass U.S. suppliers in favor of more predictable trading partners.

Ironically, an expensive but stable trade policy can be easier to navigate than one in constant flux. Businesses are remarkably adaptable—they can adjust pricing, optimize supply chains, and renegotiate contracts—but only when they know the rules of the game.

Don’t just take my word for it. At a recent roundtable in Washington, the CEO of Goldman Sachs believes that uncertainty is keeping dealmaking and capital investment on hold. Businesses and investors are not waiting for the perfect trade environment—they are waiting for a clear one. Trade policy uncertainty has now surged to levels seen tracking with COVID-19 and has surpassed the Great Recession.  Yes, we are facing trade headwinds – but let’s see if any have a “Made in America” sticker on them.

The Trade Balance: An Effective Tool, but Not a Policy Compass

Americans are obsessed with scoreboards. Whether it’s sports or elections, we want to know who is winning so we can chant “U-S-A” or, for our own revelry or safety, to fire up the Philadelphia police scanner.

The trade balance—the difference between what we export and what we import—is one such visualization tool. It’s long been used to highlight the importance of U.S. exports and their role in job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness. And to be clear, it is an effective tool for generating awareness and interest in trade policy.

But a scoreboard is just that—a way to track the game, but we need to avoid over-indexing our trade strategy to it.

Too often, trade is framed as a win-or-lose proposition, as if every imported bottle of Chilean wine or pound of Colombian coffee represents a loss for American producers. But that’s not how trade works. Imports don’t cancel out exports. In fact, most trade relationships are not zero-sum games but mutually beneficial exchanges that strengthen both economies.

U.S. agricultural exports currently support 1.25 million U.S. jobs, according to USDA’s Economic Research Service—many of them beyond the farm gate in processing plants, logistics hubs, ports, and so on. Expanding export sales creates demand for value-added food and beverage products that might not otherwise exist.

At the same time, imports are often a net positive for U.S. industries—not just consumers. The U.S. doesn’t produce enough coffee, tequila, or tropical fruits to meet domestic demand, just as other countries can’t match the scale and diversity of grains, proteins, and processed foods that we export. A Green Bay cheese producer isn’t “losing” when I order a margarita in Milwaukee.

In fact, the U.S. wine industry might be an interesting case study. A diverse selection seems to expand consumer interest in wine overall, creating a larger, healthier market for both foreign and domestic producers. When imports are restricted, the entire category shrinks, and U.S. wineries suffer in the long term. Cutting off competition doesn’t force more people to drink American wine—it just limits choice, weakens distributors, and reduces total consumption.

If we really want to improve our trade performance, we need to look beyond tariffs and trade balances. Competitiveness isn’t just about what we sell—it’s about how efficiently we move it. No trade policy will succeed if our infrastructure fails exporters at the finish line.

Port congestion crises should be a wake-up call. Stranded shipments, sky-high shipping rates, and weeks-long delays revealed the consequences of a long undervalued, inefficient system. These aren’t theoretical problems; they are active competitive disadvantages. Meanwhile, efficiency pressures on personnel and budgets in public agencies may compound these issues for U.S. exporters. If we want stronger trade performance, we can’t afford to ignore the systems that make trade function.

We can debate “unfairness” in the global marketplace, but if we let inefficiencies at home stack up, we’re giving our competitors an advantage without them having to lift a finger.

The trade balance is a powerful communication tool, but it does not tell the whole story. Instead of chasing a particular scoreboard, our focus should be on:

• Expanding access to international markets for U.S. agricultural products.
• Reducing inefficiencies and under-investments that make it harder for small and mid-sized exporters to compete.
• Ensuring U.S. businesses—especially in value-added agriculture—have the stability, support, and resources they need to grow.

The best way to improve the “score” is by increasing our performance. Trade, business, economics all choose results over optics every time.

Thanks for reading,

Brendan Wilson 

CEO, Food Export-Midwest & Food Export-Northeast

P.S. (No really, Americans have an intense relationship with scoreboards)

Your Input Matters: If there is a topic you wish for me to discuss in this space, let me know. You can reach me at info@foodexport.org. Just put Attn: Brendan Wilson in the subject line.