Former President Donald Trump's recent tariff threats against Colombian President Gustavo Petro over rejected deportation flights have ignited a heated discussion, particularly regarding the economic impact on American consumers. The clash began when Petro refused two flights carrying undocumented criminals, leading Trump to propose retaliatory tariffs of 25-50% on Colombian imports and impose travel restrictions on Colombian officials.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) entered the fray, arguing on X (formerly Twitter) that tariffs ultimately burden American consumers, not the targeted country. She asserted that Trump's actions would exacerbate inflation for working-class Americans while benefiting the wealthy. Petro shared her post, signaling his agreement.

However, the economic reality of tariffs is more nuanced. While importers initially pay the tariff to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the ultimate impact on consumer prices depends on various market factors. Sometimes, suppliers reduce prices to maintain access to the U.S. market, potentially mitigating price increases for consumers. Other coffee-producing nations, like Vietnam and Brazil, could adjust their pricing strategies in response to tariffs on Colombian coffee.

Ocasio-Cortez's remarks drew both support and criticism online. Critics pointed out the availability of coffee from other countries and Petro's subsequent offer to use his presidential plane for the deportations, suggesting her argument was flawed. Some argued that focusing on alternative coffee sources could pressure Colombia to cooperate while minimizing the impact on American consumers. The debate highlighted the complexities of international trade and the potential consequences of using tariffs as a political tool.