Days away from the first anniversary of President Trump’s second term in office, grocery prices are still rising, undercutting his administration’s rhetoric about how it is making life more affordable for average Americans. The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent and frozen fish 8.6 percent.
Yet Mr. Trump continues to falsely claim otherwise. “Grocery prices are starting to go rapidly down,” he said Tuesday afternoon during a speech in Detroit. It’s not the first time that he has said food prices are down, even when data show they’re not.
There is no single reason that food is growing more expensive, and not all food products are pricier. The price of eggs — long a campaign topic — had dropped sharply over the past year. Some of the things that factor into price — fertilizer, machinery, labor and fuel costs, weather, where food is grown and what customers want — are difficult to control. Some of Mr. Trump’s actions, like tariffs and immigration crackdowns, have contributed to higher, rather than lower, costs. Low-income families are suffering the most, while middle-class shoppers are starting to take a hit.
Data released Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found the cost of food at home rose 2.4 percent overall in the previous 12 months and 0.7 percent in December alone, the fastest single-month increase since October 2022. That month-over-month gain stood out in an otherwise subdued inflation report.
Professor Volpe, of the agribusiness department at Cal Poly, formerly worked at the Department of Agriculture and said: “This does hammer home the point that when the current administration claims that grocery prices are down, that is, of course, not correct.”
Higher prices are particularly affecting low-income consumers, some of whom temporarily lost their SNAP benefits during last year’s government shutdown. Those consumers are prioritizing essentials, trading down to cheaper products, buying less and making more frequent trips to the store instead of stocking up, according to grocery executives.
“Instead of buying steak, they’re buying ground beef and so forth,” Susan Morris, the chief executive of Albertsons, said on an earnings call last week. Ronald Sargent, the interim chief executive of Kroger, said last month that consumers were turning to promotions and store brands to save money. And both executives said they were beginning to see similar behavior from middle-income consumers.
Not everything is going up; some foods have declined in price. Eggs are 20.9 percent cheaper than a year ago, and the cost of most dairy products has declined modestly. But overall, prices are up in five of the six major food-at-home categories tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Trump administration’s ever-changing tariff policies have directly affected only a small number of food items in the grocery store, because much of what is consumed in the United States is grown here. But there are some products — like coffee and tropical fruits and vegetables — that are primarily grown abroad and imported into the United States. Many of their prices have climbed on the heels of increased tariffs.
The cost of bananas, for instance, was up 5.9 percent in December from year-earlier levels. Consumers are most concerned about price increases in categories like beef, coffee and chocolate, Mr. Sargent said on a conference call last month. But tariffs are not only affecting the cost of food; they have driven up the cost of farming inputs, which are eventually reflected in price, as well as food packaging. Higher prices for canned and frozen foods, sodas and other drinks most likely reflect higher costs for aluminum and other packaging materials.
Coffee drinkers are likely to see some relief in the coming months; in November, Mr. Trump removed the 40 percent tariffs on imports from Brazil, a major coffee exporter. But beef eaters likely aren’t, as high prices are mostly linked to a half-decade-long drop in the supply of cattle, which will take as long to reverse. In December, ground beef hit a record $6.69 a pound, up from $5.61 a year earlier. Both coffee and beef were rising in price before Mr. Trump took office, highlighting why some consumers may feel that food costs have risen more than the 2.4 percent that the data say they have risen: It’s coming on top of years of elevated prices. Grocery store prices are nearly 26 percent higher than they were five years ago, according to the labor bureau.
“The headline number, the 2.4 percent increase, in food is not that encouraging, and it’s building on already higher numbers,” said Michael Swanson, the chief agricultural economist at Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute. “That is what people really find a challenge.” The Agriculture Department expects food-at-home prices to rise 2.3 percent in 2026, about the same as they increased in 2025.
Anecdotally, the White House’s immigration crackdown has also played a role in driving up food costs. A lack of workers in some areas has led to cherries rotting in Oregon fields, blueberries rotting in New Jersey fields and Pennsylvania dairy farmers selling off cows. But the cost of other fresh fruits, which include berries, has fallen 1.2 percent over the last year, and the price of milk is down 1 percent.
Fruit farms and dairies are especially reliant on immigrant labor. Given that those prices have fallen, it isn’t clear if the immigration crackdown hasn’t yet affected them or if perhaps prices would have decreased more if labor was more readily available. Agriculture groups have warned that they are struggling to find workers, and in November, the Trump administration responded by making it easier for farmers to hire foreign workers.
“Labor is clearly the biggest cost driver and makes up about 50 percent of our industry’s expenses,” said Cathy Burns, the chief executive of the International Fresh Produce Association. She said that limits placed on immigration had made it more difficult for farmers to find workers, and that labor costs in agriculture had been rising for a decade. John David Rainey, the chief financial officer at Walmart, the country’s largest grocer, said at a conference last month that he expected “peak impact from the tariff cost to land around the beginning of the first quarter” before subsiding.
But even if that is true, labor challenges remain, extreme weather could always wreck a crop and the costs of farm inputs like fertilizer, seeds and equipment could continue to rise.

When Mr. Powell’s term as chair ends in May, he could stay on as a governor — and one of 12 voters on monetary policy — through January 2028. With threats intensifying, the case for his continued presence as a quiet but firm defender of Fed independence grows only stronger.

On Sunday evening, news broke that the Trump administration was targeting Jerome Powell — the Federal Reserve chair, whom President Trump has been raging about for months — with a highly dubious criminal investigation into supposed financial improprieties. Usually reserved in his public statements, Mr. Powell posted a video bluntly calling the allegations a dishonest attempt at revenge for the Fed’s refusal to simply follow the president’s wishes.
The episode is a shocking violation of the central bank’s historical independence, one that puts the United States in league with authoritarian nations careening toward financial ruin. On Monday, markets reacted with something along the lines of “meh”: The dollar and stock prices edged down, while gold prices and interest rates rose.
Mr. Trump’s attack on the Fed is a breathtaking departure from precedent, a dangerous and scary power grab, but it’s already backfiring. If anything, this latest episode has weakened his ability to bend the institution to his will, at least in the short run. It definitely increases the chance that Mr. Powell, whose term as chair ends in May, but whose appointment as a board member does not, will remain at the Fed longer than he might otherwise have. It will also raise the hurdle for whoever Mr. Trump nominates as the next Fed chair. And it will make other members of that body a lot less likely to go along with the president’s agenda.
As recently as November 2024, Mr. Powell was saying as little as possible, replying simply “no” when asked whether he would resign if requested to do so by Mr. Trump. That restraint is what made the video he released on Sunday night so powerful. This is not a man looking to become a resistance hero.
When Mr. Powell’s term as chair ends in May, he could stay on as a governor — and one of 12 voters on monetary policy — through January 2028. With threats intensifying, the case for his continued presence as a quiet but firm defender of Fed independence grows only stronger.
Mr. Trump has made it harder for his nominee as the next Fed chair to be confirmed. Almost immediately after news of the criminal investigation broke, Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican member of the Banking Committee, issued a striking statement: “If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none.” He added, “I will oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed — including the upcoming Fed chair vacancy — until this legal matter is fully resolved.” Another Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, endorsed that view, as did several Democrats.
Further complicating matters, Mr. Trump’s attack on the Fed ensures that when a successor is eventually confirmed, he or she will have to do more to demonstrate independence, or else be remembered as the person who surrendered it. The Fed’s 11 other monetary-policy voters have increasingly been voting their own views. That is likely to accelerate if they feel that the new chair is just trying to please the president, rather than working in the best interests of the economy.
We have a relatively rapid feedback mechanism to measure the success of economic policy: Markets and business leaders react in real time, in a way they do not on issues like immigration enforcement and whether to invade Greenland.
The Fed is likely to win this battle. The broader war will probably continue as long as Mr. Trump remains president. One possible consequence is that the Fed becomes a victim of its own success, with people mistaking the markets’ mild initial response for proof that independence is no big deal. In reality, that calm reflects confidence in the defenses that were rapidly deployed: senators from both parties, former economic officials, the politically neutral judgment of markets themselves and ultimately the wisdom of the public.
The greater risk is time. Independence will not be lost overnight, but at least every two years the president can nominate a new governor for the Fed. With sustained effort over six to eight years, an administration could gradually transform the institution. That would require patience from Mr. Trump and complacency from everyone else. So far, at least, on this issue we are seeing neither.

A federal judge on Monday ruled that construction could resume on a $6.2 billion wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island, striking down the Trump administration’s decision last month to halt work on the Revolution Wind project. Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Interior Department’s suspension order was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of federal law.
Revolution Wind is one of five offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast that were ordered to stop work last month by the Trump administration, which cited unspecified national security concerns. Several states, as well as developers of four of the projects, have challenged the move in court. The case involving Revolution Wind was the first complaint to be heard. The decision is a temporary victory for Revolution Wind and the offshore wind industry, which has been roiled by the Trump administration’s efforts to block offshore wind farms that had received permits under the Biden administration. Orsted, the Danish energy giant that is building Revolution Wind, can now continue with construction as litigation it has filed against the Trump administration proceeds.
In his ruling, Judge Lamberth said the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management did not adequately explain how the project posed security risks or why halting construction of Revolution Wind would address these concerns. “Purportedly new classified information does not constitute a sufficient explanation for the bureau’s decision to entirely stop work on the Revolution Wind project,” Judge Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, said while ruling from the bench.
Revolution Wind is roughly 87 percent complete, with 58 of 65 wind turbines installed. It was scheduled to be fully operational by the second half of this year, delivering power to more than 350,000 homes and businesses in Connecticut and Rhode Island by year’s end.
The Trump administration has repeatedly ordered work to stop on offshore wind farms along the East Coast, pushing at least two projects to the brink of collapse. This is the second time the administration has tried to stop the project. In August, the administration initially ordered work to halt on Revolution Wind, citing unspecified national security concerns. But Connecticut, Rhode Island and Orsted sued, and in September, Judge Lamberth allowed construction to continue.
On Dec. 22, the Interior Department again ordered Revolution Wind to halt. The suspension order also applied to Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind, both off the coast of New York; Vineyard Wind 1 off the coast of Massachusetts; and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia. Together the projects represented $25 billion of investment and about 10,000 jobs and were expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses.
During the court hearing on Monday, Janice Schneider, a partner at the law firm Latham and Watkins, argued on behalf of Revolution Wind that the suspension order was costing Orsted “at least $1.44 million per day.” She said the earlier stop-work order, in August, had cost the company a total of around $100 million over the several weeks that order had remained in effect. Ms. Schneider said the Defense Department had refused to share the classified Pentagon report with Orsted employees who have national security clearance. “We’re flying blind, admittedly, because we’ve not had access to the classified material,” she said.
President Trump has been hostile to offshore wind since he failed to stop an offshore wind farm visible from of one of his golf courses in Scotland 14 years ago. He has called wind farms ugly and inefficient and when he returned to the White House last year, he ordered the Interior Department to halt new leases in federal waters for wind farms. “My goal is to not let any windmill be built,” Mr. Trump said on Friday at a meeting of oil executives at the White House.
Proponents of the offshore wind called the ruling evidence that the Trump administration was putting politics over the country’s energy needs. “Allowing these projects to move forward is good news, not just for the project developers but also for the rest of us who pay bills and depend on the grid to power our homes and offices,” said Seth Kaplan, a vice president at Grid Strategies, a consulting firm.
Additional court hearings are scheduled this week in cases where developers of other projects are challenging the suspension orders. The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday and will center on Equinor’s challenge to the halt to Empire Wind off Long Island, N.Y.

Oh, yeah! Great find.
Did you guys know that Gary Trudeau (of Doonesbury) predicted a trump run for POTUS, back in the 1980's?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/06/23/how-doonesbury-predicted-donald-trumps-presidential-run-29-years-ago/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-way-back-in-2000/

Oh, yeah! Great find.
Did you guys know that Gary Trudeau (of Doonesbury) predicted a trump run for POTUS, back in the 1980's?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/06/23/how-doonesbury-predicted-donald-trumps-presidential-run-29-years-ago/

If you had bought GLOFX a while ago you would be laughing now to see it running ahead of the 500 these past 12 months.
I have a modest slice in the taxable I bought in 2022. Dumping it from the IRA in the quest for "simplification" was one of the dumber things I have done with my retirement investments recently.

The U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia has opened a criminal investigation into Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, over the central bank’s renovation of its Washington headquarters and whether Mr. Powell lied to Congress about the scope of the project, according to officials briefed on the situation. The inquiry, which includes an analysis of Mr. Powell’s public statements and an examination of spending records, was approved in November by Jeanine Pirro, a longtime ally of President Trump who was appointed to run the office last year, the officials said.
The investigation escalates Mr. Trump’s long-running feud with Mr. Powell, whom the president has continually attacked for resisting his demands to slash interest rates significantly. The president has threatened to fire the Fed chair and raised the prospect of a lawsuit against him related to the $2.5 billion renovation, citing “incompetence.”

AN ESCALATING FIGHT
Mr. Trump told The New York Times in an interview last week that he had decided on who he wants to replace Mr. Powell as Fed chair. He is expected to soon announce his decision. Kevin A. Hassett, Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser, is a front-runner for the top job. While Mr. Powell’s term as chair ends in May, his term as a governor runs through January 2028.
In a rare video message released by the Fed on Sunday, Mr. Powell described the investigation as “unprecedented” and questioned the motivation for the move, even as he affirmed that he carried out his duties as chair “without political fear or favor.” “This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings,” he said. “It is not about Congress’s oversight role; the Fed through testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts.”
He warned that the investigation signaled a broader battle over the Fed’s independence. “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” he added. “This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”
A spokesman for Attorney General Pam Bondi did not comment on the investigation but said Ms. Bondi had “instructed her U.S. attorneys to prioritize investing any abuses of taxpayer dollars.” The U.S. attorney’s investigation into Mr. Powell underscores Mr. Trump’s larger clash with the Fed. Other broadsides have included an effort to oust Lisa D. Cook, a governor at the central bank whom Mr. Trump tried to fire over allegations of mortgage fraud. Presidents are able to remove officials at the Fed only for “cause,” which has typically meant malfeasance or a dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court will hear arguments for Ms. Cook’s case on Jan. 21.
Congress granted the Fed the authority to set interest rates free of meddling from presidents, whose political fortunes are often tethered to how the economy is faring. Rather, lawmakers stipulated that the central bank should pursue low, stable inflation and a healthy labor market. Mr. Powell said on Sunday that the Justice Department had served the Fed with grand jury subpoenas. Prosecutors in Ms. Pirro’s office have contacted Mr. Powell’s staff multiple times to request documents about the renovation project, according to an official with knowledge of the investigation who discussed an open inquiry on the condition of anonymity.
Starting an investigation is one thing, presenting sufficient evidence to secure an indictment from a federal grand jury — or making it stick — is another. Indictments against two of Mr. Trump’s top targets, the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and Letitia James, the New York attorney general, were thrown out in November by a federal judge. An investigation into Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, has yet to yield enough evidence to present to a grand jury.
The renovations at the center of the investigation into Mr. Powell broke ground in 2022 and are set to be completed in 2027. They are estimated to be about $700 million over budget. The project involves expanding and modernizing the Marriner S. Eccles Building and another building on Constitution Avenue, which date to the 1930s. The Fed has said that neither of those buildings has been “comprehensively renovated” since their construction nearly 100 years ago, suggesting they were in need of a significant overhaul. Part of the project includes removing asbestos and lead contamination as well as making the facilities compliant with laws related to accessibility for people with disabilities.
In explaining the cost overruns, the central bank cited expenses tied to materials, equipment and labor as well as unforeseen circumstances, such as more asbestos than anticipated and soil contamination.