Talks to Remove US Tariffs on Colombian Coffee Exports Remain Stalled

In the institutional corridors of Bogotá and Washington, the same frustration can be felt: negotiations between Colombia and the United States to eliminate the 10% tariff on Colombian coffee exports to the U.S. market have fallen into limbo.

Although the coffee sector remains focused on this goal, the diplomatic process appears to be at a standstill, with little visible progress. The wait has taken on a strategic dimension for Colombia: the country competes in an international market where other producers—such as Brazil and Vietnam—are moving more dynamically to secure better conditions, even though the Brazilians face a much higher tariff due to the political tensions between the Trump administration and Lula da Silva, as well as the trial of former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, convicted in 2023 for orchestrating a coup d’état.

Nevertheless, both Brazil and Vietnam are advancing in their negotiations with the U.S. government, while Colombia has yet to show progress in talks that are becoming a race against time for producers exporting coffee to the U.S. market.

In this context, keeping a 10% tariff while others move toward zero could erode the competitiveness of Colombian coffee. Despite everything, Colombian coffee exports continue to break records this year, following an exceptional year for production and exports in 2024. Still, producers are seeking better export conditions in their main market—the United States—in order to consolidate their position as a high-quality product free from the extra cost imposed by the 10% tariff.

Talks to remove US tariffs on Colombian coffee exports remain stalled

Coffee represents a pillar for Colombia, being one of its main non-extractive exports and a national symbol of internationally recognized quality. Moreover, more than 50% of its coffee bean exports go to the United States, making that market essential for national production.

The current 10% tariff imposes an additional burden compared to competitors. Meanwhile, Brazil is negotiating 50% tariffs and Vietnam 20%, both aiming to gradually reduce them to zero—meaning Colombia could be left at a disadvantage if it fails to advance. The consequence could be not only reduced profitability for producers but also pressure on prices, agribusiness, and rural employment.

“If all countries end up at 0% and Colombia stays at 10%, that will seriously hurt our producers, our income, and coffee-growing families in Colombia,” warned a spokesperson for Colombia’s coffee growers’ federation.

Additionally, the fact that the United States does not produce coffee in significant quantities and depends on imports reinforces Colombia’s argument: the bean creates jobs, added value, and wealth at its origin.

Obstacles in the Colombia-US negotiations

Although talks began several months ago, sector sources indicate that the negotiation mechanism is stalled. One of the reasons cited is interruptions from the U.S. administration and the lack of a structured negotiation table that actively includes the Colombian private coffee sector.

From the industry’s perspective, the absence of a joint forum to define a roadmap, priorities, and strategic products has been evident. As one representative of the exporters’ guild stated: “Unfortunately, they are not inviting the private sector. We haven’t had a preparatory table, one where a strategy, priorities, or products could be defined.”

Meanwhile, competitors have taken positions: Brazil appears to be moving forward with negotiations involving high-level political weight, underscoring the strategic dimension the issue holds for some countries. Finally, logistics and production factors in Colombia also create pressure. Coffee-growing regions are affected by blockades, insecurity, and transportation challenges, which increase costs and reduce margins for producers.

The impasse cannot be explained solely by bureaucratic delays. First, trade negotiations with the United States typically involve multiple variables: domestic interests of the importing country, political power balances, broader trade agreements, and in the case of coffee, a long and complex agricultural supply chain.

Second, Colombia faces the challenge of aligning President Petro’s government, the coffee sector, and diplomatic efforts to act coherently and effectively. Although the export sector notes that the country has been eligible for zero tariffs since September, the final decision will depend on progress at the diplomatic table.

Third, the international context is not uniform. While some countries are moving forward, others are still in the early stages, and the global coffee market is reshaping trade flows, prices, and influence. For Colombia, the need to position itself competitively on that board is urgent.

Lastly, political factors in the United States—such as inflation, domestic consumption, and coffee’s importance in the American diet—could influence the speed of the agreement. As the Colombian sector points out, “Seventy-five percent of the most consumed beverage in the United States is coffee,” and a “price increase of between 40% and 50% would create political pressure to move forward.”

The risk for Colombia of falling behind

The consequence of not advancing could be tangible: loss of market share to competitors, lower margins for Colombian producers, and an impact on coffee-growing regions that depend on exports. The example is clear: Brazil, faced with higher tariffs, has redirected part of its production toward Asia and Europe, while Colombia has partially benefited from that window. But that advantage could disappear if the tariff structure is not adjusted.

Furthermore, in a world where competition is no longer just about price but also about sustainability, traceability, and added value, maintaining a high entry cost (such as a 10% tariff) could hinder progress toward higher-value products.

Finally, from a socioeconomic standpoint, coffee-growing families—many in vulnerable rural areas—could see their stability affected if incomes shrink or margins fall.

For Colombia’s coffee organizations, the path forward involves accelerating diplomacy, engaging the private sector, and defining a clear strategy that not only demands zero tariffs but also outlines how such preferential treatment would generate mutual benefits—for Colombian exporters and U.S. consumers alike.

In that sense, the government’s push and commercial diplomacy must move decisively. Working groups that include exporters, producers, and government negotiators must be convened to define arguments, priorities, and timelines.

Likewise, taking advantage of the current context—such as the United States’ high dependence on imported coffee and its inflationary pressures—could serve as leverage in negotiations.

But above all, Colombia must send a clear signal of determination: that it is ready to assume the competitive commitment that a zero-tariff agreement entails, and that it will not wait indefinitely while other countries move forward.