Albertsons supermarket chain warns suppliers company is ‘not accepting cost increases’ over Trump’s tariffs

New York Post - Apr 27th, 2025

Albertsons, North America's second-largest supermarket chain, has issued a stern warning to its suppliers against raising prices due to recent tariff increases by President Trump. The grocery conglomerate, which operates over 2,200 stores, has mandated that suppliers seek authorization for significant price hikes and explicitly barred them from including tariff-related costs in invoices without prior approval. Suppliers must file for exemption notices three months in advance, which will be reviewed by Albertsons in a month-long process, although price hikes are not guaranteed. This move comes amidst a series of tariffs imposed by Trump, including a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all imports and a 25% tariff on automotive, steel, and aluminum products, with heightened rates on Chinese goods.

The implications of this policy are significant, as it highlights the power dynamics between large retailers and their suppliers. Matt Stoller, a researcher with the American Economic Liberties Project, criticized Albertsons' demands, suggesting they could force suppliers out of business if they cannot cover increased costs. This stance reflects similar pressures from other major retailers like Walmart and Amazon, who are negotiating with suppliers to keep prices down. The situation is reminiscent of the supply chain disruptions seen during the Covid-19 pandemic, with potential for unpredictable shortages and price adjustments. These developments underline the broader economic challenges posed by the tariffs and the complex negotiations needed to stabilize supply chains and pricing.

Supply Chain Tariffs Albertsons Trade Policy President Trump Price Hikes Supermarket Chain Matt Stoller

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of Albertsons' response to recent tariff changes, highlighting the challenges faced by suppliers and the broader implications for the grocery supply chain. While the core narrative about Albertsons' policy is accurate, the inclusion of unverified claims about specific tariff rates and deadlines weakens the overall accuracy. The article would benefit from a more balanced presentation, incorporating diverse perspectives from Albertsons, suppliers, and other industry experts. The reliance on a single source and the lack of transparency in sourcing further impact the story's credibility. Despite these weaknesses, the article is clear and engaging, addressing a topic of significant public interest with the potential to influence discussions on trade policies and corporate responsibility. Enhancing source diversity and transparency would strengthen the article's overall quality.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate portrayal of Albertsons' policy towards suppliers concerning tariffs, as it aligns with the company's documented stance on requiring pre-authorization for tariff-related price increases. However, the story makes several claims about tariff rates imposed by President Trump that lack direct verification, such as the 145% rate on Chinese goods and the July 8 deadline for trade arrangements. These claims are significant and could affect the story's credibility if incorrect. Additionally, the comparison of Albertsons' actions to those of Walmart and Amazon is not well-supported by external sources, which introduces potential inaccuracies. Overall, while the core narrative about Albertsons is accurate, some elements require further substantiation.

Balance

The article presents a somewhat imbalanced view by heavily focusing on Albertsons' policy and the criticism from Matt Stoller without offering perspectives from Albertsons or suppliers themselves. This lack of multiple viewpoints can create a skewed narrative that leans towards highlighting the negative implications of Albertsons' stance. While Stoller's critical perspective is valuable, the absence of counterarguments or explanations from Albertsons or affected suppliers limits the article's balance. Including these perspectives would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it relatively easy to follow. It effectively outlines the main issue concerning Albertsons' policy on tariffs and includes relevant background information about recent tariff changes. However, the inclusion of unverified claims about specific tariff rates and deadlines without clear attribution can create confusion. Overall, while the narrative is coherent, ensuring that all claims are clearly sourced and explained would enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on information from Matt Stoller, a researcher with a specific focus on anti-monopoly issues, which may introduce bias. While Stoller's insights are relevant, the lack of diverse sources or direct statements from Albertsons or other industry experts weakens the article's source quality. The absence of corroboration from other reputable outlets or official statements from the involved parties makes it difficult to assess the full reliability of the claims presented. A broader range of sources would enhance the article's credibility and depth.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its sourcing, as it does not clearly attribute its claims to specific documents or direct statements from Albertsons. While it mentions that the letter was uncovered by Matt Stoller, it does not provide access to the letter itself or further details on how the information was obtained. This lack of transparency hinders the reader's ability to assess the basis of the claims and understand the context behind the reported events. Providing more explicit sourcing and context would improve the article's transparency.