Farmers across the United States say they could face financial ruin – unless there is a huge taxpayer-funded bailout to compensate for losses generated by Donald Trump’s sweeping cuts and chaotic tariffs.

Small- and medium-sized farms were already struggling amid worsening climate shocks and volatile commodities markets, on top of being squeezed by large corporations that dominate the supply chain.

In recent weeks, farmers in Texas and across the midwest have suffered millions of dollars of crop losses due to unprecedented heavy rainfall and flooding.

The climate crisis-fueled extreme weather is compounded by the US president’s looming trade war and the administration targeting popular federal programs and staff, leaving farmers reeling and resigned to needing another bailout.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty around and I hate to be used as a bargaining chip. I am definitely worried,” said Travis Johnson, who lost more than 1,000 acres of cotton, sorghum and corn after a year’s rain fell within 48 hours in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) in southern Texas last month, turning parched fields into lakes.

RGV farmers sell sorghum, wheat, corn and vegetables to Mexico among other crops, while buying fertilizer and equipment – and relying on Mexican farmhands for cheap labor. Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, while China is the main buyer of American sorghum and cotton. All US products destined for China face a 125% tax thanks to Trump’s tariff war, and could cut farmers off from core markets.

View image in fullscreen An aerial view shows floodwaters covering farm fields and a rural road, on 6 April near Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

“I can see how some tariffs might help us compete with Mexico but are we really getting targeted by every other country or are we on the wrong side of this? We’ve already had two years of absolute disaster with falling prices and weather patterns … no farmer wants this but without a bailout this could be devastating and a lot more people could go under,” Johnson said.

Rural counties rallied behind Trump in 2024, giving him a majority in all but 11 of the 444 farming-dependent counties last year, averaging 78% support, according to analysis by Investigate Midwest.

Trump’s vote share rose among farming communities, despite his last trade war which required a $23bn taxpayer bailout for farmers in 2018-19.

Yet anxiety is mounting among the agricultural base.

First came widespread cuts to oversubscribed and chronically underfunded federal climate and conservation schemes designed to reduce costs and greenhouse gases, and improve yields and environmental health.

Trump is also shuttering local food programs which provide farmers with stable domestic markets like public school districts and food banks, helping make farms more resilient to global economic shocks. The USAID, which purchased about $2bn every year in agricultural products particularly wheat, sorghum and lentils for humanitarian aid programs, has been dismantled.

The loss in federal programs alone would have been tough to cope with, but then came the trade chaos. Trump’s tariff announcements began when most farmers already had spring crops in the ground – or at the very least had prepared the land and purchased inputs such as seeds and pesticides, making it impossible to switch to crops that could potentially find a market domestically.

View image in fullscreen A volunteer distributes food in a drive-thru at the San Antonio Food Bank, on 27 March in San Antonio, Texas. Photograph: Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Consensus is growing among experts that the turmoil represents an opportunity for rival agriculture economies – and disaster for US farmers.

“It’s all happening so fast and in the middle of the growing season, it’s a shock to the system that’s going to be tough for farmers, especially those growing commodities for export,” said Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). “Tariffs are not magical, they need to be used strategically as part of wider reforms to the domestic economic agenda.”

“The volatility of the tariff policy decisions, with new tariffs frequently being announced, paused and placed will take a toll on the American agricultural industry,” writes economist Betty Resnick in an article for Farm Bureau, a right-leaning lobby group. “Without direct support from USDA or a farm bill with an updated safety net, farmers will almost certainly bear the brunt of these tariffs.”

Ben Murray, senior researcher with the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said: “Without a bailout, we can only imagine how bad this will be for farmers and what an opportunity for Brazil – and this is all being done for a tax cut for the wealthy.”

For decades now, US farmers have been heavily incentivized through the Farm Bill to grow commodity crops destined for export such as wheat, corn, soy, sorghum, rice and cotton, rather than produce for domestic consumption. The price of commodities is tied to the global market, even if sold domestically. Meanwhile US imports of fruits and vegetables mostly from Latin America have risen, now accounting for more than 50% of consumption, according to USDA data.

This globalized agricultural system favors large and corporate-owned operations, as smaller farms struggle more with boom and bust prices, and access to government subsidies and other credit. The number of farms continues to decline, while the average size continues to rise. Market consolidation and corporate profits tend to surge in the agriculture industry after every economic shock including the Covid pandemic, Trump’s last trade war and the banking crisis.

Biden implemented a range of modest, imperfect policies to try to ease the pain for smaller-scale farmers including a greater focus on anti-trust, local and regional food systems, and climate resilience – all of which are under attack by the Trump administration.

The vast majority of a $19.5bn funding package by the Biden administration for evidence-based conservation practices that improve soil health, air quality and reduce the use of costly fertilizers, pesticides and water will not be honored. The 10-year fund allocated through the Inflation Reduction Act was an addendum to money ring-fenced in the Farm Bill for four oversubscribed programs, after years of pressure from farmers to expand access to the initiatives.

Two Biden-era healthy eating schemes worth a combined $1bn to local farmers have been canceled: the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program matching producers to food banks, and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program which helped public schools add healthy, locally grown produce on to lunch menus. (The USDA recently agreed to unfreeze funding for existing contracts.)

View image in fullscreen Children at TA Sims elementary school start their first day of school with breakfast on 14 August 2023 in Fort Worth, Texas. Photograph: Fort Worth Star-Telegram/TNS

“My farm will survive because we’ve been working with school districts for 20 years, but for others in our coalition the funding cliff is very real,” said Anna Knight, who owns an 80-acre citrus farm in southern California.

Piling on further misery are mass layoffs within the USDA that were seemingly orchestrated by the billionaire Trump donor Elon Musk.

More than 10% of USDA staff have already reportedly agreed to voluntary buyouts, with more expected in coming weeks. This is in addition to several thousand probationary employees who were laid off last month – a move which disproportionately hit local offices beefed up under the Biden administration, and is being challenged in the courts.

USDA field offices play a crucial role in rural communities, the place where farmers go for tailor-made technical help from agencies including the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) on the latest pest control and planting practices, conservation programs, loans and disaster assistance programs.

“It makes no sense taking billions of dollars off the table for programs that improve long-term farm viability and resilience – and which farmers have been lining up for years for – and then spend billions bringing back farmers from financial collapse,” said Jesse Womack, policy expert at the National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition. “It’s looking really bleak with a lot of pain ahead for farmers.”

A coalition of environmental and agricultural groups is suing the USDA after it purged an array of climate-related online resources including information on the NRCS website helping farmers access federal grants for conservation practices, and technical guidance on cutting emissions and strengthening resilience to extreme weather like floods and drought.

Even if there is a bailout, getting the money to farmers in time to avoid bankruptcy will be much more complicated this time, according to Lilliston from IATP.

“Another bailout seems inevitable but there are serious questions about how quickly it could be implemented with such a dysfunctional Congress, local USDA offices shuttered and fewer staff. It’s a very messy situation and farmers are already experiencing harm.”

And in the medium and long term: “The US reputation has taken a huge hit. We can no longer be considered a reliable trading partner which is terrible for farmers,” added Lilliston.

Even before the current mayhem, almost two-thirds of US rural bankers surveyed in March expected farmer income to decline in 2025, with farm equipment sales dropping for the 19th straight month, according to the latest Rural Mainstreet Economy survey by Creighton University. Grain and cotton prices have plummeted since 2022.

View image in fullscreen Adam Chappell in Arkansas. Photograph: Courtesy of Adam Chappell

“We were already in a precarious situation but now, unless there’s a bailout or this trade war is resolved by harvest time, it will be disastrous and a critical mass of farmers could go out of business,” said Adam Chappell, 46, a commodities farmer growing corn, cotton, soybean and rice in Arkansas, where dozens of local USDA staff have reportedly been furloughed or fired in recent weeks.

Chappell’s town Cotton Plant was hit with 13in of rain in early April, causing crop losses for many farmers. Chappell’s fields survived the rain but he spent a nervous few weeks after the USDA froze all conservation funds, unsure whether the government would reimburse him, as agreed, for an upfront investment in cover crops and a compost operation. Eventually, after a backlash, the administration backtracked and agreed to honor existing contracts.

“The weather is getting stranger and more challenging to deal with every year, while big monopoly corporations are allowed to manipulate the system and squeeze us at every part of the supply chain. Farmers like me lean heavily on the NRCS conservation programs to improve soil health and reduce input costs,” said Chappell. “The tariffs are like adding salt on the wound.”

Despite last week’s partial U-turn, Trump’s ongoing and increasingly chaotic trade war risks causing irreparable harm to international markets for farmers, especially but not exclusively China, as well as pushing up the cost of agricultural imports such as pesticides, fertilizer and machinery.

China is the US’s third biggest agricultural export market, worth $24.7bn in 2024, down 15% from 2023, as soybean, corn and sorghum sales fell amid rising competition from South America, according to USDA data. China’s top imports from the US are oilseeds and grains. US exports to China supported almost a million US jobs in 2022, according to the US-China Business Council, mostly around agriculture and livestock production.

As of Friday, at least 15 agricultural department programs worth billions of dollars to American farmers and rural communities remain frozen, according to Politico, more than two months after they were halted for review to ensure compliance with Trump’s priorities opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as well as his crackdown on climate change initiatives.

This includes the Biden-era partnerships for climate-smart commodities (PCSC) program – a five-year $3.2bn real-life study into the effectiveness of conservation practices such as cover cropping and reduced tillage for commodity farms.

“PSCS was about increasing our evidence base on climate benefits that also help commodity farmers improve soil health, air and water quality – and their bottom line,” said Omanjana Goswami, a scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Abandoning this will come at a cost to American farms and the taxpayer.”

On Monday, the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, defended dismantling PSCS, claiming it amounted to a Biden-era “climate slush fund” of which less than half the money went to farmers.

A spokesperson added: “The USDA has a variety of programs available to producers who have been impacted by recent disasters … [and] is currently building a framework to deliver over $20bn in congressionally appropriated funds to producers who suffered losses during the 2023/2024 crop year. With 16 robust nutrition programs in place, USDA remains focused on its core mission: strengthening food security, supporting agricultural markets, and ensuring access to nutritious food.”

And some Trump supporters are keeping the faith.

“There are some concerns out there but our farmers are willing to make sacrifices for long-term gains,” said Sid Miller, the Texas agriculture commissioner. “Tariffs are a temporary tool, they won’t be permanent, China needs our grains, they are prideful but will come around like last time.”

By Jeff Beach

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to “Make America Healthy Again [MAHA]” is making some North Dakota farmers queasy.

Kennedy’s MAHA movement shuns highly processed foods and dyes. But it also includes an attack on oils made from seeds such as sunflowers and canola, with North Dakota being a leading producer of those specialty crops.

These oils are among what has become known as the “Hateful Eight,” oils from canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, soy, rice bran, sunflower, and safflower targeted by the MAHA movement.

During a roundtable discussion last week in Fargo with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, representatives of crops such as sunflowers, canola, soybeans, and lentils said the MAHA movement is troubling for their members.

Rollins is part of a MAHA Commission, created by President Donald Trump, with Kennedy as the chair.

John Sandbakken, left, of the National Sunflower Association, listens as Tim Mickelson, president of the U.S. Canola Association, speaks during a discussion of ag issue in Fargo, North Dakota, on April 22, 2025, led by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor

John Sandbakken is executive director of the National Sunflower Association, headquartered in North Dakota but representing growers around the country. He said he has heard from farmers in multiple states concerned about the Rollins’ role on the MAHA Commission, led by Kennedy.

“There’s a lot of misinformation out on the internet about seed oils, and we are hoping, as groups, that you will be a strong advocate for seed oils and the healthy benefits that they do bring to our consumers,” Sandbakken said.

Rollins responded that Kennedy is a “unique voice.”

“My commitment is to be a vigorous and persistent advocate for all agriculture, including the great people that you represent,” Rollins said.

The American Heart Institute is among the groups siding with seed oils advocates that they are healthy.

Kennedy is backing beef tallow, a cooking oil that fell out of favor for being high in saturated fat.

An oil that is low in saturated fat is canola oil.

Tim Mickelson, a Rolla farmer who is president of the U.S. Canola Association, encouraged Rollins to “follow the science” on health and ag research.

Mickelson said he fears the anti-seed oil movement is gaining momentum among consumers, which is just one of the problems facing canola growers.

Mickelson farms near the U.S. border with Canada, where most canola is grown.

He said canola prices in the U.S. follow the prices on Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and prices are also affected by the Canadian dollar.

A North Dakota canola field in bloom in July 2024. Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor

“So if you’re pushing ideas of a tariff on Canada, and it’s hitting canola, you’re going to hit the futures price negatively. You’re also going to hit the Canadian dollar negatively,” Mickelson said. “So canola is getting a double whammy.”

He said even the rumors of tariffs hurt the canola market. “Anytime somebody would sneeze on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange about a tariff, canola would just be plummeting down,” Mickelson said.

He said the market fell about 20% in March as tariffs with Canada were making headlines.

“Anything that disrupts the flow of canola between the U.S. and Canada is detrimental to the entire industry,” Mickelson said.

While the canola market has rebounded, he said the tariff talk and market drop was happening as farmers were making final decisions about what to plant in the 2025 growing season.

The U.S. had a record year for canola production in 2024, most of it coming from North Dakota, according to the U.S. Canola Association. There were 2.7 million acres planted to canola in 30 states last year, led by North Dakota with more than 2.1 million acres.

Mickelson said with farmers concerned about changing consumer demand for canola oil and the timing of the tariff talk, canola acres could be down by 20% this year.

Mickelson said he was grateful that Rollins came to North Dakota.

“I think she has very good intentions on taking what we talked about today and trying to implement the things that need to be changed,” Mickelson said, but acknowledged that she has less influence on the MAHA movement than the health secretary.

“That’s a big challenge,” Mickelson said.

North Dakota Monitor is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

President Donald Trump enacted increased tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Tuesday, putting a 25% tariff on most goods from the U.S. neighbors and allies. Energy imports from Canada are subject to a smaller 10% duty. In addition, Trump bumped tariffs on some Chinese exports to 20% — up from 10% previously.

The move has led to retaliatory efforts from China and Canada. The Chinese tariffs on agriculture are significant — according to a statement from China’s Customs Tariff Commission, China will place a 15% tax on “imported chicken, wheat, corn, and cotton originating from the U.S.,” as well as 10% tariffs on “sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products.”

Canada placed tariffs on around $20 billion in U.S.-made goods, including tomatoes and some fruits, among other items. In 21 days, tariffs will go into effect on $86 billion worth of U.S. products. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced these measures Monday evening in an address to Canadians.

According to AP News, Mexico is planning retaliation of its own as soon as Sunday.

Across the U.S., a number of parties have expressed concern over the tariffs and their potential impact on agriculture — with sitting U.S. Senators and major ag membership organizations among those making statements.

Senators

Sen. John Boozman

Arkansas Republican Senator John Boozman is the Chair of the Senate Ag Committee.

“I am confident in Secretary Rollins’ ability to elevate the concerns of American agricultural producers,” Boozman said in a statement. “If they are targeted by unfair retaliatory tariffs or subjected to adverse market conditions, she has committed to providing the tools and resources necessary to mitigate impacts.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar is the Democrats’ Ranking Member on the Senate Ag Committee, and has expressed opposition to the Trump Administration’s tariff strategy in the past.

“These across-the-board tariffs will make it harder for Americans to put food on the table and will squeeze farmers who will lose valuable export markets and see higher input costs,” Klobuchar said. “This will raise prices for the average family by more than $1,200 a year, raise gas prices by as much as 50¢ a gallon, and raise fertilizer costs for corn and soybean farmers.

“Already, we are seeing retail stores and refineries increase prices — and retaliation from other countries that will raise prices even more. Farmers have spent decades building export markets, only to have them ripped away overnight. While I support targeted tariffs, these sweeping, across-the-board tariffs will set our country back.”

Sen. Dick Durbin

The Democratic Senator from Illinois is a member of the Senate Ag Committee.

“Instead of improving the lives of or lowering prices for Americans, we are seeing policies of the Trump Administration do exactly the opposite,” Durbin said. “The President has spent his time trying to systematically dismantle the federal government, creating rifts with our closest allies, and now, imposing destructive tariffs on our biggest trading partners. The tariffs that he has unleashed… will hurt American consumers and supply chains and undermine American manufacturing.”

Representatives

Rep. Angie Craig

Minnesota Democratic Representative Angie Craig (MN-02) is the Democrat’s Ranking Member on the House Ag Committee.

“These tariffs hurt farm country, plain and simple. Farmers, ranchers, and producers need stability, and today’s tariffs do the opposite,” Craig said. “They will increase input costs for farmers and threaten market access to three of our largest trade partners. This is simple math. Making farmers pay more for fertilizer and fuel drives up the cost of food. Making manufacturers pay more for aluminum and steel hurts sales and risks jobs. Making builders pay more for timber increases the cost of housing. None of this helps lower costs for the middle class.”

Rep. Sharice Davids

Kansas Democratic Representative Sharice Davids (KS-03) is a member of the House Ag Committee.

“Kansans are already feeling the squeeze, and now President Trump is moving forward with tariffs that could raise costs for hardworking folks and put even more pressure on our agricultural sector,” Davids said. “Instead of prioritizing our families and farmers, the President continues to enact policies that benefit big corporations and special interests. I’ve been focused on lowering costs — whether it’s groceries, gas, or prescription drugs — and I’ll keep working to ensure Kansas families, farmers, and small businesses aren’t left paying the price for these reckless economic policies.”

Farmer Organizations

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)

The American Farm Bureau Federation is “the national advocate for farmers, ranchers and rural communities.” As the “unified voice of agriculture” the organization represents 2,800 county farm bureaus and nearly 6 million U.S. farm families.

“Farmers support the goals of ensuring security and fair trade with other nations, but additional tariffs, along with expected retaliatory tariffs, will take a toll on rural America,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall.

“Farmers and ranchers are concerned with the decision to impose increased tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China — our top trading partners. Last year, the U.S. exported more than $83 billion in agricultural products to the three countries.

“Approximately 85% of our total potash supply — a key ingredient in fertilizer — is imported from Canada. For the third straight year, farmers are losing money on almost every major crop planted. Adding even more costs and reducing markets for American agricultural goods could create an economic burden some farmers may not be able to bear.

“We ask the president to continue working with our international partners to find ways to resolve disagreements quickly, so farmers can focus on feeding families in America and abroad.”

National Farmers‘ Union (NFU)

The National Farmers Union advocates on behalf of more than 230,000 American farm families.

“The tariffs announced today, along with retaliatory measures from China and Canada, will have serious consequences for American agriculture. Our farmers are the backbone of this country, and they need strong, fair trade policies that ensure they can compete on a level playing field—not be caught in the middle of international disputes,” said NFU President Rob Larew.

“We are already facing significant economic uncertainty, and these actions only add to the strain. Trade policies must come with real, tangible protections for the farmers directly affected. We’ve heard there’s a strategy in place — now we need to see it. Promises alone won’t pay the bills or keep farms afloat.”

“Without a clear plan, family farmers will once again be left to bear the burden of decisions beyond their control, and eventually, so will consumers. We urge the administration to work with our trading partners to prevent further harm to rural communities.”

Western Growers Association (WGA)

Founded in 1926, Western Growers represents local and regional family farmers growing fresh produce in California, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.

“In the last month, the looming threat of these tariffs was enough to prompt some major Canadian grocery chains to either cancel orders from American growers as they pivoted to other countries capable of supplying them, or to require American growers to secure a foreign product supply to supplant their U.S.-grown crops,” said WGA President and CEO Dave Puglia. “There is no question that with the move to impose these tariffs, our members will confront sweeping retaliatory actions that effectively block our American-grown fresh produce from those markets.”

“The risk is not just an immediate one. Years after the China tariffs and the predictable Chinese tariffs imposed in retaliation on many of our members’ U.S.-grown products, our ability to sell into the Chinese market remains handicapped in no small part because other countries took advantage of the disruption and captured much of that market. This lingering economic harm is quite likely to be replicated this time on a broader scale as Canada and Mexico represent the top two export markets for fresh produce grown in the U.S.”

“Our first and by far most urgent call is for the Trump administration to move quickly to negotiate a stand-down with these important trading partners. Beyond that, we ask that the administration quickly implement mitigation programs to offset growers’ losses. This will aid in our shared goal of domestic food security and help American farmers maintain financial viability.”

Commodity Organizations

American Soybean Association (ASA)

The ASA represents U.S. soybean farmers on domestic and international policy issues important to the soybean industry. ASA has 26 affiliated state associations representing 30 soybean-producing states and nearly 500,000 soybean farmers.

“Farmers are frustrated. Tariffs are not something to take lightly and ‘have fun’ with. Not only do they hit our family businesses squarely in the wallet, but they rock a core tenet on which our trading relationships are built, and that is reliability. Being able to reliably supply a quality product to them consistently,” said Caleb Ragland, American Soybean Association president, and soy farmer from Magnolia, Kentucky.

Ragland explained, “As the No. 1 export crop for the U.S., soybean producers face huge, disproportionate impacts from trade flow disruptions, particularly to China, which is our largest market. And we know foreign soybean producers in Brazil and other countries are expecting abundant crops this year and are primed to meet any demand stemming from a renewed U.S.-China trade war. Soybean farmers still have not fully recovered market volumes from the damaging impacts of the 2018 trade war, and this will further exacerbate economic hardship on our farmers.”

Ragland said of Mexico and Canada, “ASA represents nearly half a million farmers in the U.S. who grow soybeans, and those farmers rely on two-way trade coming in and out of Mexico and Canada. Not only are those two markets vital for the export of whole soybeans, soy meal, and soy oil, but we also rely on them for fertilizer and other products needed to successfully produce our crops. For instance, around 87% of the potash we use here in the U.S. is imported from Canada.”

National Corn Growers’ Association (NGCA)

Founded in 1957, NCGA represents more than 36,000 dues-paying corn growers in 48 states, and the interests of more than 300,000 farmers who contribute through corn checkoff programs in their state.

“Farmers are facing a troubling economic landscape due to rising input costs and declining corn prices,” said Illinois farmer and NGCA President Kenneth Hartman Jr. “We ask President Trump to quickly negotiate agreements with Mexico, Canada, and China that will benefit American farmers while addressing issues important to the U.S. We call on our trading partners to work with the president to resolve these issues so that we can restore vital market access.”

National Pork Producers Council (NPPC)

The NPPC is the nation’s largest organization helping pork producers across the U.S.

“Mexico is our number one market for exports, so any type of disruptions are of concern, especially the retaliatory tariffs that might come back to us,” said NPPC President Lori Stevermer. “It’s also important to note that we, as an industry, get young, weaned pigs from Canada that would be affected by those tariffs also, which would add cost to our producers. Those pigs are raised in states like Minnesota and Iowa.”

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC)

Leaders from the NMPF and the USDEC released the following statements today in response to retaliatory measures announced by Mexico, Canada, and China.

“The President believes tariffs are necessary to address the opioid crisis in the U.S. We urge Mexico and Canada to take U.S. concerns seriously,” said Gregg Doud, president and CEO of NMPF. “Mexico and Canada are valuable trading partners that American agriculture depends on, and trade with those countries is critical to the well-being of dairy farmers. Let’s focus on getting the concerns ironed out quickly so we can focus on bolstering these critical trade relationships. Then, let’s put those tariff tools to work, driving change with the trading partner that’s brushed off U.S. concerns for far too long — the European Union.”

“Exports are fundamental to the health of the U.S. dairy industry. One day’s worth of milk production out of every six is destined for international consumers, and U.S. dairy sales to Mexico, Canada, and China account for 51% of our total global exports. That’s a lot at stake,” said Krysta Harden, president and CEO of USDEC. “Dairy farmers and manufacturers are counting on a swift resolution to this impasse and urge a redoubling of efforts at the negotiating table to find a workable way forward that addresses U.S. national security concerns while also preserving export flows that are vital to supporting American farmers and workers. We’re eager to focus on working with the administration on expanding global opportunities for American dairy products in ways that build on the existing base of sales to our trading partners.”

Industry Groups

Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM)

AEM is the nation’s largest organization representing agricultural equipment manufacturers and producers. At Commodity Classic in Denver, AEM Senior Vice President of Government and Industry Relations Kip Eideberg discussed the tariffs from the Trump administration and its impact on farmers and the ag manufacturing industry.

“Tariffs are taxes on American companies, on American farmers, on American workers,” he said. “They will drive up the cost of making equipment in the U.S. They will make us less competitive in the global marketplace. They are inflationary, so they will most likely drive up inflation, which is bad news for equipment manufacturers, for farmers, and for our customers.

“One thing to note is that the president is very keen to talk about trade deficits. He’s laser focused on reducing trade deficits. We actually have a trade surplus as an industry. For Canada, we send about $10 billion worth of goods north of the border. We import about $3.5. billion, and so for us, obviously 25% tariffs on equipment attachments, parts, and components going into Canada is going to have a pretty significant impact on our bottom line,” Eideberg continued.

Later in the conversation, Eideberg addressed the reciprocal tariffs from China and Canada.

“I think it’s fair to say that equipment manufacturers always try to source inputs close to their manufacturing operations. It just makes good business sense. But there are certain parts and components that cannot be sourced at scale inside the U.S. And so we rely on imports, and if those imports become more expensive, they’ll become doubly more expensive. Because if there’s a 25% tariff on a component that’s going into the U.S., and that component has, let’s say, aluminum in it, the aluminum is also more expensive because of tariffs on aluminum. So it just keeps going. Costs will keep going up, up, up, up. That, we believe, does not accomplish the stated policy goal of the administration, which is to bolster U.S. manufacturing and support American farmers and ranchers. It will have the opposite effect.

“Prime Minister Trudeau, when he first announced list one — that’s the first tranche of retaliatory tariffs that Canada would impose on the U.S. It includes quite a bit of agriculture equipment,” Eideberg continued. “…We know that list two will include pretty much all of the equipment that our member companies make. And so, again, Canada being our largest export market, that’s going to really hurt equipment manufacturers sending equipment north of the border. Then obviously it’s going to hurt Canadian equipment manufacturers who are relying on inputs from the U.S. It’s going to hurt Canadian farmers who are buying a lot of their farm equipment from the U.S., and obviously it will hurt American farmers because some of the retaliatory tariffs will be placed on American commodities. So it’s going to hit our industry equally hard, both sides of the border. There’s no doubt about that.”

The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)

TFI is the leading voice of the nation’s fertilizer industry. Tracing its roots back to 1883, TFI’s membership includes fertilizer producers, wholesalers, retailers, and trading firms.

“The Fertilizer Institute remains committed to working with the Trump administration to promote a strong, resilient fertilizer industry that supports U.S. agriculture and ensures affordable food prices for American families. A stable and affordable supply of fertilizers is critical to maintaining the global competitiveness of U.S. farmers, strengthening rural economies, and keeping food prices in check,” said TFI President and CEO Corey Rosenbusch.

“TFI continues to urge the Administration to provide a strategic carveout for Canadian fertilizers from these tariffs, including through designation as critical minerals. With the spring planting season fast approaching and U.S. agriculture continuing to face serious headwinds, maintaining reliable and cost-effective fertilizer supply chains is essential to ensuring a productive harvest and protecting American farmers from unnecessary financial strain.

“Potash is an irreplaceable component of modern agricultural production, and the U.S. has historically sourced nearly all the potash used by farmers from international markets. Potash deposits are geographically specific and mine development in the U.S. is time intensive and costly,” Rosenbusch continued.

“Additionally, Canada supplies U.S. growers with nearly 10% of their nitrogen fertilizer needs, accounting for 25% of total nitrogen fertilizer imports, and nearly 20% of sulfur consumed by U.S. farmers and others.

“An open, fair, predictable, and transparent trade environment between the U.S. and Canada is vital to supporting a strong, competitive fertilizer industry that meets the needs of American growers. Restrictions on this critical cross-border trade will drive up costs for farmers, which could ultimately be felt at the grocery store by consumers.

“TFI recognizes that these tariffs are part of a broader policy agenda, and we encourage ongoing dialogue between the U.S. and Canada. We thank President Trump for his continued engagement with the fertilizer industry and the agriculture community, and we remain committed to working with the administration and Congress to ensure the long-term security and stability of the U.S. fertilizer supply chain.”

State Agriculture Organizations

Illinois Farm Bureau (ILFB)

ILFB was established in 1916 and serves farmers of Illinois, the third largest exporter of agricultural commodities in the U.S. Total exports from Illinois in 2023 were estimated at $81 billion, of which $13.7 billion was attributed to agriculture.

“Illinois Farm Bureau urges President Trump to honor the USMCA, which was successfully negotiated during his last term, and to find other methods to combat illegal drugs and secure our border,” said ILFB President Brian Duncan. “We remain deeply concerned with the use of tariffs and their potential to spark retaliation on America’s farmers. Illinois farmers’ products — from grains and feed, corn, soybeans, ethanol, beef, pork, and more — rely on access to foreign markets and will undoubtedly be impacted by these new tariffs either through increased prices or decreased market access. This uncertainty coupled with an already struggling farm economy has farmers worried as we head into planting season.”

Illinois Soybean Association (ISA)

The Illinois Soybean Association represents more than 43,000 soybean farmers in the state. ISA upholds the interests of Illinois soybean farmers through promotion, advocacy, research, and education.

“Farmer members of the Illinois Soybean Association take pride in our ability to deliver a high-quality product, consistently and reliably,” said ISA Chairman Ron Kindred, an Atlanta, Ill. farmer. “Sixty percent of Illinois-produced soybeans are exported out of state, tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada mean farm families will face damaging impacts from disruptions in our trade relationships. During a down ag economy, when farmers across the state have not fully recovered market volumes from the 2018 trade war, these tariffs will further exacerbate economic hardship.”

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA)

ICGA is a 7,500-member grassroots organization, serving members and corn producers across the state and lobbying on agricultural issues.

“Iowa’s corn farmers rely heavily on our trade channels both for imports and exports,” said IGCA President Stu Swanson. “We trust that the Trump administration will work quickly to negotiate trade agreements in the interest of American farmers. An ag product that can easily be sold within the U.S. today is higher ethanol blends, specifically E15. We encourage the administration to grant immediate access for year-round E15 nationwide.”

Indiana Soybean Association (ISA)

The ISA Membership and Policy Committee works to enhance the viability of Indiana soybean farmers through the advocacy and promotion of state and federal policies for its over 600 members.

“As Indiana’s soybean and corn farmers begin to prepare for the spring planting season, they are closely watching lower bushel prices and higher input costs,” said Warren, Ind., farmer Brian Warpup, chair of the ISA’s Membership and Policy Committee. “This year’s crop was already shaping up to be a challenge, but with the added complication of increased tariffs, farmers fear that fewer exports will lead to higher stocks and even lower bushel prices.”

Indiana Corn Growers Association

The Indiana Corn Growers Association works with state and federal governments to develop and promote sound policies that benefit Indiana corn farmers. The board consists of nine farmer-directors who work on behalf of more than 700 members statewide.

“We urge Indiana’s congressional delegation to work with the Trump administration to resolve these trade issues so that Indiana farmers can continue to export corn and soybeans to critical markets such as China, Mexico, and Canada,” said Indiana Corn Growers Association President Chris Cherry, a farmer from New Palestine, Indiana.

Kansas Farmers Union (KFU)

The Kansas Farmers Union serves farmer members across the state of Kansas.

“This isn’t a game. It’s not a reality TV show. It’s reality,” said KFU President Nick Levendofsky. “Nothing fun or funny about this, when you’ve got markets that have been built up for years and decades, frankly, that are now being put into question and people are wondering if they’re going to be able to raise the crop, make it work, pay for things that they need to pay for, make a living, all of those things…. It’s a global market, but when you’re upsetting your neighbors, your biggest trading partners that are easy-access markets, then you’re cutting your nose off to spite your face, is what you’re doing, and then you get the retaliatory tariffs, which then causes us to pay more for all these products.”

Montana Farmers Union (MFU)

The Montana Farmers Union is a grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the agricultural way of life. Its membership is made up of folks who support rural communities and family farms and ranches.

“The U.S. is the largest beef exporter in the world. We’re also one of the largest beef importers in the world. Tariffs hit us both ways on that,” said MFU President Walter Schweitzer. “…Most of our feeder calves go north to the border to be finished, fed out, and many of them come back to the United States to be processed. Most of our inputs for growing our feed come from Canada. So, these tariffs would have a very adverse impact on the cattle ranchers of Montana.”

North Dakota Soybean Growers Association (NDSGA)

The North Dakota Soybean Growers Association is a statewide, not-for-profit, member-driven organization affiliated with the ASA.

“We haven’t really recovered from the first trade war with China,” said NDSGA President Justin Sherlock. “And right now, producers have very little to fall back on. This is the time of year when most family farm operations are working to renew their operating loans with their lending institutions, with their banks. So, you know, are the banks going to continue to provide lending services to us if we can’t guarantee that we can pay back our operating loans? …This could potentially really hurt a lot of family farms, and you know, whether they’re able to stay in business in 2025.”

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU)

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is a division of National Farmers Union. RMFU’s 20,000 member families live in communities across Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

“We’re really good at raising healthy, safe, and cost-effective food to the point that we produce way more than this country needs,” RMFU President Chad Franke said. “To say that we’re just going to sell it domestically is like saying you should put 20 gallons of gas in your 15-gallon gas tank. Farmers and ranchers already have enough uncertainty in their daily lives. They don’t need any more.”

A view of flowering spring wheat plants near Richardton, North Dakota, U.S., July 26, 2022. REUTERS/Karl Plume Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

Summary Draft report focuses on diet improvements and investigating vaccines, prescription drugs

Farm groups consulted on MAHA Commission activities

FTC to explore limits on marketing unhealthy foods to children

WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) – The White House will not impose new guardrails on the farm industry’s use of pesticides as part of a strategy to address children’s health outcomes, according to a draft obtained by Reuters of a widely anticipated report from President Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” commission.

The draft document recommends that the administration promote healthier diets and examine vaccines and prescription drugs but stops short of advising any change to how the U.S. approves or regulates agrochemicals.

Sign up here.

The Department of Health and Human Services, whose head, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairs the commission, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has worked to balance the demands of the MAHA movement aligned with Kennedy, a vaccine skeptic and former environmental lawyer, with the concerns of farmers and ranchers, a key Trump constituency.

previous report from the MAHA commission issued in May pointed to pesticides, along with processed food and over-prescription of medications and vaccines, for increasing rates of childhood obesity, diabetes and other illnesses.

More than 250 groups representing farmers, ranchers, and agrochemical companies urged the Trump administration in June to seek their input on future MAHA Commission activities. The White House this summer held a series of meetings with food and farm groups to discuss the work of the commission.

The draft report says that the Environmental Protection Agency will work to inform the public of its pesticide review process and collaborate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to promote precision application of pesticides, which can reduce their overall use.

The EPA will consider exclusions from pollution laws for some farms and meat processing operations, the report says.

The report includes some existing priorities of the administration, like that HHS will investigate injuries from vaccines and prescription of antidepressants.

HHS and the Federal Trade Commission will explore guidelines to limit direct marketing of unhealthy foods to children and the administration will work to improve food quality in hospitals and prisons, the report says.

Along with Kennedy, the commission includes Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and other officials and cabinet members.

Reporting by Leah Douglas and Ahmed Aboulenein in Washington and Jessica DiNapoli in New York; Editing by Caroline Humer and Daniel Wallis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Share X

Facebook

Linkedin

Email

Link Purchase Licensing Rights

Expand your understanding of food systems as a Civil Eats member. Enjoy unlimited access to our groundbreaking reporting, engage with experts, and connect with a community of changemakers.

The hearing today in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s agriculture subcommittee was scheduled to question Rollins about the President’s budget, released Friday. (She will appear in front of the House’s version of the same committee tomorrow.) The budget includes deep cuts to USDA spending, but it will not be enacted as is, since it will need a simple majority vote to pass in Congress, and there is some level of bipartisan opposition to cuts of that magnitude. Still, the budget reflects the president’s desire to slash spending across most agencies, and Rollins has been prioritizing that task during her first 82 days on the job.

Democrats grilled her on how cuts and freezes are impacting farmers and hungry families, while Republicans repeatedly praised her commitment to eliminating bureaucracy. However, many Senators shared concerns that crossed party lines, particularly about potential cuts to Farm Service Agency (FSA) staff who work directly with farmers in rural areas, freezing or cutting agriculture research, and the elimination of popular USAID programs that purchased American farm products to provide international food aid.

Here are the topics Rollins was asked about the most.

On the restructuring of the USDA and staff cuts: Republicans said they supported downsizing the agency, but many joined Democrats in asking Rollins to resist cutting staff at local FSA offices. “We do not have sufficient personnel in those county offices today,” said Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). Rollins said FSA offices “remain a priority” and that the agency is not currently cutting staff or closing offices, but that the FSA is “also working to be again more efficient with online technical assistance so that in the future we may not rely so much on an on-the-ground presence.” Some FSA offices have already been targeted by DOGE for closure and the president’s budget would cut $358 million in FSA salaries and expenses.

Rollins confirmed that 15,000 USDA staff had accepted the administration’s deferred resignation offer, on top of earlier layoffs. Through those processes, she said the agency had lost people in key positions and is now “actively recruiting” to fill those positions.

“You let people go—or however you want to characterize it—who knew these jobs, and now you’re looking for people to fill these jobs because now we know how essential they are,” said Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington). “That doesn’t seem to me to be very efficient.”

In response to a question posed by Senator Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), Rollins said the agency is very close to finalizing a plan to move USDA staff from D.C. offices to other locations. “We are very in the weeds on that, and an announcement is forthcoming,” she said. During the last Trump administration, the USDA moved its Economic Research Service to Kansas City, leading to major losses in experienced staff with significant costs to taxpayers.

On cuts to food aid and school food programs: Democrats grilled Rollins on her decision to end two programs that move food from local farms into school and food banks and cuts to The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Each time, Rollins said the local food programs were COVID-era programs that were not intended to continue. “It was the decision of our president and this administration that perhaps that COVID-era program had fulfilled its purpose,” she said. She also responded to each Senator with numbers saying their states still had money in the bank to spend on local food.

“I can’t speak to what the state is doing, and we’ll be happy to run that to the ground, but the people I’m hearing from are literally the schools and the producers,” said Senator Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico).

During an exchange with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) in which he asked about the $500 million that the USDA cut from TEFAP, which was authorized in 1981, Rollins appeared to confuse TEFAP with the local food programs, calling it a “COVID-era program.”

On farmer grant funds that have been frozen: Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Rollins to provide an update on which grant programs are still frozen and a timeline for when her review would be finished.

“We are working around the clock, going line by line by line,” she said. “We’re down to the final $5 billion out of, I believe, almost $20 billion of frozen funds.”

But Democrats came back to the point over and over. “What I’ve heard from farmers over the past 100 days of this administration is that they’re not sure they can trust the federal government anymore,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire). “I’ve heard from farmers across our state who no longer know if they can rely on the federal government honoring a basic signed contract.”

On cuts to agriculture research: Murray, Fischer, and Senator Gary Peters (D-Michigan) all brought up concerns about cuts to agricultural research. The president’s budget calls for a $159 million cut from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), but Rollins said that only represents a 7 percent decrease and that cuts would be focused on closing outdated facilities. “It shouldn’t affect the key, most important parts of the research,” she said. The funding freeze and cuts to grants have already upended some important agricultural research. (Link to this post.)