SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
farmers
Trump's Trade Deals Endanger Farmers and Our Food System
Trump's efforts to undo the previous administration’s policies set up our food system for disruption and crisis, subjecting farmers to the uncertainties of international markets and developments elsewhere.
May 16, 2025
Former presidential adviser-cum-rightwing podcaster Steve Bannon often mentions that discerning the truth of President Donald Trump's policy goals entails focusing on the signal and not the noise.
But doing so has been next to impossible when trying to figure out the rationale behind the administration's moves in agriculture, which since January have generated widespread confusion and uncertainty.
Specifically, while Trump publicly proclaims that he stands with farmers, his tariff war with China stands to rob producers of their markets. Since Trump's last term, China has already been looking to countries like Brazil for soybeans as the U.S. has proven an unreliable partner. Adding insult to injury, unexpectedly cancelling government contracts with thousands around the country early in his term placed undue stress on farmers who already have to contend with what extreme weather events throw their way.
Taken together, the bailouts along with the freshly inked U.K.-U.S. trade deal and easing of tariffs on China illustrate how the Trump administration prioritizes export agriculture as the driving force of our country's farm system.
Now, with the details of the U.K.-U.S. trade deal becoming known, the signal—that is, the truth—of the Trump administration's vision for agriculture is coming into view. To the point, not unlike how U.S. agriculture has been directed for the past few decades, it is becoming clear that this administration will prioritize exports. The problem with this vision is that, even if it generates short-term profits, it endangers our long-term national food security by dangerously further internationalizing our agricultural system.
Consider the praise that U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins heaped on the U.K.-U.S. deal that was made on May 8, singling out its supposed gains for farmers.
Following the announcement, the secretary announced a tour that she will take through the United Kingdom to tout the agreement. While details are still being hashed out, we are told of a promised $5 billion in market access for beef and ethanol.
Contrast that clear messaging—the signal—with how government contracts with farmers were frozen and made subject to administrative review, and the funding for local food programs was slashed.
The contracts were connected with the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which included resources for initiatives like those dealing with soil and water conservation, and supporting local food processing. Additionally, programs that connected local producers with schools and food banks, for example, the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, had their funding cut in the amount of about $1 billion.
Since February, some of the contracts have been unfrozen if they aligned with the administration's political objectives (i.e. not promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI). Despite court orders ruling that all contracts must be honored, if and when the funds will be distributed, remains to be seen.
Overall, the noise surrounding the unfolding contract drama signals to farmers who want to diversify their operations and serve local markets that they should second guess looking to the government for help.
At the same time, Trump has not abandoned all producers.
In fact, amid the commotion about freezing some contracts, Secretary Rollins ok'd billions in direct payments, or bailouts, for growers of commodity crops such as corn. Thanks to such payments and not any improvements to markets, it is expected that farmers will see their incomes increase when comparing this year with the last.
Taken together, the bailouts along with the freshly inked U.K.-U.S. trade deal and easing of tariffs on China illustrate how the Trump administration prioritizes export agriculture as the driving force of our country's farm system.
Such dynamics smack of contradiction, as Trump appears eager to send our food abroad while he's willing to do whatever to bring manufacturing back to America's shores in the name of strengthening the national economy.
Still, the deeper problem is with how export promotion makes our food system insecure, subjecting farmers to international political upheavals and economic disruption.
Remember the 1970s, when a grain production crisis prompted sudden demand in the Soviet Union. Then-Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz told farmers to "plant fence row to fence row" and "get big or get out" to profit from the newfound export opportunity.
The promise of international markets came—and went. President Jimmy Carter's embargo of grain exports to the Soviet Union in 1980 for that country's invasion of Afghanistan came as a body blow to the farmers who made commodity exports central to their financial plans. Farmers then struggled to pay off the debt for the land and machinery that they acquired just a few years before, which, with rising gas prices, contributed to the 1980s farm crisis. Parallels abound now, including the initial effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine increasing fertilizer and gasoline costs, and most recently, the ongoing dynamics of Trump's trade war with China.
Concerning the U.K.-U.S. deal, U.K. imports of ethanol may seem a boon for corn growers. But without future terms of the deal becoming clear, it is unclear if this is simply a continuation of what the British already import. Similarly, the significance of the slated $250 million in purchases of beef products is of questionable importance, as last year the U.S. exported $1.6 billion to China. Regardless of the recent 90 day truce in the China-U.S. trade dispute, the remaining 30% tariff would still hurt American farmers. The Trump administration's export push will find farmers without markets and in need of more bailouts.
Besides subjecting U.S. farmers' livelihoods to international uncertainty, the other concern is the lack of concern for the next generation of food producers. Year after year, the country's farmers are getting older, with no one stepping up to replace them. According to the 2022 Agricultural Census, the average farmer is over 58 years old, up over half a year from when the last census was conducted in 2017. During that same time, we lost nearly 150,000 operations. Since 2012, over 200,000 farmers have left the industry, representing a 10% decline. Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, upwards of 70% of farmland is expected to change hands over the next 20 years.
Export promotion serves a temporary fix, but places farmers at the whims of international politics. Moreover, it threatens our country's already economically pressed farmers, making our country even more dependent on a dwindling number of people for our food, as well as imports. In fact, since 2004, while exports have nearly doubled from $50 billion to $200, our food imports have increased slightly more so.
Trump's efforts to undo the previous administration's policies set up our food system for disruption and crisis, subjecting farmers to the uncertainties of international markets and developments elsewhere. If there is a signal with the noise that Trump is making with our food system, then this is it—farmers better get ready for a volatile next few years and more bailouts, as operations will continue to go under. Overall, Trump's nationalist rhetoric amounts to little, as our food system becomes more global, increasingly made vulnerable to dynamics outside our control.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cruel' Republican SNAP Cuts Spell Economic Catastrophe for Families, Farmers, and State Budgets
One analysis warned that the GOP plan "may result in some states opting to end SNAP entirely if they are unable to come up with the state funds required to fill the hole left by deep federal cuts."
May 15, 2025
State and local officials, anti-hunger organizations, farmers, and families across the United States are bracing for impact as congressional Republicans plow ahead with legislation that would slash federal nutrition assistance by hundreds of billions of dollars, a potentially devastating blow to low-income Americans that would reverberate in every community across the country.
A centerpiece of the Republican measure, which passed out of the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday, is a proposal to force states to pay a percentage of the funding for food aid provided under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently, SNAP food benefits are 100% funded by the federal government, with states picking up roughly half of the costs of administering the program.
If enacted, the Republican plan would require states to pay between 5% and 25% of the cost of SNAP food aid, depending on payment error rates. The legislation would also force states to pick up 75% of the program's administrative costs, effective immediately.
In a letter to lawmakers earlier this week, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey warned that the GOP proposal would shift "significant costs to states that they did not plan for and cannot afford."
Healey estimated that the Republican plan would cost her state up to $650 million annually, which the Democratic governor called "an exorbitant burden" that neither Massachusetts nor other states would be able to absorb.
"These proposed changes would create an impossible situation for our most vulnerable families and residents," Healey wrote. "SNAP supports more than one million Massachusetts residents, one-third of whom are elderly, one-quarter of them are children, and a quarter of those who receive SNAP in our state have a disability."
"Beyond the direct benefits to families, SNAP is essential to the state's economy," she added. "Every dollar in SNAP benefits generates up to $1.50 in local economic activity, supporting thousands of Massachusetts jobs across many different industries, including farmers, grocers, manufacturers, delivery drivers, and other positions throughout the food supply chain."
"They know damn well that neither states nor individuals can meet the new requirements put on them by these changes, and that this is how they plan to force millions of people off of SNAP."
The impacts of the SNAP cuts would be far-reaching, with direct and indirect consequences in states nationwide. One independent grocery store owner in Opelika, Alabama toldThe Washington Post that "in all my years of business, I don't remember laying anybody off."
"These reductions may make it where I have to visit that for the first time," he said.
The National Grocers Association, the top trade organization for the independent grocery industry, estimated earlier this month that SNAP funding backs roughly 388,000 jobs, accounts for more than $20 billion in direct wages, and helps generate billions of dollars in state and federal revenue.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned Tuesday that "if every state had needed to pay 5% of food benefit costs last year, states would have needed to collectively pay about $4.7 billion."
"Because SNAP is an optional program for states," the group said, "these deep federal funding cuts may result in some states opting to end SNAP entirely if they are unable to come up with the state funds required to fill the hole left by deep federal cuts."
Farmers have joined independent grocers, state leaders, and others in advocating against the GOP's proposed cuts.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed Wednesday that the proposed SNAP cuts "do not exist in a vacuum."
"While framed as a fiscal measure, the impact of these changes would ripple across entire sectors—harming families, farmers, grocers, local governments, and local economies," said FitzSimons. "This bill is a cruel attempt to drastically shrink access to critical food assistance and deter enrollment."
On top of the cost-sharing provisions, the Republican bill would significantly expand SNAP work requirements, adding another layer of bureaucracy that could put millions at risk of losing benefits.
"This bill is unacceptable, inhumane, and reckless," said Abby Leibman, the president and CEO of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger. "Republicans in the White House and Congress know that these proposed changes to SNAP—which go even further than the budget reconciliation directives—are outrageous and destructive."
"In fact, that's the point," Leibman said. "They know damn well that neither states nor individuals can meet the new requirements put on them by these changes, and that this is how they plan to force millions of people off of SNAP while giving tax breaks to their wealthiest donors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Farmers Sue Trump USDA Over Deletion of 'Vital' Climate Information
"USDA should be working to protect our food system from droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather, not denying the public access to critical resources," argued one attorney.
Feb 24, 2025
Climate defenders and farmers sued the Trump administration in federal court on Monday over "the U.S. Department of Agriculture's unlawful purge of climate-related policies, guides, datasets, and resources from its websites."
The complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York by Earthjustice and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY).
The case focuses on just one part of Republican President Donald Trump's sweeping effort to purge the federal government and its resources of anyone or anything that doesn't align with his far-right agenda, including information about the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
"USDA's irrational climate change purge doesn't just hurt farmers, researchers, and advocates. It also violates federal law several times over," Earthjustice associate attorney Jeffrey Stein said in a statement. "USDA should be working to protect our food system from droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather, not denying the public access to critical resources."
"The Trump administration has deliberately stripped farmers and ranchers of the vital tools they need to confront the escalating extreme weather threats."
Specifically, the groups accused the department of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, Freedom of Information Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act. As the complaint details, on January 30, "USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee sent an email ordering USDA staff to 'identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change' by 'no later than close of business' on Friday, January 31."
"Within hours, and without any public notice or explanation, USDA purged its websites of vital resources about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, and investment in clean energy projects in rural America, among many other subjects," the document states. "In doing so, it disabled access to numerous datasets, interactive tools, and essential information about USDA programs and policies."
EWG Midwest director Anne Schechinger explained that "by wiping critical climate resources from the USDA's website, the Trump administration has deliberately stripped farmers and ranchers of the vital tools they need to confront the escalating extreme weather threats like droughts and floods."
NOFA-NY board president Wes Gillingham emphasized that "farmers are on the frontlines of climate impacts, we have been reacting to extreme weather and making choices to protect our businesses and our food system for years. Climate change is not a hoax. Farmers, fishermen, and foresters know from experience, that we need every piece of science and intergenerational knowledge to adjust to this new reality."
Rebecca Riley, NRDC's managing director of food and agriculture, pointed out that "by removing climate information from the USDA's website, the Trump administration is not just making farming harder—it is undermining our ability to adapt and respond to the very challenges climate change presents."
The coalition asked the court to declare the purge unlawful and order the USDA to restore the webpages, to refrain from further implementing Rhee's directive, and to comply with its legal obligations regarding public notices.
“USDA's policies influence everything from the shape of our economy to the food we eat," said Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. "USDA's sudden elimination of webpages that used to provide this information hurts all of us. Members of the public have a right to know how the department is implementing its priorities and administering its programs."
The New York Timesreported Monday that "the Agriculture Department referred questions about the lawsuit to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment." The suit is just one of dozens filed against the Trump administration since the inauguration last month.
Schechinger stressed that "this lawsuit isn't just about transparency—it's about holding those in power accountable for undermining the very information that helps protect the livelihoods of food producers, the food system, and our future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular