Trump's policies have placed his farmer supporters in a difficult position.

For Jim Hartman, a farmer in North Carolina, 2024 began with hope. He planned to replace a forklift he had used for 40 years, complete a new packaging and processing facility to handle the 18,000 pounds of honey he harvests annually, and purchase new equipment to portion honey into small packages for school meals. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) abruptly announced it would phase out two long-standing programs designed to support food banks and schools purchasing local agricultural products—costing him an estimated $100,000 in lost revenue. Additionally, $20,000 in protection program funds and climate initiative grants introduced under the Biden administration were frozen. "These policies are pushing me leftward," Hartman said. A veteran and lifelong Republican, he voted for Trump in 2024. Within just two months, Trump administration policies have intensified uncertainty for an industry already grappling with low prices, high costs, and extreme weather. Trump’s longtime staunch supporters—the American farmers—are now confronting a cascade of new challenges: freezes on USDA and foreign aid funding; tighter immigration policies threatening to worsen agricultural labor shortages; and tariffs targeting major trading partners—including Canada, Mexico, and China—that further squeeze farmers. The Trump administration announced it would unveil new tariff policies on April 2—dubbed “Liberation Day”—stoking farmers’ fears of a fresh trade war. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explicitly stated at a press briefing that farmers would receive no tariff exemptions. "This shockwave is hitting us from all directions," said Caleb Ragland, a Kentucky farmer and president of the American Soybean Association. "If things continue deteriorating, rural America and the broader agricultural economy could face a full-blown crisis." A USDA spokesperson said the agency is cutting expenditures tied to what it described as 'progressive agenda' initiatives launched under the Biden administration. Yet, a March survey by the agricultural news website AgWeb—of nearly 3,000 farmers—found that 54% oppose Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiating tool. Farmers are accustomed to uncertainty from weather and markets—but they typically rely on federal support to buffer those risks. Even before Trump took office, however, Congress had approved a $10 billion agricultural assistance package due to persistently low commodity prices and rising production costs; disbursements began in early March. Yet the Trump administration’s decision to freeze most other federal funding continues to weigh heavily on the agricultural economy. Michael Protas, who operates a farm in Dickerson, Maryland, took out a $100,000 loan to install a solar system, expecting the USDA to reimburse half the cost through a Biden-era grant program—but has yet to receive any payment. "I never imagined that a federal government contract would become a source of uncertainty," he said. Under the Biden administration, the USDA established a $3 billion fund and allocated an additional $20 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act to support sustainable agriculture projects—such as encouraging farmers to plant cover crops and adopt no-till farming.

"The Trump Agricultural Crisis" sweeps across America’s heartland.

The agricultural crisis triggered by Trump’s trade war is reshaping America’s social fabric and political landscape—and Trump himself appears well aware of this. Over the past year, the so-called 'Trump 2.0' administration has taken three key actions: first, holding frequent press conferences touting the 'remarkable achievements' of U.S. agriculture under its leadership; second, scrambling to distribute cash payments and subsidies to farmers; and third, promoting narratives around agricultural supply-chain security and domestic market reorientation—urging farmers to shift focus away from overseas buyers and toward serving U.S. consumers. I am not an agricultural expert; this information comes from media reports such as those in the Financial Times—and may be incomplete. Readers with expertise in this field are welcome to supplement it. That concludes the Financial Times’ in-depth report. Recently, I also read another intriguing article about U.S. agriculture. On July 19, POLITICO—the Democratic Party’s de facto mouthpiece—published a piece titled 'Cancer Doesn’t Care About Party: Toxic Water Is Turning This Rural State Blue.' This article explores another dimension of the U.S. agricultural crisis: rampant misuse of fertilizers and other chemicals has severely contaminated Iowa’s drinking water and food safety. With the Trump administration failing to act, voters in this traditionally red, rural state are increasingly leaning Democratic. How severe is agricultural pollution in Iowa? Iowa currently ranks second nationwide in cancer incidence—and is one of only three states where cancer rates continue to rise. Iowa’s farmers heavily apply nitrogen-based fertilizers and herbicides; nitrates from the former and glyphosate from the latter are both recognized carcinogens. There’s even a longstanding American joke about this: in 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate 'probably carcinogenic,' the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency immediately responded, 'We do not accept the IARC’s conclusion.' Trump publicly supports glyphosate. So during the Iowa gubernatorial primary, he initially backed incumbent Representative Randy Feenstra—who denied the existence of Iowa’s water contamination problem. But Feenstra lost to Zach Lahn, an obscure businessman whose winning platform centered on openly acknowledging Iowa’s water-safety crisis. Trump has since shifted his support to Lahn, calling him a 'good MAGA warrior and a true patriot.' Iowa is a crucial swing state with strong Republican leanings. Its water pollution problem did not emerge solely under Republican governance—but POLITICO’s article, while covering agricultural pollution, functions largely as campaign-oriented soft propaganda. It spotlights Democratic candidates—such as the state’s Democratic nominee for agriculture secretary, a university professor forced to resign after exposing Iowa’s water contamination and facing pressure from a state senator. The Republican response has been to paint these Democratic candidates as 'radical environmentalist lunatics' who undermine the heroic image of American farmers and will drive them into bankruptcy. This year’s election battle is already framed as a massive, high-stakes blame game. Today’s discussion covered two articles on U.S. agriculture—touching on trade wars, agricultural exports, pollution, and midterm elections. This field lies outside my expertise, so I’ll offer only a modest personal reflection.

U.S. Fishermen Turn Against Trump Amid Rising Costs and Trade Tensions

15 hours ago

U.S. commercial fishermen express dissatisfaction with President Trump due to soaring diesel costs, trade tensions with Canada, and NOAA budget cuts threatening fisheries management. This sentiment shift poses risks for Republican candidates in key coastal states.

apnews

2026-10-03

U.S. Fishermen Turn Against Trump Amid Rising Costs and Trade Tensions

U.S. Fishermen Turn Against Trump Amid Rising Costs and Trade Tensions

FAQ