logo
As Iowa Farmers Plant, They Consider Rain, Rates, Tariffs and Trump

As Iowa Farmers Plant, They Consider Rain, Rates, Tariffs and Trump

New York Times05-05-2025

It was time for Beau Hanson to lay down his bets.
Like other farmers in western Iowa, in early April Mr. Hanson was preparing for spring planting. The decisions he made then could determine whether he would be in the red or the black come fall harvest.
In farming, there are always uncertainties, and all around Monona County, where Mr. Hanson lives, farmers are weighing them. It has been a tough few years. A wet spring in 2024 meant some farmers had to replant three times. This year, it's too dry. The price of soybeans has been going down, while the cost of seed and fertilizer has remained high, as have the interest rates on the loans that farmers take out to buy those things. Rates have reached 9 percent, more than double what they were three years ago.
And now, there is an extra variable: a trade war.
The 145 percent tariff that President Trump imposed on Chinese imports in April was met with a retaliatory 125 percent tax on U.S. goods going into China. In practice, that means a hefty tax on Midwestern crops. China is the largest importer of U.S. soybeans, buying some $12.8 billion worth last year. The new tariffs, along with various taxes, bring the effective tariff for the crop to 155 percent, according to the American Soybean Association.
Even before Mr. Trump set off the current tariff war, some farmers in Iowa were looking at the possibility of a third consecutive year of losses. Everything is slowing down. Lenders are becoming more cautious. Machinery and heavy equipment sellers feel the mood shift, too, as farmers eke out another year from aging tractors, planters and other big machinery, rather than buy new ones.
'Every year is uncertain,' Mr. Hanson said. 'But this year, it's especially tough.'
Mr. Hanson grew up in Castana, Iowa, and played football at the local high school. After attending Iowa Central Community College, where he was an offensive lineman, Mr. Hanson, 35, returned home and bought the farm next to the house he grew up in. Unlike many of his peers who left farm life for jobs in bigger cities, he is trying to build his future on the fertile soil tilled by four generations of his family.
He farms 700 acres with some combination of soy and corn, and he hedges his bets with 400 head of cattle. His three children, involved in 4-H, care for a few newborn British White Park calves in the barn.
Like many rural Iowa communities, Monona County voted heavily for Mr. Trump, 72 percent, in the election. Mr. Hanson won't discuss his vote and notes that he sits on the county fair board and sells seed to customers all around the area.
'I don't want to be political,' Mr. Hanson said, kicking the dirt with his tan work boots and choosing his words carefully. 'But a trade war is not likely to help grain prices here.'
An Echo of the 1980s
Over five days in early April, I crisscrossed rural communities in western Iowa, talking to farmers. The roads were familiar to me. I grew up driving tractors and working the fields on my family's small corn and soybean farm in Blencoe, about 20 miles southwest of Mr. Hanson's house.
In my teens in the 1980s, I poured coffee for farmers who sat at long tables at Helen's Cafe in Onawa. I eavesdropped as they compared rain amounts, crop yields and the size of the fish they caught. I knew we had a good year when Dad bought a new pickup. During a particularly bad year, my birthday present was a clock radio, purchased from the local farm supply store, most likely so my parents could claim it as a farm expense.
The concerns that farmers voice these days are reminiscent of my teenage years. 'The '80s, the '80s, the '80s,' said Gary Jensen, who farms land in the Loess Hills, a rugged terrain that juts up abruptly from the Iowa plains. 'It comes up all the time.'
The 1980s were a dark time for American farmers. A trade embargo against the Soviet Union led to plummeting grain prices just as the Federal Reserve boosted interest rates to as much as 20 percent in an effort to rein in inflation. Land prices plunged, decreasing the value of the collateral that farmers had used to obtain loans. By some estimates, 300,000 farmers defaulted on loans, resulting in the largest number of bank failures since the Great Depression. The Farm Crisis crushed many a small town.
At 33, Mr. Jensen is too young to have experienced that time, but he has heard enough to know that things can go south fast, and he needs to be careful. When we met, he was preparing his red Case tractor for planting season. When I asked how old the tractor was, he laughed. It was manufactured in 1989, three years before he was born. He's not planning to replace it. 'There's not going to be any new equipment anytime soon,' he said.
Farmers are tightening their belts, said Barry Benson, a senior vice president of agribusiness banking at FNBO, the First National Bank of Omaha. 'They're going to run the combine one more year or run the tractor another year,' he said.
In the months before spring planting, Mr. Benson and other lenders typically meet with farmers to talk about the size of operating loans they will need for the coming season. Someone with a relatively small farm, around 400 acres, may take out a $250,000 loan to pay for seed, fertilizer and leasing the land, and repay the loan after harvest.
But Mr. Benson estimated that a third of last year's loans couldn't be repaid and had to be restructured, which, for some farmers, meant taking out another loan. Others had to sell equipment or land.
Dan Dotzler, the president and chief executive of the United Bank of Iowa in Ida Grove, said his bank had had 'some hard and long' conversations with farmers.
'We really try to work things out, do everything we can, because these are longstanding relationships,' he said. 'But we also recommend farmers look for ways to get additional income to supplement living costs. You've got to go to town and get a job to support yourself and your family. It's a different environment now than it was a few years ago.'
Mr. Dotzler remains optimistic, believing that if farmers keep expenses down, they will, for the most part, be fine. But he is also worried about high interest rates, costly machinery repairs and the lack of a Farm Bill in Congress. And, of course, tariffs.
'There's so much unknown about what's going to happen with the tariffs and how it's going to affect everything,' Mr. Dotzler said. 'There is just a lot of wait and see on that front, which leads to anxiousness.'
'Exports, Exports, Exports'
One way the farm economy recovered from the 1980s was through exports, particularly with an emerging market: China.
China was booming and in need of soy and other feed for its own livestock industries. From a starting point of zero in the 1990s, China became a critical market for U.S. agricultural goods, hitting a peak in 2022, when it imported $36.4 billion worth of products, including soybeans, corn, sorghum, poultry and pork, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Export markets like China are essential because American farmers produce way more than U.S. customers can buy. The industrialized farms that cover the Midwestern landscape use modern planters that practically drive themselves using GPS technology and drop seeds at the perfect depth and width, all in a small fraction of the time it takes farmers using older equipment. In addition, the seed itself not only generates more crop per acre, but is better at protecting the young plants against pests and diseases.
The result is ever-increasing yields. Corn, which is used in animal feed and ethanol production, has a larger domestic market, with exports accounting for about 15 percent of the harvest.
Soybeans, however, are much more sensitive to trade wars. Roughly 40 percent of the soybean crop is exported.
'Exports, exports, exports — that's where the market is,' said Milo Ruffcorn, 66, a farmer from Mondamin, Iowa. 'We have to have someone to sell our corn and soybeans to.'
Concerned that a drawn-out trade war between the United States and a major agricultural buyer like China could stifle soybean prices, Mr. Hanson and many other farmers are betting big on corn this year.
Prices for both crops have fallen around 40 percent since May 2022. For farmers, eyeing prices at dismal, potentially money-losing levels, the math is simple: Go for yield. That means corn, which produces more per acre.
Mr. Hanson decided to plant corn on 90 percent of his acres. This year, farmers are expected to plant 95 million acres of corn, the highest amount in five years, according to the U.S.D.A.
On paper, Mr. Hanson calculates that after paying rent on his 700 acres, buying crop insurance, seed and various chemicals and paying back his operating loan, he can make a profit of $60,000, or about $85 an acre, on corn. With soybeans, his calculations come out to a loss.
'It doesn't make any sense to go into the field and plant a crop, expecting a loss,' Mr. Hanson said, shaking his head.
The Trump Safety Net
Karol King tucked into a pork tenderloin sandwich with a side of macaroni salad at Frannie's Cafe on Main Street in downtown Onawa. My father worked for Mr. King in the 1990s and 2000s, putting up irrigation systems.
A lifelong Republican who voted for Mr. Trump, Mr. King, 78, gives the president high marks for his tough stance on tariffs, particularly against China, even if it causes some pain for farmers like himself.
'It's going to be tough, but they are weaker than we think,' he said, 'and we are their biggest customer.'
But even if there is a standoff with China on trade and grain prices remain low, Mr. King and other farmers believe Mr. Trump will bail them out.
'For some reason, he likes farmers — and blue-collar workers,' Mr. King said. 'We're not going to be hung out to dry.'
Mr. Trump has not discouraged that belief. In mid-April on his social media platform, Truth Social, he posted that American farmers were on the 'front line' of a trade war with China, adding, 'The USA will PROTECT OUR FARMERS!!!'
During Mr. Trump's first term, he imposed tariffs on China that were met with Chinese retaliatory duties on soybeans, corn, wheat and other American products. The U.S. government provided an emergency rescue package of about $23 billion to farmers to ease the pain.
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Congress continued some of the subsidies, including a $10 billion payout last year to make up for low commodity prices. Mr. Hanson said the money he had received from the government helped him break even on some land and squeeze out a small profit on other fields.
All of the farmers I chatted with in Iowa said they would like to sell their corn, soybeans and other commodities at a good price in the market. And almost all of them said they would take the taxpayer money if it was offered.
'I would prefer to have corn above $5 a bushel and $11 beans,' Mr. Hanson said. 'Without that, we'll need a safety net to protect family farms like mine.'
Still, Mr. Hanson isn't betting on a handout.
'Are we going to get a government payment to help us out this year?' Mr. Hanson shrugged. Another uncertainty.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage

Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.

The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight

Politico

time31 minutes ago

  • Politico

The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight

Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Doland Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.

Letters to the Editor: Trump's looming cuts to high-speed rail project represent a ‘backward vision'
Letters to the Editor: Trump's looming cuts to high-speed rail project represent a ‘backward vision'

Los Angeles Times

time32 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor: Trump's looming cuts to high-speed rail project represent a ‘backward vision'

To the editor: The Pentagon is projected to spend a staggering $2.1 trillion on the F-35 fighter jet program. This weapons system has been plagued by cost overruns, technical failures and delays. Many military analysts now consider the F-35 already obsolete, a Cold War relic in a world facing very different threats. Yet, the Trump administration has raised no concerns. In fact, it's proposed increasing the Pentagon's budget by $150 billion this year, funneling even more money into machines of war. Now contrast that with California's high-speed rail project: a first-of-its-kind system in the U.S. that's projected to create tens of thousands of jobs, stimulate billions in economic activity and drastically reduce carbon emissions. Instead of supporting this vision of a cleaner, more connected America, the Trump administration has actively undermined it ('Trump administration sees 'no viable path' forward to finish high-speed rail project, moves to pull federal funding,' June 4). It's a backward vision: We pour trillions into fighter jets designed to kill, while blocking a transportation system designed to move people, strengthen our economy and protect our planet. Imagine if we invested that $2.1 trillion into a nationwide high-speed rail network, connecting major cities, revitalizing regional economies and leading the world in sustainable infrastructure. It's time to rethink our priorities. The California high-speed rail project deserves more support, not less. Donald Flaherty, Burbank .. To the editor: The fight over high-speed rail is ridiculous. I just returned from three weeks in Japan, a place where bullet trains run the length and breadth of the country and ordinary trains that connect with them go to places the bullet trains don't. When someone wants to go from Tokyo to Kyoto, they don't think about flying or driving, they hop on a train. Compared to Japan, it's as if we're in the Stone Age when it comes to transportation. Plus, these trains run clean on electricity and don't spew harmful exhaust fumes. Murray Zichlinsky, Long Beach

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store