Iowa farmers continue to worry amid trade war
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (KCAU) – China has threatened to raise existing tariffs on U.S. goods by 50%, which could increase U.S tariffs on China to 104%. This new development has many farmers worried going into the planting season.
Last year, U.S. agricultural exports totaled $175 billion, with China being one of the largest trading partners for goods. That relationship is currently in limbo.
'I think the sense was that, you know, this was a negotiating tactic,' said Matt Russell, the former State Executive Director of the USDA Iowa Farm Service Agency during the Biden Administration. 'At this point, we are in a full-blown trade war, and as a farmer, I'm sitting here trying to figure out how is this going to impact me.'
Farmers say these tariffs will cause problems with partners in other countries.
Last wall of former KCAU 9 building being torn down
'We have undermined those, and so if I'm a buyer of American products, American farm products, this is a big signal I need to make sure that I'm looking for other partners,' Russell said.
'Going back to 2017, we were exporting about 2.3 billion bushels of soybeans and roughly 50% of the soybean crop is exported,' said Joshua Manske, a farmer in Iowa and Minnesota. 'So now currently, we're exporting, I think USDA is estimating 1.8 billion bushels of soybeans being exported compared to 2.3 [billion] back before the trade war.'
On top of countries seeking other producers, the cost of soybeans is not looking good.
'When you look at the futures and you look at where those prices may be locally this fall, for soybeans, you're seeing kind of a similar low $9 range,' Russell said. 'There are just very few farmers who can even cash flow without losing money at those prices.'
'Yeah, even before this whole thing took place, soybeans did not look very profitable, if profitable at all,' Manske said. 'Now, if you're looking at the new crop contract, corn's had good demand so that makes sense. But I think you also see a reduced soybean number because people are just not excited about growing a crop that you're not really going to make money on.'
Russell says he's all for fair trade, but that the Trump Administration is not wielding tariffs correctly.
'What we've got is like you're walking into your shop and instead of grabbing the specific tool that you need, you're grabbing the biggest hammer and you're just swinging it at all your equipment and everything,' Russell said.
Sioux City council again defers decision on Human Rights Commission
'We obviously want fair trade, right? If there's any sort of issues, which are why these agreements are done in the first place, so if there is problems, it's like 'hey, you're manipulating your currency' or 'hey, you're dumping steel' or dumping rubber,' Manske said. 'You almost need some sort of a scalpel to deal with this kind of an issue instead of coming at it with a sledge hammer.'
However, farmers aren't the only people that will be impacted by the tariffs put on China.
'You know, this is not just going to hurt farmers' pockets, right? This is reverberating through the rural economy,' Manske said. 'Look at John Deere and Kinze, for example. Those are jobs that are being shed based on the farm economy. So I think it's important, and then, of course, what's going to happen to our rural communities as well?'
The 104% tariffs could go into effect as early as Wednesday night at 12:01 a.m. Trump's cabinet members say there will be no exceptions to the tariffs.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OSU falls victim to budget cuts, putting a damper on scientific research
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The awarding of an OSU microfluidics research fund of $45 million has been called off by the Trump administration, leaving researchers fumbling for options. Microfluidics, the scientific study of the behavior of liquid on a microscopic level, is a recently established field and is hoped to aid in the medical realm as well as the manufacturing of semiconductors, a partially conductive component of many day-to-day electronic devices. The grant's cancellation has been a source of upset for researchers, but OSU is already looking ahead to future opportunities. Anti-ICE protests escalate outside Southwest Portland facility 'While we are disappointed in the notification of the EDA award cancellation for CorMic [Corvallis Microfluidics Tech Hub], we fully intend to participate in the EDA's next Notice of Funding Opportunity and remain well positioned to further national security interests as a global leader in microfluidics for semiconductor manufacturing, ' Tom Weller, Gaulke Professor and Head said. 'Oregon State University will continue to work alongside HP and other partners to further the commercialization of new microfluidics-connected technologies for semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced materials manufacturing.' This is not an isolated incident, with Trump having attempted to cut billions in allocated federal funding to scientific research since the beginning of his current term. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, 'The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration's projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people's priorities and continue our innovative dominance.' Universities are getting hit with the full force of these budget cuts, with biomedical research being classified as 'waste.' Just in February, the National Institutes of Health proposed cutting billions of dollars to OHSU research looking at cancer and heart disease, among other afflictions. These cuts were immediately met with lawsuits from, but not limited to, the Association of American Universities and 22 state attorneys general. These lawsuits are still in progress. The Association of American Universities' lawsuit called the NIH cuts 'flagrantly unlawful' and expressed concern that 'our country will lose its status as the destination for solving the world's biggest health problems.' Scientists of the NIH itself have begun to speak out, publicly disagreeing with the institute's actions, claiming that the cuts 'undermine the NIH mission.' Cuts to scientific research are becoming a recurring source of contention as Trump's second term continues. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Prepares to Evacuate Iraq Embassy as Netanyahu Ramps Up Threats
The American embassy in Baghdad is preparing to evacuate in a troubling sign for nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran, as well as greater regional unrest, according to Reuters. Three U.S. and two Iraqi sources confirmed Wednesday that preparations for a departure were underway, but did not specify what security concerns had prompted the move. It's more than likely that the sudden withdrawal is related to Israel's recent threat to target Iran's nuclear facilities, despite ongoing nuclear talks between the United States and Iran. Ahead of a sixth round of talks set to begin this week, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh warned in a press briefing Wednesday that if the negotiations failed, and 'conflict is imposed' on Iran that 'all U.S. bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries.' In an interview on the Pod Force One podcast released Wednesday, Donald Trump spoke about the talks, saying that he was 'less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago.' 'Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made,' he said. The New York Times reported in April that Israel, which is not a participant in the ongoing nuclear talks, had made plans to Iranian nuclear sites that were waved off by Trump, who wanted to continue negotiating with Tehran. Still, Netanyahu has continued to push for military action against Iran, without assistance from the United States. In a phone call Monday, Trump urged Netanyahu to stop talking about attacking Iran, and put an end to the leaks about his military's plans, a source familiar with the conversation told CNN. Netanyahu told him that Iran wasn't serious about the talks, and was simply using delaying tactics. He has some experience with that, after drawing out negotiations for a ceasefire deal in Gaza for months on end. The exact details of the U.S. withdrawal from Baghdad are still unclear. An Iraqi foreign ministry official said that a 'partial evacuation' had been confirmed due to 'potential security concerns related to possible regional tensions.' A U.S. official told Reuters that the State Department was intending to execute the departure through 'commercial means,' though the U.S. military was 'standing by.' In Bahrain, U.S. military dependents have been given the greenlight to temporarily evacuate due to escalating regional tensions, one U.S. official told Reuters.
