logo
Opinion - Trump's tariff policies set up farmers for bailouts and bankruptcy

Opinion - Trump's tariff policies set up farmers for bailouts and bankruptcy

Yahoo24-03-2025

For someone who tells us frequently how much he loves farmers, Trump sure has a strange way of showing it.
Look no further than how his tariffs on China have sparked retaliatory actions targeting U.S. exports of products including soy, corn, wheat and pork. American grain farmers still struggle to regain the market share that they lost to Brazilian competitors the last time Trump was in power.
Potential responses from Mexico and Canada will only exact more economic damage. To the north, a possible tariff on potash — a key ingredient in fertilizer — will drive up input prices for our producers and cut into their already thin profit margins. To the south, if Trump's efforts at using tariffs in 2018 are any indication, U.S. farmers can expect their markets for pork, milk and cheese to be negatively affected.
Trump's promise during his address to Congress — that farmers will now be selling into our home market — may be forced upon our nation's food producers because they won't have the chance to sell anywhere else.
Still, agricultural policy doesn't have to operate this way. Tariffs particularly, when used along with a larger ensemble of tools such as targeted investments and antitrust enforcement, could make markets more profitable and competitive. But as tariffs are currently being deployed, farmers can expect four years of economic hardship.
Consider investments. Along with tariffs on foreign imports, say on fruits and vegetables from other countries, the government could dedicate resources to help producers enter the profession and take the place of aging farmers.
But rather than having such foresight when thinking about our nation's food security, the USDA has canceled the Local Food for Schools Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement, which together represent over $1 billion in funding to support local farmers sell to schools and food banks. Along with funding freezes for specific projects, including initiatives for planting organic crops and improving water lines on operations, farmers are having both their productive capacity and domestic markets taken from them.
What we know from Trump 1.0 is that when markets are harmed, the government may step in — with bailouts. Last time the Republican was in office, trade wars with China led to two relief packages. As much is almost guaranteed now, as export markets are threatened and programs that could help farmers transition for local, domestic production, are being cut.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins' expedited $10 billion in emergency payments to mark National Agriculture Day for 'market uncertainty' is a taste of what is to come.
Meanwhile, Trump has once again made dairy policy national news, targeting Canada for protecting its producers with tariffs in that country's system known as supply management. In terms of specifics, the Canadian system assures a base price for farmers by coordinating supply and demand, including what is imported into the country.
Back when renegotiating NAFTA, Canada's supply management system caught Trump's attention for limiting the entry of U.S. dairy exports. Part of the USMCA deal, which replaced NAFTA, assured U.S. dairy farmers slightly greater access to Canadian markets.
But even with the USMCA in effect, dairy farm exits have risen. In Wisconsin, from 2014 to 2024, the state experienced a 46 percent decrease in the number of dairies. The state led the country in farm bankruptcies in 2020 and 2021, fresh off the heels of Trump supposedly taking a stand to support U.S. farmers against unfair Canadian trade practices.
Moral of the story: Scapegoating the Canadian system for challenges dairy farmers face didn't help keep U.S. producers on the land when Trump was president the first time. Accordingly, there is no reason why pursuing this approach again will generate any different results.
Agricultural policy could be different, even during the Trump administration.
The National Family Farm Coalition's Milk from Family Dairies Act shows how this is possible.
Agreeing with the current administration on the issue of tariffs, particularly on imports from abroad that could drive down prices for U.S. producers, the proposal also dedicates resources for developing local farm infrastructure and confronting market consolidation.
This latter point must be part of any initiative dealing with agricultural policy, dairy included, as increased concentration in nearly every area of agriculture leads agribusiness corporations to artificially set prices to the detriment of both farmers and consumers. Specifically, as University of Missouri professor Mary Hendrickson notes, consumers suffer from inflation-inducing price fixing, as markets with few buyers force farmers to receive whatever compensation that they are offered for what they grow or raise.
Without tackling the concentrated nature of agricultural markets, Trump's promise to farmers that they can sell domestically is really an invitation to poverty.
Tariffs could be part of an effort to truly assist America's farmers. Trump deserves some credit in this regard, particularly for pushing back on the free trade orthodoxy that has reigned unchallenged for decades. But pushing tariffs on their own while contracts are cut and programs are canceled, is a recipe for disaster for our country's food producers. Farmers deserve better.
Anthony Pahnke is vice president of Family Farm Defenders and an associate professor of international relations at San Francisco State University in San Francisco.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Treasury Yields Rise on Stable Employment Ahead of CPI
Treasury Yields Rise on Stable Employment Ahead of CPI

Wall Street Journal

time32 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Treasury Yields Rise on Stable Employment Ahead of CPI

1600 ET – U.S. job creation slows less than expected, reducing odds of a dovish Fed. Bond markets react with a selloff that boosts yields. May's job creation slows less than forecast and unemployment remains at 4.2%. CME data show diminishing odds of a rate cut before September. Two or more cuts this year still represent the highest odds, but bets on only one or no cut rise. Wells Fargo foresees May's 12-month core CPI, due Wednesday, accelerating to 3.3% from April's 2.8%. The 10-year gains 0.089 percentage point this week, including 0.155 p.p. today, to 4.507%. The two-year rises 0.125 p.p. in the week and 0.115 p.p. today, to 4.039%. ( @ptrevisani) 0846 ET – U.S. job creation didn't slow as much as expected in May, spurring a bonds selloff that takes Treasury yields higher. May payrolls slowed to 139,000 from a downwardly revised 147,000. Economists surveyed by WSJ forecast 125,000. Unemployment was unchanged at 4.2%, as expected. The data likely supports expectations of a Fed hold. Yields were already rising ahead of payrolls, as markets watched the Trump-Musk break up. They rose faster after the data, particularly in longer maturities. The 10-year trades at 4.452%% and the two-year at 3.985%. ( @ptrevisani)

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts

USA Today

time35 minutes ago

  • USA Today

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts

4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Biden criticizes Trump administration's handling of Social Security Social Security overhaul sparks criticism from Biden over service disruptions, layoffs and automation as Trump defends changes as efficiency. Straight Arrow News Social Security is an important source of income for millions of Americans, but the program has a serious financial problem. Costs have increased faster than revenues in recent years because the aging population is growing more quickly than the working population. As a result, the trust fund, the financial account that pays benefits, is on track to be depleted within a decade. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2034. That would eliminate one source of revenue (i.e., interest earned on trust fund reserves), and the remaining tax revenues would only cover 77% of scheduled payments. That means a 23% benefit cut would be necessary in 2035. Fortunately, the lawmakers in Washington have several years to find a better solution. Here are four Social Security changes that could prevent deep, across-the-board benefit cuts. 1. Apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $400,000 Social Security is primarily funded by a dedicated payroll tax, which takes 6.2% of wages from workers and employers. But some income is exempt from the payroll tax. Specifically, the maximum taxable earnings limit is $176,100 in 2025. Income above that threshold is not taxed by Social Security. Importantly, the Social Security program is projected to run a $23 trillion deficit over the next 75 years as it's strained by shifting demographics. But the deficit could be slashed by applying the payroll tax to more income. For instance, including income above $400,000 would eliminate 60% of the 75-year funding shortfall, says the University of Maryland. 2. Gradually increase the Social Security payroll tax rate to 6.5% over six years Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2% for workers and their employers. But gradually raising that figure would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit. For example, increasing thetax rate by 0.05% annually over a six-year period would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. Now that I've discussed two possible changes, let's step back and look at the big picture. There are basically three ways to resolve Social Security's financial problems: (1) increase revenue, (2) reduce costs or (3) some combination of the first two options. The changes discussed so far would increase revenue, but the next two changes would cut benefits. However, they are more subtle cuts than the 23% across-the-board reduction that would follow trust fund depletion. 3. Gradually increase full retirement age to 68 by 2033 Workers are eligible for retirement benefits at age 62, but they are not entitled to their full benefit — also called the primary insurance amount (PIA) — until full retirement age (FRA). Anyone that claims before full retirement age receives a smaller payout, meaning they get less than 100% of their PIA. FRA is currently defined as 67 years old for workers born in 1960 or later, but raising the figure would reduce the long-term deficit. For instance, increasing FRA to 68 years old by 2033, meaning it would apply to workers born in 1965 or later, would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. 4. Reduce benefits for retired workers with income in the top 20% Social Security benefits are determined as percentages of two bend points. Specifically, income from the 35 highest-paid years of work is adjusted for inflation and converted to a monthly figure called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) amount. The AIME is then run through a formula that uses two bend points to determine the PIA for each worker. Modifying the second (highest) bend point would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit by reducing benefits for high earners. For instance, the University of Maryland estimates that reducing benefits for individuals with income in the top 20% could reduce the 75-year funding deficit by 11%. Here's the big picture: The four changes I've discussed would eliminate 101% of Social Security's $23 trillion funding shortfall, which would prevent across-the-board benefit cuts in 2035. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »

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