Latest news with #IllinoisFarmBureau
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
The Surprising Impact of Trump's Tariffs On American Farmers
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. American farmers are once again caught in the crossfire of Trump's trade wars. Despite a 90-day tariff truce with China, they continue to face rising export costs for soybeans, corn and pork, along with effects from earlier retaliatory tariffs and export restrictions. The numbers tell a stark story. U.S. soybean exports to China experienced a significant decline during the height of trade tensions. According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), from mid-2018 to the end of 2019, retaliatory tariffs imposed by six major trading partners—Canada, China, Turkey, Mexico, the EU, and India—resulted in estimated losses of over $27 billion in U.S. agricultural exports. Soybeans alone accounted for more than 70 percent of those losses. The financial strain has left many farmers relying on taxpayer-funded bailouts. "Input costs for farmers remain a challenging factor, further compounded by ongoing uncertainty in markets," Evan Hultine, Vice President of Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB), told Newsweek. "It's hard enough to market in the weather, let alone add the volatility within the markets." Despite the economic toll, political loyalty to Trump among many farmers has remained strong. However, analysts warn the cycle of trade disruption and federal compensation is not only unsustainable but damaging to the long-term health of American agriculture. "I don't think farmers support protectionist trade policies—they support Trump for other reasons—mainly social or cultural issues—even though trade wars are bad for their bottom lines," Tad DeHaven, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute and former Senate policy adviser told Newsweek. DeHaven's analysis highlights a paradox. While Trump's trade wars have hurt farmers financially, the Trump administration sought to "buy off" the agricultural sector with billions in subsidies. "Farmers were bailed out by taxpayers in the first Trump administration," he said. "Knowing that they would likely be bailed out again, farmers were more willing to accept the economic pain." That pain, however, was significant. During Trump's first term, China—previously the largest buyer of U.S. soybeans—retaliated against U.S. tariffs with tariffs of their own. Even after a 2020 trade agreement partially restored soybean exports, the damage had been done. According to DeHaven, China, along with other trading partners, began shifting to more reliable suppliers, like Brazil and Argentina. "Rather than stabilize agricultural production, [Trump's] tariff-driven bailouts deepened dependency and inefficiency," he noted. "They introduced uncertainty and compelled importers in countries like China to source more of their ag imports from other countries." Illinois Farm Bureau/Catrina Rawson Analysts observe that Chinese importers are now turning to South America for poultry and pork and eyeing Australia for wheat, sorghum and barley. Canada and Mexico, also targeted by Trump's trade barbs, have begun diversifying their import portfolios away from the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers are being squeezed on the cost side. Tariffs on steel and aluminum have driven up the cost of farm equipment, while trade restrictions have made key inputs like fertilizer more expensive. Canada, the largest supplier of potash—a vital fertilizer ingredient—has faced barriers under Trump-era trade policies, contributing to higher input prices at home. "Increased tariffs mean reduced market access and higher costs," DeHaven said. "Trump effectively treats all imports as bad, but U.S. agriculture depends on open markets both to sell goods and buy inputs affordably." To offset the fallout from these policies, Trump's first term saw $23 billion in direct payments to farmers. And the cycle is poised to repeat. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has already announced a new $10 billion round of taxpayer-funded farm bailouts authorized in late 2024. But experts warn this model is unsustainable. "If history repeats itself, American farmers—caught once again in the crossfire of economic nationalism—will be left with fewer markets, more expensive supplies and increased reliance on federal aid," DeHaven said. "For taxpayers, the bill will be high. And for U.S. trade credibility, the cost may be even greater." Illinois Farm Bureau/Catrina Rawson On May 15, Sec. Rollins visited the UK to strengthen ties and champion U.S. farmers and ranchers. Over the next five months, she'll tour Japan, Vietnam, Brazil, Peru, Italy and India to open new markets and boost exports. USDA spokesperson Seth W. Christensen told Newsweek that Sec. Rollins top priorities are increasing access for American products in existing markets, opening new markets with strong demand for our products and making sure trading partners are treating American farmers, ranchers and producers fairly. Meanwhile, Hultine said the IFB continues to push for a five-year Farm Bill, emphasizing the need for consistent support and strategic market development both domestically and globally. DeHaven believes that the key lies in shifting away from reactionary financial relief and toward trade liberalization. He argues that rather than insulating farmers with bailouts, the government should support policies that expand trade, giving farmers greater access to global markets and reducing the cost of essential inputs like machinery, fertilizer, and herbicides. Instead, the administration's trade policies have limited market access for U.S. goods, creating challenges for the agricultural sector that it publicly champions.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Big Ag thwarted wetlands protections in Illinois and Iowa
Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. the Environmental Protection Agency significantly limited the agency's ability to use the 1972 Clean Water Act to safeguard the nation's wetlands from pollution and destruction. The decision determined that wetlands — waterlogged habitats that help filter water and sequester carbon — must be indistinguishable from larger bodies of water to be eligible for protection under the law. The move effectively eliminated federal protection for most freshwater wetlands in the United States. The Sackett decision shifted responsibility onto states to protect their wetlands from being demolished in the name of development. Although about half of all states already had their own wetland protection laws on the books, the other half had no state-level wetland protections, according to the Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that wetlands in Illinois, Iowa, and other states in the Upper Midwest are particularly vulnerable to overdevelopment due to weak statewide regulations. Illinois appears to be well positioned to protect its wetlands. It's a blue state with Democratic supermajorites in both state legislative chambers and a governor friendly to climate policy. But last year, a wetlands protection bill never made it to the General Assembly for a vote. And Illinois State Senator Laura Ellman, the primary sponsor of the bill, is pessimistic about pushing the same bill through the legislature this year. One major opponent stands in the way: the Illinois Farm Bureau. 'If the Farm Bureau is against it, a lot of legislators from downstate will be against it,' Ellman told Grist. 'I think a lot of planets would have to align before we could get this bill passed this session.' The Illinois Farm Bureau belongs to the American Farm Bureau Federation, a national organization that bills itself as the 'unified national voice of agriculture.' The federation, which boasts nearly 6 million members, is a conservative-leaning group that lobbies for policies that typically limit the government's ability to restrict farmers' activities. As such, the group often views wetland rules as overstepping — and its state chapters wield their influence to cut such measures short, according to lawmakers in Illinois and Iowa, two of the nation's largest agricultural producers. Since the Sackett decision, a handful of states have tried to fill in the gap in federal protections with mixed results. Only one state — Colorado — so far has succeeded in passing legislation restoring its wetlands protections to a pre-Sackett level. Illinois presents an interesting test case: Can agricultural states push wetlands protections through when conservative-leaning lobbying groups oppose regulation? Ellman's bill is 'definitely in a precarious situation this year,' said Jennifer Walling, who runs the Illinois Environmental Council, an organization that advances environmental policy statewide. 'This is something that makes so much sense. It should be bipartisan support, and yet it's getting a lot of challenges.' Wetlands are soggy, muddy interstitial ecosystems like swamps, marshes, and bogs that often bridge the gap between dry land and larger bodies of water. The unifying feature across these landscapes is that they're all some degree of waterlogged: The ground can be fully flooded or just saturated, and these conditions can vary seasonally. As a result of that water content, wetlands have specialized soils that store plenty of carbon, says Siobhan Fennessy, a professor at Kenyon College and wetland ecologist. Globally, inland wetlands occupy only about 6 percent of the Earth's land surface but are estimated to hold about 30 percent of the world's soil carbon. That's significant, since 'there's more carbon in soils globally than there is in the atmosphere,' Fennessy said. In the United States, wetlands account for less than 6 percent of the surface area of the lower 48 states, approximately half of what existed at the time of the American Revolution. In addition to storing carbon, these sparse habitats provide critical ecological functions like soaking up excessive rains to mitigate flood risks and recharging groundwater. But wetlands have been under attack by corporate interests and those who want fewer bureaucratic hurdles when developing land. The Sacketts, the Idaho couple who gave the 2023 Supreme Court decision its name, engaged in a 16-year legal battle against the EPA to build a lake home despite objections from the agency that doing so violated the Clean Water Act. The case concerned home building, but agricultural groups joined in the chorus of opposition. The Illinois Farm Bureau, alongside 19 other state Farm Bureaus, signed onto the American Farm Bureau Federation's amicus brief backing the plaintiffs' argument that the federal government was overstepping the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act by regulating wetlands not obviously connected to larger bodies of water. The Trump administration has stepped up efforts to reduce federal protections for waterways. As part of the EPA's so-called 'greatest day of deregulation' earlier this year, agency administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to further limit the scope of the Clean Water Act by more narrowly defining 'waters of the United States.' The law firm that represented the Sacketts — Pacific Legal Foundation—is now suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a program known as Swampbuster, which gives farmers public funds in exchange for conserving wetlands on their land. Together, these developments have empowered agribusiness groups to 'take actions that are profoundly contrary to the public interest,' said Dani Replogle, a staff attorney of the Food and Water Watch, one of the defendants in the Swampbuster case. In Illinois, despite solid Democratic majorities in the state legislature, plans to enshrine wetland protections after the Sackett decision haven't gotten far. In February of this year, Illinois State Senator Laura Ellman introduced SB 2401, or the Wetlands Protection Act, to the state senate. It was her second time bringing the bill to the state legislature, following its failure to reach a vote last year. Ellman envisioned the measure as a response to the 2023 Supreme Court decision. It would create a process by which landowners would have to apply for and receive a permit before developing on wetlands. 'It was originally a wetlands and streams act,' Ellman told Grist. But in early conversations with the Illinois Farm Bureau, she received feedback that the way she defined streams in the bill was too vague. The group voiced concern that the bill was too far-reaching and placed an unfair burden on landowners. At that point, she decided, 'Okay, we're just going to focus on wetlands.' Even after the change, Ellman remembered the Illinois Farm Bureau 'turning on their jets': She and other lawmakers were flooded with calls urging them to oppose the wetland bill. She thinks the unified show of opposition reflects the organizing power of Illinois' nearly 100 county-level farm bureaus. The Illinois Farm Bureau has also wooed city and suburban legislators via its Adopt-A-Legislator program. 'People go down and spend the day touring farms and learning about agriculture,' said Illinois State Representative Anna Moeller. 'I know a lot of my colleagues really enjoy that.' As an example, the Menard County Farm Bureau posted photos on Facebook post last summer from a cookout in central Illinois hosted by Senate President Don Harmon and State Representative Camille Y. Lilly, both Chicago-area Democrats. According to Lilly's official Facebook account, she's hosting the cookout again later this summer. Chris Davis, director of state legislation for Illinois Farm Bureau, told Grist that Ellman's bill remains 'extraordinarily broad and vague in terms of what scope of wetlands it would regulate.' If the bill were to pass, he said it would be 'extremely difficult' to assess its impact on farmers — despite the bill exempting agriculture from the permitting process. Under the legislation, farmers would be able to perform activities like ranching, plowing, seeding, and harvesting and drain wetlands and other waterways in the process without a permit. Ellman said that other factors besides agricultural lobbying could also kneecap her measure. A November 2024 memo from Governor JB Pritzker's office directed all state agencies to oppose legislation that would add to Illinois' multibillion dollar budget shortfall. The state's department of natural resources estimated it will cost approximately $3 million to stand up the wetlands permitting program. The state of Illinois' budget for 2025 is more than $50 billion. Alex Gough, a press secretary for Pritzker, told Grist that the governor 'will carefully review this legislation, should it reach his desk.' But environmental advocates say preserving these ecosystems is paramount. 'We should be able to respond to rollbacks of the Clean Water Act that threaten our water quality here,' said Robert Hirschfeld, with the Illinois-based Prairie Rivers Network. Across the Mississippi River in Iowa, attempting to pass wetland protections hasn't been any easier. Today, only about 5 percent of Iowa's original wetlands still remain, according to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. New research from the Natural Resources Defense Council found that today, Iowa has about 630,000 acres of wetlands that likely fall under the Clean Water Act's current regulatory definitions. Still, the environmental organization determined that 18 to 97 percent of Iowan wetlands could be at risk of destruction in the aftermath of Sackett. In Iowa, the state Farm Bureau influenced the outcome of another bill that would have helped conserve certain wetlands, according to lawmakers. HSB 83, a measure introduced in January, would have made it easier for counties to finance projects reconnecting wetlands and floodplains and restoring winding bodies of water known as oxbow lakes as a means of mitigating flood risk. Typically, when counties borrow money by issuing bonds to do these kinds of major projects, voters must approve the debt. HSB 83 would have added wetland conservation to the list of essential county purposes for which leaders do not need to seek voter approval. The measure was introduced by State Representative Megan Jones, a Republican, whose district experienced severe flooding last summer. The bill never made it out of committee, and the legislative session ended earlier this month without it getting to a vote. Several organizations registered in support of the measure, according to the state legislature website, including the Nature Conservancy and the Iowa Farmers Union, an agricultural group that supports conservation efforts. But only one group registered in opposition to the bill, and that was the Iowa Farm Bureau. The organization 'had concerns that by allowing these projects, property taxes would increase on farmers,' said State Representative Adam Zabner, a Democrat who supported the bill. After the Iowa Farm Bureau voiced its opposition at a committee hearing, according to Zabner, it became clear the bill would not have the votes to pass. 'They were the group that sunk it.' The Iowa Farm Bureau did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 'It's just their policy,' said Pam Mackey-Taylor, a lobbyist who represents the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club, which supported the bill. The Iowa Farm Bureau doesn't 'like any farmland being taken out of production. They don't like those kinds of heavy-handed regulations, so to speak, affecting private property.' She also pointed out that many state legislators in Iowa are farmers themselves, and may not have wanted to 'go that far' with the measure this year. Zabner added that the flood mitigation measure could come back in the next legislative session. But, he said, 'I am very skeptical, if the Farm Bureau continues to oppose it, that it could get done, unfortunately.' The Illinois and Iowa Farm Bureaus are especially influential, according to Austin Frerick, a fellow at the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University who wrote the book Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America's Food Industry. The Iowa Farm Bureau reported $1.71 billion in assets in 2023 and spends hundreds of thousands on lobbying efforts every year, according to public disclosures. 'Illinois and Iowa are in a league of their own,' said Frerick. Hirschfeld, from the Prairie Rivers Network, argued that agribusiness interests like the Farm Bureau have the effect of blocking progressive environmental policy. He compared Iowa and Illinois, specifically — two states with incredibly different politics, but equally active Farm Bureaus. 'Iowa can be all red, top to bottom,' he said. Illinois, on the other hand, has a 'democratic supermajority.' But 'when it comes to ag policy, what is the difference?' If Illinois' wetland bill fails again, it might confirm his fears: 'There's just not a difference.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Big Ag thwarted wetlands protections in Illinois and Iowa on May 27, 2025.
Yahoo
09-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
22nd Annual Farmer's Share of the Food Dollar Breakfast returns to Peoria
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — A Central Illinois tradition is back, offering a hearty breakfast at a bargain price. But behind the meal is a bigger story. Local farmers are feeling the squeeze from President Trump's tariffs. The 22nd annual Farmer's Share of the Food Dollar Breakfast brought thousands to expo gardens in Peoria. The farm-fresh breakfast includes two pancakes, two sausage patties, two scrambled eggs, eight ounces of milk and eight ounces of orange juice for just a dollar and 50 cents. The price is based on the 'farm' value of wheat, pigs, corn, eggs, milk and Florida orange juice. It's up 15 cents since last year's breakfast. Charlie Hensley, with the Peoria County Farm Bureau, said Trump's tariffs are already impacting Central Illinois farmers. 'Tariffs affect consumers and farmers. What we would like to see is, those tariffs held off if possible. We want to see free trade. Illinois Farm Bureau and Peoria County Farm Bureau support expanded trade agreements and expanded markets. So that's really what we want to see,' he said. Countries targeted by President Trump's tariffs are already issuing retaliatory tariffs, hurting farmers even further. China is charging 15% tariffs on corn and 10% tariffs on soybeans and pork. It's the world's largest importer of soybeans and corn. President Trump's trade war with China in 2018 cost Illinois farmers 1.41 billion dollars in annualized losses, according to the department of agriculture. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
23-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Financial impact of Trump tariffs, federal funding cuts stir anxiety for Illinois farmers
The effects of President Donald Trump's planned tariffs on allies and rivals are yet to be seen, but farmers in Illinois are bracing for their impact – even as they wait years for Congress to pass long-term federal spending legislation. Fourth-generation Illinois farmer Rick Nelson feels that uncertainty keenly. He learned how to drive a tractor at 6 years old. By age 8, he was preparing the ground for planting. 'I became a 'tractor jack' at an early age,' said Nelson, 72, who still operates his 2,500-acre family farm in Paxton, Illinois. Now in his final farming years before passing the farm to his son,the Nelson family is anxious about the road ahead this year. The Nelsons' farm is one of nearly 71,000 registered farm operations in Illinois, the third-ranked state in the nation for agricultural exports, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But the number of family-run farms is declining because the profit margins are slim and the industry is unpredictable, according to the Illinois Farm Bureau. Farmers are biting their nails as they await a new Farm Bill – a piece of federal legislation that Congress passes every five years to set comprehensive agricultural programs and policies. The bill expired in September 2023 and was extended through last year. Congress extended the 2018 version for a second time in December. That legislation, the American Relief Act, 2025, extended the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 for one year through Sept. 30, 2025. First enacted under President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933 to support struggling farmers and address Depression-era hunger, the Farm Bill allocates funding for crop insurance, disaster assistance and conservation programs for farmers. It also funds nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, and school lunch programs. The Farm Bill didn't exist when Nelson's great-grandfather started their family farm in 1910, but it's become an essential part of farmers' financial planning process. 'When we do any kind of planning, we have to be looking out one, two, three, even five years ahead in terms of purchases or cash flow needs,' Nelson said. Another immediate concern is the impact already of the Trump administration's halting of USAID purchase of crops for foreign aid, which could hit Illinois farmers hard. China could impose retaliatory tariffs like it did in 2018, which led to a significant decrease in soybean exports at the time. This go-around could increase the cost of producing farm machinery and equipment. 'Farmers are working in the 2024 economy with a piece of legislation that was passed in 2018,' Ryan Whitehouse, the Illinois Farm Bureau's director of national legislation,said in December. 'And with everything that's happened to inflation … It just needs modernized bills.' 'Congress, you know, they kicked the can down the road two times,' Whitehouse said. Lawmakers in Springfield have also expressed frustration at Congress' lack of an update to the Farm Bill. 'I think it's really unfortunate that the federal government is not doing their part right now,' state Rep. Sonya Harper, D-Chicago, said. 'That lends itself to hurting our farmer families, which we know the majority of them are in rural communities.' Harper, who chairs the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, said the delays are 'disrespectful to farm families.' The delay has caused budgeting pressure for Nelson, who is considering upgrading an aging tractor to a newer, $334,000 model. 'If I were trying to project ahead, am I going to try and replace that in 2025? Am I going to try and replace that 2026? I don't know where the safety net will be from the Farm Bill,' Nelson said. 'It's a politically driven decision in D.C., and there's lots of parts to it.' Across more than 26 million acres covering 75% of the state's land, farmers produced $10.8 billion in corn and $8.2 billion in soybeans in 2023, according to the USDA. Each year, the state's 274 million bushels of corn produce more ethanol than any other state, according to the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Jim Niewold, a corn and soybean farmer in Loda, said he's frustrated with the Farm Bill's delay. 'Several years, or if not decades, most of it ends up getting delayed and put into these omnibus bills, and I wish they'd do it right,' Niewold, 69, said. 'They call it the Farm Bill, but it's really much bigger than that 'cause it's really like for food security for the country.' Without solidified legislation, funding is in limbo. Farmers rely on crop insurance funding from the farm bill, which protects farmers from losses in crop yields and revenue due to disasters like drought and severe weather events. 'They want their dollars from the market, not from a government handout, but they want that crop insurance there in case there is a crisis or if there's a disaster or national disaster,' the Farm Bureau's Whitehouse said. Although Nelson, also a corn and soybean farmer, said he isn't a fan of disaster payments, he would like the government to invest more consistent dollars into existing programs. 'Some folks get caught on the wrong side of the decisions that were made out of D.C., or in our case, Springfield, and consistency is to me a really important thing to have,' Nelson said. Delays to a new Farm Bill also impact consumers, particularly those who rely on benefit programs like SNAP or have students who eat a school lunch. These food system impacts could also increase the cost of many grocery items. But a one-year extension doesn't help much, according to farmers. 'I think we're always concerned because even with a five-year Farm Bill, people look at and say, well, that's a long-term farm bill, but it's really not when you're trying to set up things on the farm,' said Ron Bork, a corn and soybean farmer in Piper City, Illinois. The 73-year-old grew up on his family farm and has had a hand in operations since he was 8 years old. He's preparing to sell his farm and enter retirement, but he is still navigating the uncertainty that comes with farming. 'It's just like trying to steer a big ship in an ocean. You can't turn that ship around in a very short time. It takes a long period of time to get that turned around,' Bork said. 'It's the same way with farming.' Nelson and Niewold also plan to retire in the next couple of years, passing the reigns to their sons. This could be the last Farm Bill any of them see as active farmers. 'Nothing these folks in D.C. do can change the rules. They can change the size and the speed of the waves up and down I think, but they can't completely change them, so (my son), like all of us, will have to go through some tougher times and then hopefully enjoy good times,' Niewold said. Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Yahoo
23-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Financial impacts of federal action stir anxiety for Illinois farmers
CHICAGO — The effects of President Donald Trump's planned tariffs on allies and rivals are yet to be seen, but farmers in Illinois are bracing for their impact – even as they wait years for Congress to pass long-term federal spending legislation. Fourth-generation Illinois farmer Rick Nelson feels that uncertainty keenly. He learned how to drive a tractor at 6 years old. By age 8, he was preparing the ground for planting. 'I became a 'tractor jack' at an early age,' said Nelson, 72, who still operates his 2,500-acre family farm in Paxton, Illinois. Now in his final farming years before passing the farm to his son,the Nelson family is anxious about the road ahead this year. The Nelsons' farm is one of nearly 71,000 registered farm operations in Illinois, the third-ranked state in the nation for agricultural exports, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But the number of family-run farms is declining because the profit margins are slim and the industry is unpredictable, according to the Illinois Farm Bureau. Farmers are biting their nails as they await a new Farm Bill – a piece of federal legislation that Congress passes every five years to set comprehensive agricultural programs and policies. The bill expired in September 2023 and was extended through last year. Congress extended the 2018 version for a second time in December. That legislation, the American Relief Act, 2025, extended the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 for one year through Sept. 30, 2025. First enacted under President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933 to support struggling farmers and address Depression-era hunger, the Farm Bill allocates funding for crop insurance, disaster assistance and conservation programs for farmers. It also funds nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, and school lunch programs. The Farm Bill didn't exist when Nelson's great-grandfather started their family farm in 1910, but it's become an essential part of farmers' financial planning process. 'When we do any kind of planning, we have to be looking out one, two, three, even five years ahead in terms of purchases or cash flow needs,' Nelson said. Another immediate concern is the impact already of the Trump administration's halting of USAID purchase of crops for foreign aid, which could hit Illinois farmers hard. China could impose retaliatory tariffs like it did in 2018, which led to a significant decrease in soybean exports at the time. This go-around could increase the cost of producing farm machinery and equipment. 'Farmers are working in the 2024 economy with a piece of legislation that was passed in 2018,' Ryan Whitehouse, the Illinois Farm Bureau's director of national legislation,said in December. 'And with everything that's happened to inflation … It just needs modernized bills.' 'Congress, you know, they kicked the can down the road two times,' Whitehouse said. Lawmakers in Springfield have also expressed frustration at Congress' lack of an update to the Farm Bill. 'I think it's really unfortunate that the federal government is not doing their part right now,' state Rep. Sonya Harper, D-Chicago, said. 'That lends itself to hurting our farmer families, which we know the majority of them are in rural communities.' Harper, who chairs the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, said the delays are 'disrespectful to farm families.' The delay has caused budgeting pressure for Nelson, who is considering upgrading an aging tractor to a newer, $334,000 model. 'If I were trying to project ahead, am I going to try and replace that in 2025? Am I going to try and replace that 2026? I don't know where the safety net will be from the Farm Bill,' Nelson said. 'It's a politically driven decision in D.C., and there's lots of parts to it.' A new year looming: 'There are repercussions' Across more than 26 million acres covering 75% of the state's land, farmers produced $10.8 billion in corn and $8.2 billion in soybeans in 2023, according to the USDA. Each year, the state's 274 million bushels of corn produce more ethanol than any other state, according to the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Jim Niewold, a corn and soybean farmer in Loda, said he's frustrated with the Farm Bill's delay. 'Several years, or if not decades, most of it ends up getting delayed and put into these omnibus bills, and I wish they'd do it right,' Niewold, 69, said. 'They call it the Farm Bill, but it's really much bigger than that 'cause it's really like for food security for the country.' Without solidified legislation, funding is in limbo. Farmers rely on crop insurance funding from the farm bill, which protects farmers from losses in crop yields and revenue due to disasters like drought and severe weather events. 'They want their dollars from the market, not from a government handout, but they want that crop insurance there in case there is a crisis or if there's a disaster or national disaster,' the Farm Bureau's Whitehouse said. Although Nelson, also a corn and soybean farmer, said he isn't a fan of disaster payments, he would like the government to invest more consistent dollars into existing programs. 'Some folks get caught on the wrong side of the decisions that were made out of D.C., or in our case, Springfield, and consistency is to me a really important thing to have,' Nelson said. Delays to a new Farm Bill also impact consumers, particularly those who rely on benefit programs like SNAP or have students who eat a school lunch. These food system impacts could also increase the cost of many grocery items. But a one-year extension doesn't help much, according to farmers. 'I think we're always concerned because even with a five-year Farm Bill, people look at and say, well, that's a long-term farm bill, but it's really not when you're trying to set up things on the farm,' said Ron Bork, a corn and soybean farmer in Piper City, Illinois. The 73-year-old grew up on his family farm and has had a hand in operations since he was 8 years old. He's preparing to sell his farm and enter retirement, but he is still navigating the uncertainty that comes with farming. 'It's just like trying to steer a big ship in an ocean. You can't turn that ship around in a very short time. It takes a long period of time to get that turned around,' Bork said. 'It's the same way with farming.' Nelson and Niewold also plan to retire in the next couple of years, passing the reigns to their sons. This could be the last Farm Bill any of them see as active farmers. 'Nothing these folks in D.C. do can change the rules. They can change the size and the speed of the waves up and down I think, but they can't completely change them, so (my son), like all of us, will have to go through some tougher times and then hopefully enjoy good times,' Niewold said. Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
