Monday’s news of the Trump White House’s plans for a $12 billion bailout of the nation’s agricultural sector provided a spark of hope for America’s farmers, especially badly hit soybean growers.
But experts still see a tough road ahead for American agriculture, and the aftershocks of President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariff strategy continue to pose some of the steepest hurdles. The bailout itself is also seen by many as a tacit admission by the White House that the U.S. economy is not where it needs to be — despite what Trump and his minions keep insisting.
Almost a year out from the end of Joe Biden’s presidency, the Trump administration is under increasing pressure to take action to lower the cost of living for American families who remain largely unsatisfied with the progress made so far.
And that pressure continues to manifest itself in Trump and his cabinet’s seeming obsession with Biden — both as a point of blame and as a basis of comparison whenever confronted on their own shortcomings.
While the president’s team touts marginally lower gas prices that are still just under an average of $3 a gallon nationwide, grocery prices, energy prices and housing costs continue to soar and millions of younger Americans fear they have been priced out of the homebuyer’s market altogether.
At the center of discussions about the Trump economy is the president’s trade policy. Beginning in the spring of 2025, Trump reshaped America’s trade landscape with a 10-percent tariff across the board on many imported foreign goods followed by his “reciprocal” tariff rollout, which amounted to crushing tariffs on goods from China and a series of other nations.
Some of those countries have come to the table and agreed to reduce trade barriers with the U.S., but with others the administration has thus far not reached deals and, in some cases, faced retaliatory measures.
China’s freeze on U.S. agricultural exports, particularly soybeans, is undoubtedly the most devastating response so far. The near halting of exports to a country that once purchased the bulk of U.S. exports rattled U.S. farmers, who are still watching sales recover after the Trump administration negotiated some leeway for the market in October and exports to America’s former top trading partner resumed.
This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent moved a timeline for China to meet a purchasing goal for U.S. soybeans to February, but stressed that Beijing was still serious about hitting the target of 12 million tons agreed upon in the fall. It’s not clear what the numbers will look like for 2026 just yet, but some supply chain experts are concerned that China’s efforts to diversify its own supply by investing in Brazilian soybean production mean that U.S.-China exports may have taken a permanent hit.
“During the US-China trade war that began during the first Trump presidency, China started looking for alternative sources and helped Brazil, another agricultural powerhouse, to develop its infrastructure such as roads, railroads, and ports,” explained Dr. Mohammad Elahee, a professor of international business at Quinnipiac University.
“In the past, Brazil could produce agricultural goods at competitive price, but they did not have an efficient transportation system to take agricultural products from field to ports for export. Thanks to Chinese investment, Brazil does not have that problem any more.”
He warned: “Brazil has emerged as a formidable opponent to the US when it comes to agricultural exports. Chances are slim that US will ever regain its dominant position as a superpower in agricultural exports.”
A report from the American Soybean Association warned last week that there were other factors at play driving costs up for U.S. soybean producers including higher fertilizer costs. The ASA noted China was exporting less and less at the same time, which combined with tariffs on Moroccan fertilizer imports was causing production costs for farmers to continue rising.
Still other issues facing the industry and cited by ASA’s report were the residual effects of Covid-era shocks to input supply chains, and the residual effects of poor crop sales from Donald Trump’s last trade war, during his first presidency.
His latest tariff battle with China “caught farmers at a time when input costs were at levels that allowed no room in operating margins to absorb lower prices,” the ASA stated.
In August, the ASA’s president wrote: “U.S. soybean farmers are standing at a trade and financial precipice. Soybean farmers are under extreme financial stress. Prices continue to drop and at the same time our farmers are paying significantly more for inputs and equipment. U.S. soybean farmers cannot survive a prolonged trade dispute with our largest customer.”
The organization cheered news of the farm bailout on Monday. But even in the group’s latest statement, it noted that uncertainty hovered over the 2026 planting season.
“While we await additional details, we believe the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program is a positive first step to restore certainty as soybean farmers market this year’s crop and plan for the 2026 planting season,” it said. “We look forward to working with Congress and the administration on broader support for the farm economy, including long-term, market-driven solutions that strengthen demand for U.S. soy and allow farmers to compete and thrive in the global market.”
But the money for the bailout, which according to the administration will come from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and will be offset by tariff revenue, will do little to help farmers if export prospects for 2026 do not improve significantly.
Brooke Rollins, the USDA secretary, has been the primary defender of Trump’s farm bailout in the administration. In comments to reporters on Monday, she denied that the stresses U.S. farmers were feeling resulted primarily from decreased overseas markets resulting from the latest trade dispute with China. The bailout, she argued, was meant to address problems she attributed to the Biden administration.
“This country and our farm economy is facing a crisis that we inherited that most of these farmers have not seen in their lifetime,” Rollins said on Monday. “Profitability is down. It’s just one crisis after another.
“There is almost zero evidence, if any evidence, that what they are doing, the challenges that our farm economy is facing in row crops, has anything to do with these trade negotiations,” Rollins claimed.
The DNC fired back in a press release, warning that “farm sector debt is expected to increase 5 percent and reach nearly $600 billion this year.”
“Farmers don’t want handouts — they want their markets back,” said Libby Schneider, a DNC official.
The administration’s critics contend that Rollins’ explanation is absurd on its face, and that the bailout is a short-term solution that risks further market disruption if it is extended through next year.
“The decision to provide $12 billion farm subsidy to US agriculture workers is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul,” Elahee told The Independent on Tuesday. “The US agricultural workers are suffering from twin problems of lower overseas demand for their products, especially due to lower import of US agro-products by China, and higher production costs at home. The Trump administration is collecting higher revenue as US consumers are paying more for imported goods.”
“The bridge payment of $12 billion dollars may give US farmers (or rather big agricultural firms) temporary relief, but cannot be a substitute for a long-term strategy to implement a rule based global trading system,” he continued.
