U.S. Agriculture Tariffs

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden Says High-Level Washington Meeting Puts Fertilizer Industry on the Spot

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:10:01 GMT

The fertilizer market has been a growing point of tension in agriculture for years, but USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says recent meetings in Washington marked a more direct and wide-ranging confrontation between federal officials and the companies that dominate input supply. Those discussions, he says, were not limited to USDA alone but included a broader slice of the administration’s economic leadership, signaling how central fertilizer costs have become to the national conversation on food production and inflation.

Vaden says cabinet-level officials from the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative were present, alongside USDA leadership and state agriculture commissioners from Iowa and Georgia. Fertilizer executives were also in the room, making the meeting a rare setting where policy makers, regulators and industry leaders sat together to address pricing, supply constraints and long-term market structure.

He says the purpose was not simply informational, but confrontational in the sense of putting real-world farm impacts directly in front of industry decision-makers.

“It was an opportunity for those other cabinet officials to hear from the fertilizer company executives,” Vaden says, “and for those fertilizer company executives to hear from the secretary and me, as well as our two state counterparts who joined, about the real harm that farmers are facing from uncertainty in the market and, equally as importantly, years of elevated prices.”

Vaden says what often gets lost outside agriculture is that the current fertilizer environment is not a short-term disruption, but the continuation of a multi-year pricing trend that has reshaped farm budgets.

“For people who don’t pay attention to ag every day like your listeners do, they may think this fertilizer thing came out of nowhere,” Vaden says. “But American farmers know that we’re on year five or more of elevated prices for fertilizer, and questions about adequate supply of all fertilizer types.”

He adds that the timing of the discussions is critical, as global geopolitical tensions are only adding pressure to already strained markets.

“So I see this as an opportunity now that the attention of everyone is focused on fertilizer, not just agriculture, to begin to solve the problem that has taken years to develop and that has been exacerbated by the current situation in the Middle East,” Vaden says. “So that we don’t find ourselves in another long-term question about fertilizer supply going forward.”

USDA Pushes Industry: Bring Projects Forward or Explain the Bottlenecks

As discussions continue with fertilizer companies, Vaden says USDA is shifting the conversation from general concern to specific accountability. Rather than broad discussions about market conditions, he says officials are now asking companies to identify concrete projects that could increase supply and to explain why those investments have not yet materialized.

This approach, he says, reflects a broader strategy inside the department to move beyond analysis and toward action, particularly in areas where supply constraints have persisted for years without meaningful change.

In meetings held both jointly and separately with industry leaders, Vaden says USDA has been consistent in its message to fertilizer companies.

“We are saying the same thing to everyone who comes before the department,” Vaden says. “Be a part of the solution, don’t be a part of the problem.”

He says that includes detailed questions about whether expansion projects are already in development but stalled due to permitting delays, regulatory barriers or capital constraints. In some cases, he says, USDA is asking companies to identify where federal or state action could realistically speed up timelines.

“We are asking them what projects they have in the pipeline that they can bring on board to create new fertilizer supplies, hopefully here domestically, but if necessary, near-shoring overseas,” Vaden says. “And are there steps that we can take to make those projects move faster? Are there permits that are held up? Are there states or localities that are holding up their expansions? Are there investments that they are looking for with regard to needing capital to be able to expand their production capacity?”

He adds the department is not approaching the issue passively, but actively pressing for answers.

“We’re asking as many questions as we are making declarative statements, and we’re trying to see what levers we can pull to get more supply on the market,” Vaden says.

Market Concentration at Center of USDA Concerns

Beyond supply timelines and permitting issues, Vaden says one of the core structural concerns in fertilizer markets is the level of consolidation, particularly in phosphate production where a small number of companies control a dominant share of supply.

He says that level of concentration raises fundamental questions about how prices are formed and whether farmers are receiving signals that reflect true market conditions.

With that in mind, Vaden says USDA is focusing heavily on competition and price discovery as part of its broader review of input markets.

“With one of our fertilizer markets, there are two companies that control 90% market share,” Vaden says. “Anybody, I don’t care whether it’s fertilizer or what any other commodity you want to talk about, if there are only two major players, how can anyone be sure that the price you are paying reflects actual market conditions?”

He says the issue is not simply about individual price spikes, but about whether enough competition exists to keep pricing behavior transparent and responsive.

“In order to have adequate price discovery in a market, you need multiple players,” Vaden says.

That concern, he adds, is one of the reasons fertilizer investigations already underway by federal agencies predate recent geopolitical disruptions and continue to expand.

Vaden Details Heated Meeting With Mosaic: “A Different Tune in My Conference Room”

Among the most pointed parts of Vaden’s interview are his comments about a recent face-to-face meeting with Mosaic, one of the most influential players in the phosphate fertilizer market. He says the discussion, held in his conference room just this week, was direct and, at times, uncomfortable, focusing heavily on production decisions, capacity investment and the company’s role in a highly concentrated global market.

Vaden says he challenged Mosaic on why additional production capacity has not been brought online in the United States over a long period of time, and what barriers the company believes are preventing expansion.

He says he left the meeting with clear expectations for follow-up information from the company, describing it as an assignment rather than a casual discussion.

“I gave them a homework assignment,” Vaden says. “I told them what I expected to see, and I hope that they will get back to me as soon as possible.”

But what stood out most to him, he says, was not just what was said in the room, but how it contrasted with the company’s public messaging.

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

In his view, there was a noticeable difference between internal discussions and external communications, particularly on social media, where fertilizer policy debates have increasingly played out in public.

“And I will say, without being able to go into details, when they were in my office, they were singing a slightly different tune than they were signing on Twitter responding to the president’s Truth Social message that you noted,” Vaden says.

He uses that contrast to underscore what he sees as a broader disconnect between industry messaging and the realities USDA believes farmers are facing.

“We need more supply, we need answers, your company hasn’t provided either of those two things,” Vaden says. “It’s about time that you did.”

Industry Responses, Trade Policy Pressure and the Mosaic Question

While Vaden applies pressure to Mosaic, he notes that not all fertilizer companies are taking the same stance on trade policy and tariffs. He points specifically to Nutrien, which he says has indicated support for removing certain trade enforcement measures.

“I was very happy after I met with the Nutrien CEO that they came out and announced we don’t need this CVD order anymore,” Vaden says.

By contrast, he says Mosaic’s position on countervailing duties and phosphate trade enforcement remains unresolved, and that broader policy decisions are now effectively waiting on the company’s response.

He characterizes the situation as fluid but heavily dependent on industry input.

“Right now the question is in Mosaic’s court, if you will,” Vaden says. “And we’re waiting for an answer from them.”

He adds that regulatory or executive action is unlikely to be taken in a vacuum while negotiations and responses are still unfolding.

“One thing that I know as a lawyer is that there’s a whole lot more possible if you have consent of the parties than if you don’t,” Vaden says. “With consent, nearly all things are possible.”

Investigations Expand as USDA Seeks Farmer-Reported Data

Alongside industry meetings, Vaden says USDA is working with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on ongoing fertilizer market investigations, with a particular focus on pricing behavior and market transparency.

He says one challenge is the nature of pricing information itself, which often reaches farmers through informal channels and can change quickly.

“We’re asking questions and waiting for answers, and we need farmers’ help as part of our question asking,” Vaden says.

He describes a pattern many farmers have reported directly to USDA, where fertilizer prices are quoted in a way that encourages immediate purchase rather than delayed buying.

“I know in my own family’s operation that you get phone calls, and those phone calls tell you ‘Here’s what the price is now, and if you wait, here’s what the price will be later,’” Vaden says. “And that later price is never lower than the price that it is now.”

To address that, he says USDA is working on a confidential reporting system designed to protect farmer identity while improving data quality for investigators.

“If they trust us with their information, if they trust us with the facts that they have, they’ll be able to remain anonymous,” Vaden says. “And the companies under investigation will not know who shared what data with us.”

“This Has Been Going On for Too Long”

Vaden closes by emphasizing that fertilizer prices and supply constraints are not a new challenge for agriculture, but an entrenched issue that has persisted through multiple years and market cycles.

He says the administration is trying to shift both short-term supply conditions and long-term structural dynamics at the same time, adding that USDA’s goal is not temporary relief, but sustained changes in supply, competition and pricing stability.

“We are focused on getting new supplies here now, and not just now, but next year and the year after that and the years after that,” Vaden says. “So that we can have guaranteed new supplies over the long term.”

Vaden’s Message to Farmers: “We’re Saying the Same Thing in Public and in Private”

At the end of the conversation, Vaden returned to what he described as the central audience for everything USDA is doing on fertilizer: farmers themselves. He acknowledged frustration is not just growing, but it has become a defining sentiment across much of farm country as input costs remain elevated and supply questions persist year after year.

He emphasized USDA’s posture is not different depending on the room or the audience, whether speaking with industry executives, other federal agencies, or producers themselves.

“I want farmers to know that when I am sitting with representatives of other cabinet departments or when I am sitting with big fertilizer CEOs, I am saying the same thing in private that you hear me saying in public,” Vaden says. “I do not change my tune. I may be slightly more polite, but I am equally as direct in terms of telling them what I think the situation is.”

Vaden says that directness is rooted in what he believes farmers are already experiencing on the ground, particularly when it comes to fertilizer pricing volatility and uncertainty in purchasing decisions. He says producers are not misreading the situation — they are responding to real, long-running pressures.

He also acknowledges the emotional toll on producers is part of the reality USDA is hearing more frequently.

“I especially communicate to them that farmers have gone from exasperation to anger with the situation that we have now,” Vaden says. “They are not wrong to be feeling those emotions because they understand that this is not a new situation.”

Looking ahead, Vaden says USDA’s goal is not just to address short-term pricing spikes, but to change the underlying conditions that have kept fertilizer costs elevated for years. That includes expanding supply, increasing competition and improving long-term stability in input markets.

“This is an issue that has bedeviled American agriculture for at least five years, and it is time that it stopped,” Vaden says.

Trump Warns Fertilizer Giants Against "Price Gouging" as Costs Soar 40%

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:46:55 GMT

Fertilizer market volatility is once again taking center stage as geopolitical tensions disrupt global supply lines and push input costs sharply higher. New analysis shows the increase in fertilizer prices may not be over, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon.

Even with the situation in Iran pushing prices even higher, the sharp increase in fertilizer prices from 2020 to now is catching attention in Washington. Not only did President Donald Trump take to social media to warn of ‘price gouging,’ but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also posted on X Monday, specifically expressing frustration over Mosaic’s response to farmers.

While Rollins and USDA Under Secretary Stephen Vaden have raised concerns over fertilizer prices this year, the president posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he is closely monitoring fertilizer prices and pledged support for American farmers.

Trump said Saturday on his Truth Social platform he is “watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY” during what he described as the US “FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran”, adding that the administration “will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly”.

On Monday, Rollins posted on X, saying she was “So disappointed in this response” from Mosaic, “especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market.”

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

Mosaic announced last week the decision to shut down major phosphate operations in Brazil, a move the that will cut production, reduce jobs, and signal a *strategic shift in how the fertilizer giant deploys its capital.

Mosaic Company announced Thursday it will idle two phosphate facilities in Brazil as part of a broader effort to cut costs and shift capital. Mosaic expects idling of the facilities to reduce annual phosphate production by approximately 1 million tonnes. CEO Bruce Bodine says the decision reflects what he calls a disciplined focus on long-term returns.

.@MosaicCompany, you’re right that U.S. farmers are facing a difficult economic situation, only made worse by the extra $6.9 BILLION they have had to spend on fertilizer since you petitioned the government to place duties on imported phosphorus. This has played a major role in… https://t.co/UuOqjE0jBu
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) April 13, 2026

Mosaic and Simplot have also been in the cross hairs of the push to remove countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate . Groups like the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) claim the CVDs are costing U.S. agriculture $1 billion each year.

The CVDs on Moroccan phosphate were put into place by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in 2021. As the sunset review begins, more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC to revoke the countervailing duties on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia.

In separate filings by Mosaic and Simplot to the ITC and the Department of Commerce, both companies said the continuation is necessary to maintain a “level playing field.”

In a written response to Farm Journal, Mosaic said:

“American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of U.S. trade laws that ensure a level playing field. Mosaic is proud to support U.S. agriculture with high-quality, reliable products produced here at home.”

Iran War’s Current Impact on Fertilizer Prices

The message from the Trump adminstration comes as tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, where the United States is weighing a potential full naval blockade. Ship traffic through the critical waterway has already dropped from roughly 135 vessels per day to the single digits. A complete shutdown could halt flows entirely, further increasing fertilizer prices.

The stakes are high as roughly one-third of global fertilizer shipments move through the strait, and the disruption is already sending prices higher, up more than 40% compared to a year ago.

It is the 6-week anniversary of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fert price comparisons:

NOLA urea - +$230 or 49%
NOLA UAN - +$145 or 38%
Midwest NH3 - +$245 or 32%
NOLA DAP - +$130 or 21%
NOLA potash - +$10 or 3%

...corn - 2-cents or 0.5% higher#sickeningforfarmers
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) April 10, 2026

Market data shows the impact Iran is having on already high fertilizer prices. According to StoneX analyst Josh Linville says in the six weeks since the war started:

Urea prices have surged by $230 per ton, a 49% increase
UAN is up $145 per ton, or 38%
Anhydrous ammonia has climbed $245 per ton, a 32% jump.
In contrast, corn prices have barely responded, rising just two cents, or about half a percent. The divergence is putting additional pressure on farm margins.

DOJ Probe Into Fertilizer Costs Seeks Input From Farmers

The Trump administration is asking farmers to help provide information as part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation into elevated costs for fertilizer, machinery and other key agricultural inputs, according to reporting from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported the effort is aimed at gathering more on-the-ground data as regulators examine whether fertilizer producers may have coordinated to raise prices. The DOJ investigation was first reported in early March, when Bloomberg said federal officials had begun looking into whether fertilizer companies engaged in price coordination.

According to the Bloomberg report, Vaden said he has already met with officials at both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to discuss potential lines of inquiry. He also noted that farmers could play a key role in the process.

Vaden said farmers “have a lot of information that might be relevant to these investigations.”

Bloomberg previously reported in early March that the Department of Justice is investigating whether fertilizer producers colluded to increase prices.

Speaking at the North American Agricultural Journalists’ annual conference in Washington on Monday, Vaden encouraged farmer participation in the probe, emphasizing confidentiality protections.

“We need farmers to help provide us with that information on a confidential basis, so that that can help inform the investigations that are ongoing,” Vaden said, according to Bloomberg. “I think we will have a mechanism in order to help encourage that exchange of information.”

NCGA Surveys Show Not All Farmers Have Fertilizer Secured for 2026

Against that backdrop, along with fertilizer prices climbing even higher in the six weeks after the conflict started with Iran, new surveys results from NCGA highlight how those market pressures are translating to on-farm realities.

Krista Swanson, chief economist for NCGA, says the organization conducted the survey to better understand fertilizer availability from the farmer perspective. Ag Secretary Rollins has told mainstream media that 80% of farmers have fertilizer locked in for 2026, but NCGA data contradicts that figure.

“We’re hearing that number being thrown around too, which is why we really wanted to find out directly from farmers what the status is for them,” Swanson says.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

A Significant Gap in Fertilizer Readiness

The surveys show that only 60% of farmers report having their nitrogen fully purchased or secured for the 2026 growing season, while 64% say the same for phosphate. That leaves a sizable portion of producers still working to lock in supplies.

“When you think about over 500,000 corn farmers in the U.S., this isn’t a small number,” Swanson says. “Our survey results indicate that over 200,000 farmers still need at least some fertilizer for this year.”

Nitrogen remains a critical input for corn production and is closely tied to yield potential. Any shortfall, whether driven by availability or cost, can directly affect productivity and profitability.

NCGA Grower Surveys

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

Younger Farmers Feeling the Pressure Most

The survey also points to uneven impacts across the farm sector, with younger farmers facing greater challenges in securing fertilizer.

Swanson says younger producers reported having more nitrogen left to purchase compared to older farmers.

“You think about younger farmers that have less capital already built up in their business, maybe tighter cash flow needs because of their equity position,” she says. “This does seem to have a disproportional impact on younger farmers.”

That dynamic raises concerns about financial strain among newer operations in a high-cost environment.

Corn Acres Likely Stable, But With Reduced Inputs

Despite the challenges, most farmers are not planning to reduce corn acreage. The survey found that 80% of respondents expect to maintain their planned acres.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

At the same time, fertilizer application rates may fall short. Half of the farmers surveyed say they do not expect to apply their full amount of fertilizer.

“Pairing these two together, it seems to me like we are still going to see a lot of corn acres get planted,” Swanson says. “But those corn acres will have less fertilizer than maybe what they would have otherwise had.”

That combination could limit yield potential if input reductions become widespread.

Growing Concern Shifts to 2027

While fertilizer availability remains a concern for 2026, attention is already turning to the next crop year. Fertilizer purchasing follows a rolling cycle, and planning for 2027 will begin soon.

Survey responses show that for every one farmer more concerned about fertilizer price and availability for 2026, nearly two are more concerned about 2027.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

“So farmers are concerned as we look ahead to next year,” Swanson says.

The shift reflects uncertainty about how long supply disruptions and elevated prices will persist.

Supply Chain Recovery May Take Time

Even if geopolitical tensions ease, relief may not come quickly. Swanson notes that the fertilizer market is still dealing with production disruptions and supply chain backlogs.

“A short-term ceasefire has limited immediate impact on this ongoing fertilizer crisis for farmers,” she says. “Even when a permanent end to the situation is reached, we’re still looking at recovery from supply chain backlogs and halted production that could take a long time to recover from.”

Damage to key inputs such as liquid natural gas and sulfur production could take years to repair, keeping pressure on supply.

A Tightening Outlook

The NCGA survey underscores a challenging environment for corn producers. Most acres are expected to be planted this year, but not all will receive optimal fertilizer applications. At the same time, concern is building for 2027 as farmers look ahead to the next purchasing cycle.

For many producers, the issue is no longer just securing fertilizer for this season. It is navigating a period of sustained uncertainty that could shape production decisions, costs, and risk management strategies across the U.S. corn sector.

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

In September 2025, USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing both agencies to jointly examine high and volatile input costs, which included fertilizer, by scrutinizing competitive conditions in agricultural markets and enforcing antitrust laws, particularly around price setting and market concentration.

While geopolitical tensions are the latest driver of volatility, many farm groups argue the root of the problem runs deeper. Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says ongoing federal investigations into fertilizer pricing must lead to meaningful action.

“We appreciate the administration’s investigations into input costs,” Perdue says. “But investigations don’t do anything if they’re not followed by enforcement, and they don’t do anything if we don’t learn what came out of those investigations.”

Groups like the Texas Corn Producers Association have been raising concerns about fertilizer market concentration for years. Texas farmer Dee Vaughan says the organization began studying the issue in 2020, working with the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M to examine pricing trends.

“We’ve been very concerned about all of our input costs, but specifically fertilizer, because it’s the one that just keeps going up almost exponentially,” Vaughan says.

He adds those studies found a shift in how fertilizer prices are determined . Historically tied closely to natural gas costs, the study found nitrogen fertilizer pricing began tracking corn prices more closely after 2010, a change Vaughan says reflects deeper structural issues.

According to Vaughan, the small number of firms controlling the market have the data and market awareness to price inputs based on farmers’ revenue potential, rather than production costs.

“They all have economists on staff,” Vaughan says. “They know exactly what our costs are, what our income is, and they’re able to extract value based on what they see as the gross income of a farmer. It’s not based on cost of production any longer.”

Trump Considers Suspending Moroccan Phosphate Duties Amid Corn Grower Pressure

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:35:49 GMT

For corn farmers like Dee Vaughan, the economics of fertilizer aren’t just a simple line item on the balance sheet; they are immediate, seasonal and deeply tied to whether a crop pencils out.

As a corn grower in the Texas Panhandle, Vaughan says rising input costs have forced tough decisions in recent years, particularly when it comes to phosphate, a cornerstone nutrient for crop production. And he says a key factor behind those higher costs is a federal trade policy now under review. At the heart of the issue, Vaughan says, is access, or lack of it.

That’s why just this week more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, are urging the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission (ITC) to revoke countervailing duties (CVDs) on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The groups filed a letter with the Department of Commerce, urging the agency to revoke countervailing duties on imports of phosphate fertilizer as the sunset review begins.

In addition to the letter, corn groups are on Capitol Hill this week, and that push may be gaining traction. On Tuesday, Agri-Pulse reported The Trump administration is weighing temporarily suspending countervailing applied to Moroccan and Russian phosphate.

How the Duties Took Hold

Vaughan says any action to remove those duties wouldn’t just be welcome, it would be a long time coming. He says the current dispute dates back to 2020, when fertilizer manufacturer Mosaic filed a petition alleging Moroccan phosphate imports were being subsidized unfairly. After reviewing the case, the ITC and Department of Commerce imposed countervailing duties on those imports.

“And basically what we have is a situation where The Mosaic Company came to the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce back in 2020 and asked for a countervailing duty, a CVD, to be placed on Moroccan fertilizer,” Vaughan says. “They were claiming that Moroccan fertilizer was coming into the United States in an unfair manner.”

He says the ruling reshaped the global fertilizer flow into the U.S. market.

“The ITC and the Department of Commerce reviewed that request and they applied a countervailing duty on Moroccan fertilizer, which effectively locked Moroccan fertilizer out of the U.S. market,” Vaughan says.

That outcome, he says, has had lasting consequences, particularly because Morocco represents one of the world’s most significant sources of phosphate.

“Morocco has the largest phosphate deposits in the world,” Vaughan says. “They have the ability to provide a lot of supply to us while our phosphate rock resources are declining here. They’re not capable of meeting the demand for the U.S. market.”

Supply Constraints Meet Rising Demand

For corn growers, phosphate isn’t optional. It’s essential for root development, plant vigor and yield potential. When supply tightens, growers feel it quickly and often adjust in ways that ripple across the entire agricultural economy.

“We need that access to the Moroccan fertilizer, but we’re blocked off from it by these countervailing duties,” Vaughan says.

Now, five years after those duties were imposed, the policy is entering its required “sunset review,” a process that allows regulators to evaluate whether the measures should remain in place.

That review begins in April, and Vaughan says corn growers see it as a critical opportunity to get the duties removed.

“Five years have gone by since those CVDs were applied, and now they are coming up for mandatory review,” he says. “There will be an opportunity to remove those CVDs.”

Measuring the Economic Impact

The push to remove the duties is backed by economic analysis.

Vaughan says conversations with lawmakers last year helped spur a deeper look at the issue. During meetings in Washington, D.C., Texas Corn raised concerns with members of Congress, including Rep. Pat Fallon, who then commissioned a study by the Texas A&M Ag and Food Policy Center. The results, Vaughan says, were significant.

“What they determined is for the program crops — corn, wheat, grains, oilseeds, rice — it had cost about $6.9 billion over the five years that the CVD has been in place,” Vaughan says.

The analysis released in January of this year added to the growing body of evidence that countervailing duties on phosphate imports have significantly impacted U.S. farmers.

The Texas A&M Food and Agricultural Policy Center report specifically found the CVD increased the price of diammonium phosphate (DAP), a commonly used phosphorus fertilizer, by 28.6% during the period when the duty was set at its full initial rate of 19.97%. That price impact, the study notes, aligns with concerns raised by farm groups and lawmakers, as well as previous academic research.

The study also estimates the higher costs have added roughly $6.9 billion to phosphorus fertilizer expenses for U.S. producers of major crops during the 2021 through 2025 growing seasons, further underscoring the financial burden on agriculture tied to the policy.

“It’s not a silver bullet in itself that if it’s removed it’s going to make phosphate fertilizer much more affordable,” he says. “But at the same time, if we can keep a billion dollars in the farmers’ pockets, that’s a small win that we want to take advantage of.”

Fertilizer Companies Respond

Farm Journal reached out to fertilizer companies for perspective on potential action to remove the countervailing duties on phosphate imports.

In a statement, Mosiac said, “American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of US trade laws that ensure a level playing field. Mosaic is proud to support U.S. agriculture with high‑quality, reliable products produced here at home.”

Earlier this month, Nutrien told Farm Journal the evolving global supply and demand landscape for phosphate supports reconsideration of the current policy.

“Based on evolving global phosphate supply and demand dynamics since 2021, we believe removing countervailing duties on phosphate imports would be a constructive step that supports U.S. farmer economics, balanced fertilizer application and agricultural productivity,” Nutrien said to Farm Journal. “Farmers and food security are at the center of everything we do, and we continuously engage with our customers and associations on issues that are important to U.S. agriculture.”

A Broader Policy Question

While Vaughan is advocating for the removal of these specific duties, he says he recognizes the importance of trade enforcement tools more broadly.

“You know, we do have situations around the world where governments subsidize their industries, or they do things that are unfair trade practices,” he says. “And we need to protect U.S. industry in those situations.”

However, he argues this case highlights the risk of unintended consequences.

“We don’t want that CVD process abused when it’s not necessary,” Vaughan says. “And that’s the situation we feel like we’re in now.”

In his view, the duties have outlived whatever purpose they may have served — and are now doing more harm than good.

“We felt like they never should have been applied,” he says. “If you read the case, it’s very complicated, but it also makes you scratch your head and wonder why they even granted these CVDs to start with.”

Taking the Case to Washington

With the sunset review approaching, grower groups are mobilizing to make their case. Texas Corn is in Washington this week, meeting with lawmakers and encouraging them to weigh in with regulators.

“During this review period, there’s an opportunity for ag organizations to make comments and to testify at hearings,” Vaughan says. “There’s an opportunity for Congress to weigh in with the Department of Commerce.”

While the ITC operates independently, it does consider input from affected industries and elected officials.

“They’re charged with listening to the affected industries, which would be agricultural producers,” Vaughan says. “And of course members of Congress have an opportunity to weigh in with how it’s affecting their constituents at home.”

The goal, he says, is to ensure decision-makers understand the real-world impact.

Looking Ahead

For Vaughan and other corn growers, the outcome of the review could shape fertilizer markets — and farm economics — for years to come.

Restoring access to Moroccan phosphate, he says, would reintroduce competition, improve supply and help ease cost pressures across agriculture.

“It’s basically just hurting U.S. industry now,” Vaughan says. “It’s not helping.”

And while Morocco has other markets for its fertilizer, U.S. farmers have fewer alternatives when domestic supply falls short.

“It’s not really hurting the Moroccans per se,” he says. “They’re having to send fertilizer to other places in the world. But it’s hurting U.S. farmers.”

As planting season ramps up, Vaughan says the stakes are clear, not just for growers, but for the entire food system.

“We’re very hopeful that ag organizations and members of Congress take advantage of this situation and weigh in,” he says. “This is an opportunity to fix something that’s been costing agriculture for five years.”

The Iran War Is Sending Fertilizer Prices Soaring at the Worst Time for Farmers

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 18:43:17 GMT

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is urging the Trump administration to take immediate action to stabilize fertilizer supply chains as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East send shockwaves through global input markets just as U.S. farmers begin spring planting. But with farmers already dealing with high fertilizer prices, even before the conflict in Iran, farmers are searching for a longer-term solution. Fertilizer market analysts warn while there are several options longer-term, there is no single fix for high fertilizer prices, only a mix of short-term policy responses and long-term investments that could gradually stabilize supply.

But today, the sticker shock is hitting farmers hard, especially for those who waited to book fertilizer for spring. Fertilizer prices have shot up in just a week. Typically, retailers may receive updated pricing once or twice a month. But with the ongoing uncertainty in Iran and the impact on the Strait of Hormuz is having on fertilizer shipments, some retailers say they are getting several pricing updates a day.

The price shock is real for farmers. One local Missouri retailer told AgWeb that in just a two-week period:

Urea is up $140 per ton
NH3 has risen $100 per ton
UAN is also up $100 per ton

American Farm Bureau Calls for Intervention

In a March 9 letter to the White House , AFBF warned fertilizer and fuel prices have surged following disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy and shipping corridors. The organization says the spike in costs comes as farmers are already dealing with what it describes as a “generational decline in farm income” driven by falling crop prices and persistent inflation.

AFBF notes farmers entered 2026 on somewhat stronger footing after passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and $12 billion in emergency economic assistance. However, the group warns rapidly rising input costs could quickly erase those gains, and now U.S. producers are bracing for a system shock resulting from the disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Middle East Tensions Highlight Fertilizer Market Risks

New analysis from AFBF’s Market Intel team underscores why fertilizer markets are particularly vulnerable to geopolitical instability involving Iran and neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf. Nitrogen fertilizer supply chains are closely tied to the region, which accounts for nearly 49% of global urea exports and about 30% of global ammonia exports. Major exporters include Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

AFBF says the Strait of Hormuz is central to energy and fertilizer trade. Oil flowing through the Strait averaged about 20 million barrels per day in 2024, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption. Because energy is a major input to fertilizer production and transportation, disruptions or heightened risk in the region can amplify volatility across agricultural input markets.

(American Farm Bureau Federation )

Large volumes of fertilizer inputs, including urea, ammonia, phosphates and sulfur, move through the Strait of Hormuz each year, creating a major choke point for agricultural supply chains. AFBF says energy markets are also closely linked to fertilizer production. Their estimates point to roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day moving through the Strait, about 20% of global petroleum consumption. Because energy is a major input in fertilizer manufacturing and transportation, disruptions in the region can quickly amplify price volatility.

AFBF economists say Iran holds some of the world’s largest natural gas reserves, and natural gas is the key feedstock used to produce ammonia, the foundational input for most nitrogen fertilizers. Urea, which contains about 46% nitrogen, is the most widely used solid nitrogen fertilizer globally and plays a central role in crop production systems.

(American Farm Bureau Federation )

The timing of the disruption is especially concerning because U.S. farmers are currently making fertilizer purchases and applying nutrients ahead of planting. Analysts on U.S. Farm Report last weekend warned higher input costs could shift up to 1 million 1.5 million acres from corn to soybeans this spring . AFBF analysts also say delayed shipments or higher prices could lead some farmers to adjust cropping plans.

Why U.S. Farmers Feel Global Price Swings

Even when the United States is not directly importing fertilizer from the Middle East, domestic prices still follow global markets.
The U.S. relies on both domestic production and imports to meet fertilizer demand. According to AFBF, the U.S. imports roughly:

97% of its potassium
18% of its nitrogen
13% of its phosphate

That global exposure means disruptions anywhere in the fertilizer supply chain can quickly affect American farmers.

A new AFBF Market Intel report shows the U.S. relies on both domestic production and imports to meet fertilizer demand, and import exposure varies by nutrient. Roughly 97% of potassium is imported, 18% of nitrogen and 13% of phosphate. This import exposure increases sensitivity to global trade disruptions, particularly during seasonal demand peaks.

(American Farm Bureau Federation)

Short-Term Fixes: Policy and Supply

In the letter sent to the White House this week, AFBF president Zippy Duvall not only pointed out the fertilizer problem farmers now face, but he also outlined several steps the administration could take immediately to prevent supply disruptions and moderate prices.

Among the recommendations:

Using the U.S. Navy to help ensure safe maritime transit for fertilizer shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.
Working with international partners to maintain open shipping lanes.
Addressing insurance barriers for vessels transporting fertilizer cargo through federal tools, such as programs administered by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
Ensuring domestic ports, railroads and barge systems can quickly move fertilizer supplies to farms.
Temporarily waiving the Jones Act to improve domestic shipping capacity between U.S. ports.
Suspending countervailing duties on certain imported fertilizer products.

But while those actions could help ease pressure in the short term, fertilizer analysts say structural challenges in the market remain.

Are Fertilizer Prices in a Worst-Case Scenario?

While fertilizer is even more of a concern heading into spring, prices were already high, even before the situation unfolded in Iran earlier this month. According to Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX Group, many farmers are asking a more immediate question: Have fertilizer prices already reached the worst-case scenario?

Linville says the answer is “no.”

The reason, he explains, is that global fertilizer markets remain highly sensitive to geopolitical developments — particularly those affecting major shipping lanes.

At the moment, much of that uncertainty centers around tensions involving Iran and the potential threat to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy and fertilizer trade routes.

“Right now we still hold onto the hope that, within a couple days, we will put so much pressure on the Iranian regime and take out so many of their leaders that they become a shell,” Linville says. “All of a sudden they can no longer do the offensive attacks. They can no longer pressure the Strait of Hormuz and cause vessels to sit there and say, ‘I will not risk my ship, I will not risk my crew and I will not risk my load to go through a channel that’s that dangerous.’”

If tensions escalate to the point shipping companies refuse to move vessels through the region, fertilizer supply chains could face significant disruptions. A large portion of global nitrogen and phosphate trade flows through the Middle East, making the waterway critical to international fertilizer logistics.

But if the situation stabilizes quickly, Linville believes markets could recover just as fast.

“If we can knee-cap them to the point that they no longer have an offensive capability, and we can free flow back in the Strait of Hormuz, we’ve only lost several days — maybe a week,” he says. “And I think we can make that up very, very quickly.”

That means geopolitical risk remains one of the biggest wild cards in fertilizer markets. Prices could move sharply higher if trade routes are disrupted, but they could also stabilize if those risks fade.

What Are Possible Longer-Term Fixes?

While fertilizer prices may not have even seen the highs, especially if ships through the Strait aren’t able to get through, farmers searching for a single solution to high fertilizer prices are likely to be frustrated.

“People keep asking, ‘How do we fix this? How do we fix this?’” Linville says during a recent appearance on the Unscripted podcast . “No one answer is going to fix every fertilizer.”

Instead, Linville says the conversation needs to separate short-term relief from long-term structural fixes. When he looks at the nitrogen market, which includes urea, UAN and ammonia, Linville says there is at least one potential short-term lever policymakers could pull.

“In the short term, when I look at urea, when I look at nitrogen, my short-term view is simple: Get rid of DEF. Get rid of those regulations,” he says.

Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), which is used in emissions systems for diesel engines, relies on urea as a key ingredient. Linville says that policy requirement diverts nitrogen away from agriculture.

“Everybody is begging for it because it’s terrible for equipment, and it puts a lot of that nitrogen back in the hands of the farmer,” Linville says. “That is a quick fix.”

But he says the bigger issue for nitrogen markets is production capacity.

Natural gas is the primary feedstock used to produce nitrogen fertilizer, and the United States and Canada have some of the cheapest natural gas supplies in the world. Yet North America still relies heavily on imported fertilizer.

“Longer term, we need to look at trying to invest more money,” Linville says. “Get similar-type loans to build new nitrogen facilities in the U.S. and Canada, wherever that might be. It needs to be a North America approach. That’s a long-term fix.”

Linville says governments have already shown a willingness to support fertilizer development projects, but those efforts have focused on the wrong nutrients.

“The government has given long-term loans to potash mines. That’s the one product we really don’t need more of,” he says. “I like that focus. I like that we’re increasing it. But potash is literally the last one that we need help with.”

Instead, he says those same financing tools should be directed toward nitrogen production facilities.

Building Fertilizer Plants Is a Massive Investment

Even if policymakers and investors move quickly, Linville says expanding fertilizer production is not a fast process. Fertilizer plants are some of the most complex and expensive facilities in the agricultural supply chain.

“It is multi-years and multi-billions of U.S. dollars,” Linville says.

To illustrate the scale of investment required, he points to a recent nitrogen plant transaction in Iowa.

“The Wever, Iowa, plant just sold not so long ago for $3-plus billion,” Linville says. “If the three of us came together and said, ‘You know what, let’s build a plant,’ a brand new world-scale facility is probably going to be $4 billion.”

Even after construction begins, production still takes time.

“You won’t see the first ton be produced and sold at a profit, at a margin, for probably at least 1.5 to 2 years, bare minimum. It’s a massive undertaking. There’s a lot of engineering, a lot of construction, a lot of land clearing. It’s not a fast process,” he says.

Still, Linville says increasing domestic production would help stabilize global fertilizer markets over time.

“If we produce here, we have more global supplies and less global demand because the U.S. and Canada are no longer calling on the rest of the world trying to buy these tons,” Linville says. “It helps smooth out the price curve.”

Should Fertilizer Companies Be Investigated?

As fertilizer prices climb, some policymakers are calling for closer scrutiny of the industry, citing concerns about consolidation and potential market manipulation. Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an antitrust investigation into the U.S. fertilizer sector. According to a report from Bloomberg News, the probe is examining whether major fertilizer producers may have coordinated to push prices higher.

Companies reportedly included in the investigation are Nutrien, The Mosaic Company, CF Industries Holdings, Koch Industries and Yara International, firms that collectively represent a significant share of the U.S. nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizer markets.

That’s in addition to USDA also saying an investigation would occur into fertilizer pricing, calling Mosaic and Nutrien a ‘duopoly.’

Linville says those investigations are unlikely to solve the underlying issue.

“You’re going to hear a lot of farmers’ heads pop off when I say this, but I’m going to say ‘no,’” Linville says.

Instead, he points to price data from the New Orleans fertilizer market, commonly referred to as NOLA, which serves as the benchmark for U.S. urea prices.

“Look at our NOLA urea price,” Linville says. “Again, New Orleans, Louisiana, it’s the most visible market out there. NOLA to urea is the same as Chicago is to corn. It’s our base place for that trade.”

When those prices are compared to global benchmarks, Linville says the U.S. market has actually been trading below world values.

“When you look at the NOLA urea price compared to the Middle East replacement value, and we watch the Middle East because half of our urea imports come from that region, we have been operating at a discount for the entirety of this fertilizer year since July 1, 2025. There’s not been a week where our price has been a premium to the world.” Linville adds.

Because the U.S. still imports millions of tons of fertilizer each year, domestic prices inevitably follow the global market.

“It doesn’t matter if you have three dozen manufacturers or three,” Linville says. “Our price is still going to ebb and flow with that world product price because we are still a net importer.”

Tariffs on Moroccan, Russian Phosphate Imports Up for Review

While nitrogen markets are heavily tied to natural gas and production capacity, phosphate fertilizers face a different set of challenges, particularly trade policy.

The U.S. currently has countervailing duties on phosphate imports from Morocco and Russia that were implemented in 2021. Those duties are approaching a required five-year “sunset review,” which will determine whether they remain in place. That’s one thing AFBF stated this week that they’d like to see the Trump administration address.

But even before this week, groups such as NCGA have called on both the Trump and Biden administrations to remove the tariff, saying it’s only further driving up the prices farmers are paying.

“The countervailing duty against Morocco and Russia was officially put into place late March, early April 2021,” Linville says. “And it’s got a five-year sunset review. That’s exactly what we’re getting ready to move into.”

Some in the industry believe the review could result in those duties being overturned, opening the door for additional phosphate imports, but Linville isn’t convinced that outcome is likely.

“There’s a lot of excitement that they’re going to review this and overturn it,” he says. “I will say I have a higher-than-I-should optimism that they will overturn it and get rid of it. But the history of countervailing duty reviews would tell you there’s a very low chance that they’re going to overturn it.”

The reason is simple: Those reviews are supposed to be driven strictly by data. And in this case, the underlying conditions that led to the tariffs haven’t changed dramatically.

“Russia hasn’t changed practices. I don’t know that Morocco has changed enough of their practices.”

Still, he believes there is at least some possibility the political environment could influence the outcome.

“I have never seen an administration talk about fertilizer as much as this one has,” Linville says. “Because there’s been so much focus on the farmer and on fertilizer markets, there could be a political lean where they say, ‘Listen, I know what’s going on. You need to do something about this.’”

Even so, he cautions against farmers expecting a reversal.

A Complex Market With No Single Fix

Ultimately, fertilizer markets are shaped by a complex mix of energy prices, global trade flows, geopolitics and production capacity.
That means solving the fertilizer price puzzle will likely require a combination of policies, investments and international partnerships.

For farmers heading into the 2026 planting season, however, the immediate concern remains whether fertilizer supplies will arrive in time and at prices they can afford.

“It’s simple, guys,” Linville says. “But every fertilizer has a different path to fixing it.”

Splitting USMCA Into Two Separate Trade Deals Would Be a Mistake, Argues Trade Groups

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:33:16 GMT

With the 2026 review of the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaching, President Donald Trump is signaling he may seek to replace the current three-nation pact with separate bilateral trade deals for Canada and Mexico. The move, driven by dissatisfaction with elements of the existing agreement, would shift away from the trilateral framework in favor of one-on-one negotiations aimed at addressing specific trade disputes, particularly with Canada, and could reshape the structure of North American agricultural trade.

The future of USMCA, and the importance of a trade deal with both Canada and Mexico, is one of the hallmark discussions taking place during Commodity Classic this week.

During a roundtable in San Antonio, just steps away from where North America’s modern trade era began, Farmers for Free Trade made its case: keep the three-nation trade pact intact and make it stronger for U.S. agriculture.

Speaking on “AgriTalk” from Commodity Classic, Farmers for Free Trade executive director Brian Kuehle told Michelle Rook renewing and strengthening the USMCA is one of the most important trade priorities facing the Trump administration.

“This agreement is critically important for U.S. agriculture,” Kuehle says.

North America: Agriculture’s $60 Billion Neighborhood

USMCA is scheduled for a mandatory joint review and potential renewal on July 1, 2026, six years after it entered into force. This review, part of the agreement’s sunset clause, allows the United States, Mexico and Canada to confirm their commitment to the deal and extend it, with formal discussions already underway.

But Farmers for Free Trade says Mexico and Canada aren’t just neighbors. They are the top two export markets for U.S. farm goods.

According to Kuehle, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada totaled nearly $60 billion last year, up from just $9 billion before the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994. Mexico is now the largest export destination for U.S. corn, while Canada is a leading buyer of U.S. ethanol and a key market for dairy, meat and specialty crops.

For Texas alone, agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada reached $6.4 billion in 2025.

“That’s a lot of food and ag products going out to these two countries,” Kuehle says. “For one state, that’s significant.”

The original NAFTA laid the foundation for that growth. Its successor, the USMCA, was negotiated during Trump’s first term and updated the rules but preserved the integrated North American market.

Now, with a mandatory review looming, Farmers for Free Trade wants the administration to renew the pact and avoid splintering it into separate bilateral deals.

Keep the Three Nations Together

The current push by the administration is to break up the current USMCA, moving to two bilateral deals. But is this just posturing? Kuehle says talk of negotiating separate one-on-one deals with Mexico and Canada echoes the 2018 process, when Mexico negotiated first and Canada joined later. But he warns formally splitting the agreement would be a mistake.

“I think it would be a colossal error to split the two apart and try to do two bilateral deals,” he says. “We want everyone in the same tent working together for an integrated market.”

The strength of USMCA, he argues, is in its predictability, stable rules for the road and a formal dispute resolution system. That mechanism proved critical when Mexico attempted to ban imports of genetically modified corn. The U.S. successfully challenged the move under USMCA’s dispute process, preserving market access for American growers.

“That’s why free trade agreements are so important,” Kuehle says. “We can depend on those exports.”

Farm Groups Push for USMCA Renewal

Forty national farm and agricultural organizations have also announced the formation of the Agricultural Coalition for the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, launching a coordinated push to secure renewal of USMCA ahead of its mandatory 2026 review.

The coalition says the agreement serves as a critical economic engine for U.S. agriculture and is urging policymakers to renew it with targeted improvements, rather than risk uncertainty in export markets. As part of the roll out, the group unveiled a new website and began an aggressive advertising campaign in Washington, D.C., aimed at highlighting the benefits the pact has delivered to farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses. The effort comes as the administration prepares for the formal review process required under the agreement.

“USMCA is one of President Trump’s signature achievements and one that has significantly propelled the ag economy,” says Bryan Goodman, a spokesperson for the new coalition. “We are not saying it’s perfect, as some changes are warranted, but we are saying it is of paramount importance to farmers that all three countries renew the agreement.”

If all parties agree to extend it, the pact would remain in force for another 16 years, with a subsequent review in 2032. If renewal efforts fail and a country opts to withdraw, the agreement would terminate in 2036. Alternatively, the review could shift into annual consultations without resolution, creating prolonged uncertainty for agricultural producers.

The Trump administration has signaled renewal is not automatic, though officials have acknowledged the agreement has delivered measurable benefits.

“Our farmers make decisions a year or more in advance,” Goodman says. “They need the certainty of knowing USMCA is here to stay.”

Coalition leaders argue Trump reshaped North American trade policy by negotiating and signing the pact, and they plan to emphasize that message in the months ahead.

“We want to protect this agreement and build on what President Trump started in his first term,” Goodman says. “We are confident we will be able to share the facts and farmer testimony that will help the Trump administration benefit rural communities throughout the process of the 2026 review.”

A Bright Spot Amid Tariff Turbulence

As broader tariff battles reshape global trade, North America has remained comparatively stable — something Kuehle describes as a bright light for agriculture.

While targeted tariffs can serve a purpose in response to unfair trade practices, he cautions against broad, across-the-board tariffs that raise input costs for farmers and consumer prices at home.

He also stresses the importance of congressional involvement in trade policy. USMCA was negotiated under trade promotion authority, passed by Congress and enacted into law, giving it durability beyond a single administration.

By contrast, Kuehle says, executive-only tariff deals lack transparency and long-term certainty.

“Is it a deal that exists beyond a president’s term? Does it have staying power?” he asks. “That’s the difference between going it alone and following the constitutional structure where Congress has authority over trade.”

Fix What Needs Fixing… Without Burning Bridges

All of this talk doesn’t mean USMCA is perfect, Kuehle says.

Dairy access into Canada remains a sticking point, and Kuehle says the administration is right to push for improvements. But he cautions against rhetoric that could alienate a critical partner.

“We want to be fair but firm,” he says, echoing advice from former U.S. Sen. Max Baucus. “Nobody likes to be bullied.”

He warns unnecessarily straining relations could push Canada toward deeper ties with the European Union or China — a shift that would undermine decades of North American integration.

“We don’t want Canada orienting toward the EU,” he says. “We want them continuing to orient toward us.”

A United Front at Commodity Classic

At Commodity Classic, that message is resonating across farm country.

Kuehle says commodity groups, from corn and soybeans to wheat and sorghum, are largely united in supporting renewal of USMCA. Farmers for Free Trade hosted a roundtable discussion at the historic site in San Antonio where NAFTA was originally signed in 1992, symbolically “going back to the original location.”

The organization is also collecting farmer signatures, urging Congress and the administration to renew and strengthen the agreement.

“U.S. ag obviously sometimes has its differences,” Kuehle says. “But on USMCA, it’s darn near united.”

As the review process unfolds, Farmers for Free Trade hopes unity translates into action, preserving what many producers see as the backbone of American agricultural trade.

For Kuehle, the stakes are simple: Protect the integrated North American market farmers depend on and make sure it continues delivering for the next generation.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Use of Emergency Powers for Trump's Tariffs

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:32:45 GMT

In a landmark ruling with major implications for U.S. trade and agriculture, the Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. The 6-3 decision confirms that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president authority to issue broad import duties.

The Supreme Court case known as “Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump” is an end to a legal battle that started nearly a year ago. The tariffs at issue, which were originally imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were first challenged in court in April 2025 when companies, including educational toy makers Learning Resources and hand2mind, sued in federal court shortly after the duties were announced. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

In the case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump the court ruled, “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”

“IEEPA gives the president significant authority over transactions involving foreign property, including the importation of goods. But in that generous delegation, one power is conspicuously missing,” said the decision. “Nothing in IEEPA’s text, nor anything in its context, enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. And needless to say, without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand.”

The Court’s ruling on Friday has major implications.

Initially, grain futures weakened after the ruling. Soybeans turned lower on fears the decision takes away a key bargaining chip ahead of Trump’s April meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, raising questions about whether Beijing will follow through on additional soybean purchases. The ruling, however, could be supportive in the event it prompts China to drop its tariff on U.S. soybean imports.

Stocks rallied, with major U.S. indexes extending gains after the ruling, while Treasury yields jumped and the U.S. dollar weakened against major rivals.

The decision is a blow to President Trump’s economic agenda. The president imposed what he called reciprocal tariffs on several countries in April 2025, calling trade deficits a national emergency.

What This Means for Trump’s Tariffs

Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, had previously struck down these tariffs as exceeding executive authority. The Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, which means tariffs imposed solely under IEEPA now lack a valid legal foundation. Importers could see injunctions halting collections, and companies that already paid duties may seek refunds, potentially putting billions of dollars of federal revenue at risk.

But not all Trump-era tariffs are affected. Duties imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which are deemed as national security tariffs, as well as the ones under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which are China-related tariffs, rely on separate statutory authority and remain intact unless challenged independently.

What This Means for Farmers, Agriculture and the Future of Trade

For agriculture, the ruling adds uncertainty to future trade leverage strategies. Many farm groups have viewed tariffs as both a negotiating tool and a source of retaliation risk.

The Court’s decision reinforces separation-of-powers limits, signaling that major shifts in tariff policy must originate in Congress, not through broad interpretations of emergency statutes.

Now that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs has been struck down as exceeding executive authority, tariffs based solely on that law are unlikely to stand without congressional approval, while those enacted under other trade statutes remain in place, for now.

The ruling narrows presidential flexibility on trade and could reshape how future administrations approach tariff policy.

President Trump Reacts By Announcing New Tariffs

Speaking later in the day on Friday, President Trump announced he would issue a new 10% “global tariff,” while also arguing the Court’s decision limited one tool but clarified others, claiming the justices had effectively strengthened presidential trade authority by narrowing the scope of IEEPA rather than tariffs themselves.

In a swift response to the high court’s decision, Trump announced Friday that he will sign an executive order imposing a new 10% “global tariff,” just hours after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down his sweeping “reciprocal” import duties in a 6-3 ruling.

The new tariffs will be invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and layered on top of other levies that remain in place following the court’s decision. Speaking during a White House press briefing, Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” for lacking “the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

The court’s ruling invalidated the legal foundation underpinning many of the tariffs Trump has argued are essential to strengthening the U.S. economy and rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity. Despite the setback, Trump signaled he will pursue alternative avenues to maintain and expand tariffs without congressional approval.

“I don’t have to,” Trump said when asked why he would not work with lawmakers. “I have the right to do tariffs.”

His remarks grew increasingly pointed, including criticism of Justices he nominated who joined the majority. Trump said he believed their decision was “terrible” and “an embarrassment,” underscoring his frustration with the outcome.

Tariffs imposed under Section 122 can remain in effect for up to 150 days. Any extension beyond that period would require approval from Congress.

Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs

Farmers for Free Trade quickly weighed in following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the President’s authority to impose global tariffs under IEEPA.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward restoring predictability and the rule of law in American trade policy,” says Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade. “Tariffs imposed under IEEPA have been devastating for American farmers, driving up costs for inputs like fertilizer, equipment, and parts while triggering retaliatory tariffs that cut off critical export markets. Farmers have been caught in the crossfire, paying more for what they need while losing access to the customers they depend on.”

Kuehl notes while the ruling removes one source of uncertainty, concerns remain that new tariffs could be imposed through other legal avenues.

“Any new approach would likely invite the same retaliation from our trading partners that has already caused so much damage to American farmers. Tariffs hurt farmers on both ends, raising what they pay and reducing where they can sell,” he says.

The priority should now be stabilizing trade relationships and expanding market access for U.S. agricultural products, Kuehl adds, urging the administration to work with Congress on comprehensive trade solutions that “open markets rather than close them.”

According to Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economics at Fitch Ratings, the Court’s ruling is a material rollback because more than 60% of the 2025 tariffs effectively vanish. The U.S. effective tariff rate drops from about 13% to around 6%, removing more than $200 billion in expected annual tariff collections.

“Call it Liberation Day 2.0 — arguably the first one with tangible upside for U.S. consumers and corporate profitability,” he says. “However, the bigger macro takeaway is not just ‘lower tariffs,’ but ‘higher tariff-regime uncertainty.’ The odds that tariffs reappear in a revised form remain meaningful. Layer on potential tariff refunds, and you introduce a messy operational and legal overhang that amplifies economic uncertainty.”

In response to the ruling, the American Soybean Association (ASA) issued the following statement from Scott Metzger, ASA President and Ohio farmer: “The case at the Supreme Court has been closely followed by soybean farmers who have seen the cost of inputs rise over the past year due to tariffs. U.S. soybean growers are reliant upon imports for critical farming tools like fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and agriculture equipment. Moving forward, certainty and dependable market access are essential for U.S. soy to remain competitive globally. Because farmers are caught in a cost-price squeeze and ag input costs remain high, we urge the President to refrain from imposing tariffs on agricultural inputs using other authorities. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress to strengthen market opportunities and support a stable farm economy for generations to come.”

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying the limits of IEEPA and reaffirming that broad, country-specific tariffs fall outside its intended scope.

“While targeted tariffs can be a tool for addressing inequities between trading partners, the broad application of this blunt instrument can disrupt markets, raise consumer costs, and place unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain,” IFPA said in a statement. “IFPA does not believe tariffs should be used as a default response to every trade concern facing the United States, nor should this ruling simply prompt a shift to other tariff authorities. Instead, IFPA hopes this ruling allows policymakers to move beyond broad tariff actions and continue working toward lower trade barriers that ensure affordable access to fresh produce and floral products.

“While tariffs have been one challenge for the fresh produce and floral sectors, IFPA appreciates the administration’s commitment to easing regulatory burdens and supporting American agriculture and looks forward to working with policymakers on long-term solutions — such as equitable trade agreements, regulatory reform and workforce stability — that strengthen food security and ensure affordable, accessible produce for all families.”

What Now? Exploring Alternatives to IEEPA Tariffs

While the Supreme Court’s ruling removes the legal foundation for tariffs imposed under IEEPA, it does not mean U.S. import duties are going away anytime soon. According to a recent op-ed , President Trump still has options when it comes to using tariffs as a tool. However, trade experts say while there are other options, statutory guardrails may limit some of the more rapid changes seen under IEEPA.

According to the recent analysis, the possible alternatives include:

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: The basis for existing China tariffs. This gives the U.S. Trade Representative broad authority to target “unfair” foreign trade practices, allowing for unilateral action once investigations conclude.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Used for national security tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and other goods. Courts have been deferential to the administration’s claims, and new tariffs under this authority could generate revenue comparable to IEEPA tariffs.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Intended to address balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges or quotas. While the statute has never been used for this purpose, it allows short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent, which could be reimposed in cycles without a congressional vote, though this strategy would likely face legal challenges.

As the op-ed points out, the Supreme Court ruling eliminates one controversial path for tariffs, but Washington still has multiple avenues to impose import duties, and legal challenges are almost certain to follow any new moves.

U.S. Soybeans at a Crossroads: Navigating China Trade and Brazil’s Rise

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:27:14 GMT

Deglobalization is nothing new in agriculture — the U.S. has been losing export share for decades. As rapid expansion and modernization continue around the world, the ag industry is navigating new pressures and opportunities to remain competitive. Experts who work directly in global trade say American farmers need to recognize what’s changing and what it could mean for their operations.

China Trade Framework Details

U.S. farmers were excited when President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi struck a trade truce and framework in South Korea on Oct. 30, especially the 12 MMT of soybean purchases . However, the lack of clarity on if the commitments were for the calendar year or the marketing year left the market in disarray.

At the 2026 Top Producer Summit, Jiang Lyu, minister for economic and commercial affairs at the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., confirmed the 12 MMT is for the current marketing year.

“You do hear those numbers from President Trump, Secretary Bessent and others,” Lyu says. “All I can share with you is that China is pretty sincere in terms of having a relationship that is anchored on mutual respect, reciprocity and, most importantly, mutual benefit. We believe stability in this trade relationship, including in the ag trade, is very important, and we hope this mutually beneficial relationship will continue.”

To date, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says China has purchased 12 MMT, but the purchases have only been made by Sinograin and Cofco, which are government entities. The 13% reciprocal tariffs China still has on U.S. soybeans makes it unfeasible for private crushers to buy and is 10% higher than the tariffs on Brazilian soybeans. The question remains, when will China eliminate that tariff?

Lyu says he’s not sure on the timing, but that China would like to advance discussions between the two countries to the point that tariff could be eliminated. There is hope that can happen when the two leaders meet in April.

“This is, to borrow your word, a trade truce,” said Lyu. “So the truce has a time of one year. We would like this one year to be extended and preferably into eternity.”

Opportunities to Expand China Trade

The Chinese market is ripe for expanding trade, according to Lyu, through new areas of U.S. and China agricultural cooperation. He cites platforms, such as the China International Import Expo, will bring new opportunities for U.S. agriculture.

The China-U.S. economic and trade relations benefit both sides when they cooperate, adds the minister, but harm both when they are confrontational. However, he says the Chinese market has broad prospects and large capacity, and bilateral trade meets mutual needs.

China to Buy 8 MMT More Soybeans?

Meanwhile, President Trump posted via social media on Feb. 3 that China had agreed to buy another 8 MMT of old-crop soybeans from the U.S. Why would China purchase from the U.S. when Brazil’s soybeans are over $1 cheaper than U.S. soybeans?

While this doesn’t make economic sense, Susan Stroud with No Bull Ag says these political goodwill purchases are being made by government entities to put in their reserve. Lyu says the relationship needs to be stabilized before moving forward.

“China and the U.S. need to reposition their relationship overall so that we have a bigger-picture arrangement in which China is no longer considered as a rival competitor to an extent, not a rival or enemy of the United States,” Lyu says. “There are so many things happening here that also hamper China’s interest, such as Chinese exports into this country or the Chinese investment into this country, so we would like this relationship to be totally benign.”

Under the latest trade framework, China is also expected to buy 25 MMT of U.S. soybeans for the following three years.

“If you consider the potential for 25 million metric ton per year in three subsequent years that’s still well below the five-year average,” Stroud says. “China has yet to confirm any of these amounts that have been touted by Washington.”

There’s still the lingering question about what happens after that? The U.S. is already a secondary supplier of soybeans to China behind Brazil.

Brazil Primary Supplier of Soybeans to China

Brazil is producing over 6.5 billion bushels of soybeans annually, and Stroud says their rapid conversion of pastureland into soybean production has reshaped global flows.

“A 5% average increase in soy area annually has taken them from an emerging market to a global powerhouse in the blink of an eye,” she explains.

Brazil first outexported the U.S. in 2012. Today, exports more than double the U.S. program. Since the last trade war, Stroud says Brazil has added 30 million acres of soybeans, which is a harvested area larger than the top four U.S. soybean states combined in 2025.

“In the past 25 years, Brazil has accounted for half of all of soybean global area expansion,” Stroud says. “When you have a tremendous growth in production, naturally, you’re getting rid of it via export.”

Stroud says Brazil is actively making infrastructure improvements from farm to port to not only accommodate its expanding production but also improve efficiency. China actively has a hand in this as Brazil is their number one supplier of soybeans. On average, 50% of Brazil’s total soy demand is exported to China compared with one in four bushels of U.S. soybean demand.

Brazil Has Room to Expand Soybean Acres

Brazil has the potential to expand acreage by converting an available 70 million acres of degraded pasture to cropland. Aaron Edwards with Santos Springs LLC says Brazil’s growth is far from over.

“For every acre of row-crop land, there’s two acres of degraded pasture,” Edwards says. “Without any deforestation, a significant amount of that land could become row crops.”

Agronomically, he says, with a few tons of lime, phosphorus and minimum tillage, in two or three crops these fields could be producing on par with Midwestern “I” states.

“Every acre you bring into soybean production, about one-third also become double-crop corn or double-cropped cotton acres,” Edwards adds. “Brazil expansion is a bear.”

Then there’s the potential of improvements via irrigation. He’s hearing estimates of 10 million acres going under pivot within the next decade.

“It’s a tropical climate, so one acre of irrigation is three crops a year, depending on the mix, or seven crops in two years,” Edwards explains. “That right there is 30 million acres equivalent of production.”

Currently, they have less than 15% on-farm storage and that leaves potential for better margin management on the table.

“Basis swings on soybeans are $2 to $3,” Edwards says. “Margins can increase just by putting in on-farm storage and managing basis.”

It takes a massive amount of capital investment to drive acreage and yield growth, he adds, but it creates long-term supply pressure in global oilseeds.

The Brazil “Paradox:” Expansion Amid Bankruptcies

The paradox, Edwards says, is how does Brazil rapidly expand amid bankruptcies, but he thinks the two can coexist.

“The primary economic incentive isn’t operating margins — it’s land appreciation from converting pasture to cropland,” he says.

He thinks cash flows and aggressive expansion increase supply and lower prices, making periodic financial stress inevitable.

“The land appreciation of developing these lands is what’s causing the expansion, causing the bankruptcies and putting soybeans on the market at such a cheap price,” Edwards explains. “However, the microeconomic incentives of expansion are there as long as there’s land appreciation.”

Rethinking Global Competition in Soybeans

The U.S. still has structural advantages such as infrastructure and logistics, plus capital, strong risk management and supportive policy, according to Edwards.

“The U.S. is still the best place to do business, and at the end of the day, you run a business,” he adds. “We have better logistics, better capital markets, better infrastructure, better risk management tools and more supportive policy. Those are the things that allow you to run a successful business.”

With that said, Edwards says farmers might have to rethink global competition. This includes who produces the most soybeans, and who delivers the cheapest export supply? Where can farmers sustainably build profitable enterprises? He says leadership in volume doesn’t always equal leadership in farm profitability.

U.S. Needs to Pivot to Domestic Demand

The U.S. is already expanding crush a projected 30% in the next few years to process bean oil to meet the growing demand for low-carbon fuels. Stroud says that might be one of the best options for the U.S. to find more domestic demand and decrease its dependence on China and exports.

“Right now, we’re about 50% of the way there in the buildout,” Stroud says. “This marketing year, we are adding 115 million bushels of annual crush capacity. Compare that with typical exports to China in the 1-billion-bushel range and there’s really no comparison. But, we are moving the needle.”

She cautions this growth is policy dependent, but the U.S. is also exporting more soybean meal than ever before.

Argentina Viewpoint

Lee Trimmer with Green Shoots LLC has spent the last 25 years working in Argentina.

“We have great soils, we’re close to the ports and we can create crops at a better price than other places,” he says. “Honestly, it comes down to who can do it cheaper.”

However, there is a paradigm shift happening with Brazil becoming the largest exporter. As farmers, he says, they have had to reinvent their business model.

Trimmer says Argentina is also one of the most complex and unforgiving places to be a farmer. His plan was to buy machinery, build a storage facility, stay away from livestock, and try to start buying land. However, the business he built in Argentina was the exact opposite.

He says the key to staying competitive has been to find great mentors. He is also involved in a peer group in Argentina known as CREA in which farmers open up their farms to bring valuable experiences to other farmers. They talk about what works or doesn’t work on their farms and provide other advice.

“I think a lot of it has to come down to farmer savvy, education, getting to know your peers, finding niches and getting ideas from other producers,” Trimmer says.

He told farmers at Top Producer Summit they can’t do anything about trade wars with China or Brazil increasing exports every year. But they can look to their own farms and make changes that open up new opportunities.

“I encourage farmers to put time and money into educating themselves, not just on producing more bushels. Dig down deeper to make your farm and legacy resilient for the future,” he says.

Trump Confirms Support for Year-Round E-15 Deal

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 23:18:12 GMT

President Donald Trump made a planned visit to Iowa — his first since July 2025 — on Tuesday, focusing on affordability, saying Iowa families are “winning” again under his leadership. Standing in front of a packed crowd in Clive, Iowa, with signs posted on the stage and scattered throughout the crowd that said “lower prices” and “bigger paychecks,” the visit unofficially kicked off the midterm elections where costs for consumers are expected to be one of the main political talking points.

While in Iowa, President Trump highlighted what the White House calls improving economic conditions for Iowa families, pointing to lower fuel prices, tax savings and agriculture-driven growth as signs the state is “winning again.” The President touted all the trade wins, including China buying soybeans and the EU agreeing to buy U.S. ethanol. He says by removing those trade barriers, exports are starting to flow to countries that had stopped buying U.S. ag goods before he took office.

But the reality is agriculture is at a crossroads, especially on the row crop side. Even with the recent trade deals, current economic pressures are creating a crisis in agriculture. Trump did briefly mention that crisis, blaming it on former President Joe Biden.

Trump Pushes Year-Round E15 During Iowa Visit

During his speech in Iowa, President Trump reaffirmed his campaign promise to support year-round E15, signaling a major win for corn growers and the ethanol industry.

“But I’m also working hard to expand your markets domestically,” Trump says. “In the campaign, I promised to support E15 all year round. I did. E15 all year round if I get elected, and I want to let you know, we’ll start right now.”

The statement sparked applause as Trump emphasized that efforts are underway in Congress to finalize approval, calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune to deliver a deal that benefits farmers, consumers, and refiners, including small and mid-sized operations.

“I’m trusting Speaker Mike Johnson, who’s great, and Leader John Thune, who’s great, to find a deal that works. They’re very close to getting it done,” he says. “And I will sign it without delay.”

The president framed year-round E15 as a key part of his broader strategy to expand markets for U.S. corn, support rural communities, and strengthen domestic energy production.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump announces Congress is actively working on a deal to allow E15 ALL YEAR ROUND that works for farmers, consumers, & refiners.

"Congress is working on a deal, and when they send it to my desk — I will sign it without delay."pic.twitter.com/TOpo3VUDI4
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 27, 2026

Trump Highlights “Historic Turnaround” for U.S. Manufacturing, Touts Deere’s Stock Hitting All-Time High

During his Iowa visit, President Trump touted what he called a historic one-year economic turnaround, pointing to manufacturing growth and new investments across the country.

“And America is respected all over the world like they’ve never been respected,” Trump says. “I thought it would take us two years. This has been the most dramatic one-year turnaround of any country in history in terms of the speed.”

Trump spotlighted John Deere as an example of American manufacturing success. He welcomed the company’s chairman at the event and praised the expansion of production facilities, including what he called two massive new plants.

“You’re opening one in North Carolina, one someplace else, and then you’re expanding all over the place. You’re doing a great job,” he says. “I bought a lot of John Deere stuff. Great country, great company, it’s an honor to have you here.”

The president attributed much of the growth to tariffs and economic policies aimed at attracting investment back to the U.S.

“It is because of tariffs and it is also because of the fact that we had such a tremendous November 5th. That November 5 brought spirit back to our country,” Trump says.

Trump then said that proof in the growth is in the stock market’s performance, including Deere stock hitting an all-time high of 529.51 on January 21, 2026.

But with strains in the farm economy, farm equipment sales saw a steep decline in 2025. Deere and Company, which has a large footprint in the Quad Cities and Des Moines, has laid off over 3,500 employees since October 2023. That downsizing, which the company says is driven by decreasing demand and lower sales, has hit the company’s manufacturing facilities hard, including locations in Waterloo and Ankeny.

John Deere Expands U.S. Manufacturing with Two New Facilities

President Trump highlighted John Deere’s plans to open two major U.S. facilities, marking a significant boost for American manufacturing and rural jobs. The president saying Deere’s decision was due to tariffs.

After the president’s remarks, the company sent out a press release, with John Deere announcing a major expansion with two new U.S. facilities coming soon to the U.S .

Dere says it will build:

A state-of-the-art distribution center near Hebron, Indiana, and a $70 million excavator factory in Kernersville, North Carolina, both set to open within the next year.
The North Carolina factory will bring excavator production back from Japan to the U.S., making John Deere the top domestic producer of excavators.

Together, Deere says the projects are expected to create hundreds of new American jobs, strengthen local economies, and advance John Deere’s commitment to $20 billion in U.S. manufacturing investments over the next decade.

John Deere executives emphasized the expansion as a continuation of their mission to “build America”, enhance innovation, and support the nation’s agriculture, construction, and manufacturing sectors.

The Strong Push for E15 to Help Turn The Ag Economy Around

As corn growers pressed for year-round E15 ahead of the president’s visit, ethanol advocates say the issue is no longer about executive action. It’s about Congress finishing the job.

Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, says the Trump administration has already taken every step available to it through regulatory action.

Leading into Tuesday’s talk, biofuels leaders pushed for the president to focus on E15, saying rural America’s financial stress is colliding with a narrow policy window to get things like E15 done, and that could generate more demand, quickly changing the outlook for corn and soybean growers.

“What we hear from the team around the president is he did what he could,” Skor told Chip Flory during “AgriTalk” on Tuesday. “He issued an executive order. EPA gave us the summer waivers for last summer. We all know that what we need right now is an act of Congress.”

Skor says the White House wants lawmakers to deliver a bill that can be signed into law and end the seasonal E15 debate for good.

“The conversation has to be ‘Congress, do your job,’” she says. “The White House wants to see Congress get something done so they can bring a bill to his desk, so he can sign it and we can be done with this once and for all.”

That urgency is being echoed across agriculture, she says.

“I’ve got CEOs of all kinds of agriculture trade groups calling me saying: ‘What can we do to be helpful? We’ve got to get this done,’” Skor says. “All of agriculture is supportive of this.”

Iowa’s Reality: Corn Prices Below Cost of Production

Ahead of Trump’s second visit to Iowa in less than a year, corn growers and renewable fuels advocates used the moment to renew pressure for nationwide, year-round access to E15. Corn groups say the timing is critical, as lawmakers continue to stall on permanent E15 access despite strong Midwestern support. To make the push even more visible, Iowa Corn and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) released an open letter on Tuesday , thanking the president for his past support of E15 and urging him to help push the policy across the finish line in Congress, while also running a full-page ad in Tuesday’s “Des Moines Register”.

ICGA and @iowafuel today released an open letter thanking @POTUS for his constant support of nationwide, year-round #E15 and asking for his help to finally push E15 access through Congress @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/cxACXijKMN
— Iowa Corn (@iowa_corn) January 26, 2026

According to the letter, corn growers across the country, and especially in Iowa, are struggling as prices remain well below the cost of production. That pressure, they say, is rippling through the broader state economy.

The groups cite recent data from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, which ranked Iowa 50th among states for economic growth. They say expanding E15 is one of the fastest ways to reverse that trend.

“The best way to boost corn prices and create meaningful market demand is the immediate authorization of nationwide, year-round E15,” the letter states.

After Trump’s announcement on Tuesday, saying a deal is close, Iowa Corn Growers Association Vice President and farmer from Knoxville, Iowa, Steve Kuiper, expressed Iowa Corn’s appreciation, while highlighting what this could mean for farmers at a critical time.

“Iowa’s corn growers appreciate President Trump shining light on E15 and recognizing the weight this legislation holds to us as corn growers. Farmers are struggling with low commodity prices, high input costs and lack of markets. Passage of year-round E15 is the lifeline many of us need to be able to continue farming,” says Kuiper. “A recent study by Iowa Corn and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association shared the positive effects year-round E15 would mean for corn growers. This is a goal we have been working towards for over a decade and getting this issue to the president’s desk and across the finish line is a win we all desperately need. The fact that the President sees this problem and promises a solution is coming is very encouraging and valued by us as farmers.”

Fun fact: today when @realDonaldTrump referenced supporting year-round E15 on the campaign trail, that started on January 19, 2016 at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit, where he was a speaker.

The next Summit is on February 5th and is FREE and open to the public. You might want to… https://t.co/g0G57UWrbF
— Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (@iowafuel) January 28, 2026

Leading up to today’s statements by Trump, both Iowa Corn and Iowa Renewable Fuels reminded the Trump administration that year-round E15 would immediately expand domestic demand for corn at a time when farmers are under intense financial pressure. Even with the latest round of financial aid through the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program payments, 92% of agricultural economists surveyed in Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor said the row crop side of agriculture is in a recession. More than 90% said that will accelerate consolidation in agriculture — something Iowa agriculture is seeing firsthand.

Biofuels Seen as Economic Pressure Point and Opportunity

Kurt Kovarik, vice president of federal affairs at Clean Fuels Alliance America, appeared on “AgriTalk” before Trump’s talk on Tuesday. He says the group sent a letter to the president earlier this week urging the administration to focus on two immediate policy opportunities.

“We’re excited to see him head to Iowa,” Kovarik says. “We were briefed that the purpose of the conversation was to highlight economic opportunity, perhaps domestic energy dominance.”

Kovarik says Clean Fuels asked the administration to spotlight progress on renewable fuels, particularly finalizing renewable volume obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard and issuing long-awaited guidance on the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit.

“I’m sure you’ve had a lot of conversations around E15 — that’s in the hands of Congress,” he says. “So, what we want to do is highlight for the president the EPA’s efforts to finalize the renewable volume obligations under the RFS as an opportunity to provide market certainty and growth for our industry, as well as finalizing the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit guidance, which we do not yet have.”

That certainty, Kovarik says, has been missing, and the consequences have been felt across rural America.

“Our industry had a really, really tough 2025,” he says. “Following a really great ’24, ’25 was really poor, as it was along the farm economy.”

He says the downturn wasn’t driven by demand alone, but by uncertainty around federal policy.

“It was a lack of profit, lack of margin, which meant reduced capacity,” Kovarik says. “In fact, we’ve had a lot of plants idling.”

After producing more than 5 billion gallons of clean fuels domestically in 2024, Kovarik says output dropped sharply in 2025. Plants across the industry operated at just 60% to 70% of capacity.

“In some cases that may be a plant dialing back to 80%,” he says. “In a lot of cases, particularly the smaller plants, maybe in Iowa, those that don’t produce their own feedstock came offline entirely.”

But it’s not just corn at a crossroads. He says that slowdown directly affects farm demand, especially for soybean oil.

“If our industry got those two things in the near term, we would flip around this industry nearly immediately,” Kovarik says. “Turn these plants back on, buy more soybean oil, add value to the soybean farmer and get this fuel to the consumer.”

Kovarik points to renewable volume obligations as a key pressure point. Under the Biden administration’s final three-year RFS rule, biomass-based diesel volumes for 2025 were set at 3.35 billion gallons — well below what the industry was capable of producing.

“We produced over 5 billion gallons in 2024,” he says. “So, that’s part of the reason our industry had a tough year.”

Looking ahead, Clean Fuels, petroleum refiners and agriculture groups asked EPA to raise 2026 volumes to 5.25 billion gallons. EPA’s proposal came in even higher.

“EPA actually proposed an estimate around 5.6 billion gallons,” Kovarik says. “They were even above ours.”

If final numbers land near that range, Kovarik says it would send a powerful market signal.

“Our feeling is if it comes down anywhere in the neighborhood between what we asked and what EPA proposed, it’s going to be a very, very strong market signal,” he says.

Timing matters, too. Kovarik says EPA has indicated the rule could be finalized soon.

“Our expectation is EPA is committed to have it done within the first quarter of 2026 — that means the end of March,” he says. “Hopefully early- to mid-March.”

As corn growers push for year-round E15 and broader biofuels support during Trump’s Iowa visit, Kovarik says optimism is returning, even after a difficult year.

“Although most folks are really feeling bad about how ’25 was, they’re also very optimistic about 2026,” he says. “Because of what we feel we’re on the cusp of.”

Corn Growers Disgusted as Congress Leaves E15 Out of Government Spending Bills

Just last week, E15 and corn groups were dealt a blow. That’s because year-round E15 was left out of the latest spending package , something corn and renewable fuels groups had been pushing to get included in the latest bill.

When asked how year-round E15 failed to advance earlier this year, Skor points to political realities inside the House.

“Parochial politics,” Skor said on AgriTalk Tuesday. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”

Despite broad ag support and mounting corn supplies, Skor says narrow vote margins and competing interests stalled progress.

“We have been a chorus saying, ‘We want markets, not handouts. We want markets,’” she says. “Look at how much corn we’ve grown in the U.S. We need to find markets.”

Skor says House leadership ultimately pulled the issue from budget negotiations due to concerns over securing enough votes, particularly from members tied to small refinery interests.

“He knew that he could not get the votes he needed to pass the budget,” she says. “So he said, ‘We’re going to table this. We’re going to create a council. We’re going to deal with this separately.’ And that’s what happened.”

Looking ahead, Skor says attaching year-round E15 to a must-pass spending bill remains possible, but unlikely in the near term.

“I’m never going to say never,” she says. “But I think the realistic, immediate path for us is trusting our champions.”

She points to Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa as a key leader on biofuels policy.

“He’s fantastic on our issues,” Skor says. “He proved to be very, very strong in advocating for the Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit, 45Z.”

Skor says biofuels groups are now unified behind a legislative compromise that protects liquid fuels while expanding growth opportunities for American ethanol.

“We have the vast majority of liquid fuels united behind a legislative proposal,” she says. “We’ve done a really good job coming up with a compromise that has a future for liquid fuels and growth opportunities for American biofuels.”

As farmers look for demand-side solutions amid tight margins and large corn supplies, Skor says the message to Washington during Trump’s Iowa visit is straightforward: permanent E15 isn’t a wish list item. It’s a market fix agriculture needs now.

In the letter Iowa Corn and IRFA sent this week, both also pointed to Congress’ decision to sidestep E15 language in recent spending bills, instead creating a task force to study the issue. That task force, which is co-chaired by Feenstra, is scheduled to take action by February 28.

“Without permanent access to this market, the long-term viability of our state’s largest economic driver is at serious risk,” the groups wrote. “Today, we are asking for your help to finally push E15 access through Congress.”

It’s that same sentiment that was relayed in a statement from National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) president Jed Bower last week, who said corn growers “were disgusted, disappointed and disillusioned” after spending years of calling on Congress to pass E15.

“I met with Speaker Johnson back in November. He said he was frustrated because DOGE had pulled this out last year. He said he would get something done, and here we are again,” said the Ohio farmer. “The same thing we get all the time. Let’s step on and push on the farmers because there’s not very many of them and we can get away with it.”

Small Refiners Still a Roadblock to Year-Round E15

Even with support from major oil groups, Skor says a small group of refiners continues to wield outsized influence in Washington — enough to stall year-round E15 despite broad backing from agriculture and much of the energy sector.

“Well, enough that they could hamstring the speaker and they could hold up the votes on the budget,” Skor says, responding to questions about whether small refiners still carry weight in Congress.

Skor says the current proposal on the table represents a significant compromise, one she believes should be moving now.

“Let’s get year-round E15. Let’s reform the small refinery program so fewer refiners get it and we have more clarity,” she says. “We are supportive of that.”

She argues the small refinery exemption program has been abused, pointing to a growing number of legal challenges.

“There are over 15 lawsuits that have been filed in 2025 because of these small refiners. They’re greedy,” Skor says. “They’re whiny. They claim and allege hardship, and then they get on investor calls and talk about all the money they made in the quarter. You can’t have it both ways.”

Skor says the ethanol industry and its allies are now focused on exposing what she calls that hypocrisy while maintaining pressure on lawmakers.

“We have a very strong coalition now that should win the day,” she says.

Corn Growers Argue E15 Is a ‘No-Cost’ Solution

Iowa Corn and IRFA frame E15 as both an economic and regulatory fix, calling the current restrictions outdated and unnecessary.

“Removing the outdated regulatory hurdle for E15 is exactly the type of government efficiency you’ve worked for,” the groups wrote, urging Trump to continue applying pressure as Congress debates the issue over the coming weeks.

They also emphasize permanent E15 access would come at no cost to taxpayers, while strengthening American energy dominance and providing a critical lifeline to corn producers.

“Permanent nationwide access to E15 is a common-sense, no-cost solution,” the letter sent earlier this week concludes. “Now is the time.”

With the task force deadline looming and the president back in Iowa, corn growers hope the renewed push will translate into action and finally deliver year-round E15 access they’ve been seeking for more than a decade.

Trump Defends Tariffs, Says Farmers Will Be “Biggest Beneficiary”

Ahead of his Iowa talk, President Trump made an appearance at the Machine Shed restaurant in Urbandale, where he had an exclusive interview with Fox News. During that interview, Trump strongly defended his use of tariffs, calling them “indispensable” to economic growth and long-term benefits for farmers.

“Tariffs have been indispensable toward success,” Trump says. “We’ve taken in $600 billion in tariffs.”

Trump says some of that revenue has already been directed back to agriculture, including the Farmer Bridge program payments, which are scheduled to be in farmers’ bank accounts by the end of February.

“I gave the farmers $12 billion last week and took them out of tariff money,” he says.

When asked about concerns from Iowa farmers who worry tariffs could hurt exports and commodity prices, Trump says the benefits will take time to materialize.

“It’s going to take a little while to kick in,” he says. “But I think the farmers are going to be the biggest beneficiary.”

Trump points to protections against foreign crops being sold into the U.S. at below-market prices.

“When you used to have people coming in and dumping their crops into the United States, you guys were hurt,” he says. “They’re not allowed to do that because we’re tariffing those crops.”

He also draws parallels to his first-term trade battles, particularly with China.

“The farmers stuck with me the first time, and I was right,” Trump says. “We gave them $28 billion then. Now we gave them $12 billion, sort of a minimal payment.”

While acknowledging legal challenges could arise as the Trump administration awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump still signaled tariffs, or similar tools, will remain part of his strategy.

“If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, we will find something — some other way of doing a similar thing,” he says. “But it’ll be more inconvenient.”

As Trump delivers his message in Iowa, tariffs remain a flashpoint for rural America, balancing promises of long-term protection with near-term uncertainty for farmers navigating tight margins and volatile markets.

Here's How Much Fertilizer Tariffs Cost Farmers in 2025

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 18:27:43 GMT

The full cost of fertilizer tariffs – and then some – may have been passed through to farmers in 2025, according to data released Tuesday by North Dakota State University (NDSU).

In its monthly Agricultural Trade Monitor, NDSU found that tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) collected an estimated $958 million in revenue from selected imports of agricultural inputs between February and October of last year. Of that, about:

$273 million came from agricultural chemicals
$530 million from farm machinery
$110 million from fertilizers
$44 million from seeds.

The report observes that when fertilizer tariffs were imposed in April, U.S. fertilizer prices significantly rose relative to Canadian prices, which weren’t subject to the tariff. The premium for DAP, measured by the difference between prices in the U.S. Northern Plains versus Canadian prices, climbed to $343 per metric ton at its peak during the tariff period, marking an increase of $172 per metric ton from pre-tariff baseline levels. MAP and urea each saw a similar divergence.

So who pays the cost of tariffs? The burden can either be distributed between exporters, who eat the cost by reducing export prices, or importer and end users, who pay higher prices. The analysis of the U.S.-Canada spread “indicates that domestic importers and farmers bore the tariff burden substantially,” says the report, noting price movements during the tariff period seemed to exceed the direct cost of the tariff itself.

(NDSU Agricultural Trade Monitor)

The report notes the effective tariff rate on DAP imports was approximately 8% of the import value, while year-over-year spot price analysis showes the differential between U.S. and Canadian spot prices rose by $187 per metric ton in August 2025 compared with August 2024. That’s equivalent to a 342% pass-through rate when measured against the 8% tariff. At the retail level, the pass-through rate was lower at 156%, but still exceeded 100%.

Context is important, says Shawn Arita, associate director and associate research professor at NDSU’s Agricultural Risk Policy Center. He notes the $110 million in IEEPA tariff revenues for fertilizers is less than 1% of the estimated $33 billion in total production costs.

“The high pass-through rate may reflect the uncertainty around tariff levels that prevailed around President Donald Trump’s April “liberation day” announcement of reciprocal tariffs,” Arita says. “It was unclear whether some exporters would be subject to levies above 10% as importers moved to stockpile inventory.”

The report notes retailers engaged in “precautionary” inventory building, while exporters may have been worried about sustained access to the U.S. market. Those uncertainties may have combined to widen price premiums beyond what would be expected from the direct impact of the tariffs.

NDSU’s monthly analysis found year-over-year premiums hit major peaks in August and September, with DAP spot premiums hitting $187 per metric ton before gradually normalizing through November. Retail markets saw lower volatility, with DAP retail premiums peaking at $123 per metric ton in September.

Premiums eased from September to November, reflecting the easing of “extreme” supply constraints as the policy environment became more clear, the report says.

Following tariff exemptions granted in November, U.S. price differentials with Canada caused by the tariffs converged back to normal, the report found. DAP spot prices have retraced most of their tariff-driven increases, and MAP prices have fully reversed their increases, trading slightly below pre-tariff levels.

While wholesale prices fell sharply after the November rollback, retail prices are adjusting more slowly.

“As of early January 2026, farmers buying fertilizer from local retailers continue to face price stickiness, paying tariff-induced premiums above pre-tariff baseline levels,” the report says.

Join a dynamic conversation connecting the dots between global market forces and on-farm fertilizer costs at Top Producer Summit, Feb. 9-11 in Nashville. From geopolitics to natural gas prices to shipping constraints, Shawn Arita from North Dakota State University, and other experts will unpack what’s really driving fertilizer volatility — and how you can better time, plan and budget your nutrient strategies for 2026 and beyond. Click here to view the agenda and register.

UPDATE: Supreme Court Did Not Issue Ruling on Tariffs Case, Decision Still Pending

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:45:23 GMT

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to release its ruling on President Trump’s global tariffs Wednesday. A decision is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue one or more rulings on Wednesday in cases already argued before the justices as major legal disputes remain pending, including litigation testing the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

The court is set to release rulings at about 10 a.m. ET (1500 GMT). The court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue. The court issued one ruling last Friday but did not act in the tariffs case, which was argued on Nov. 5.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs marks a major test of presidential powers as well as of the court’s willingness to check some of the Republican president’s far-reaching assertions of authority since he returned to office in January 2025. The outcome will impact the global economy.

During arguments in the case, conservative and liberal justices appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the tariffs, which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies. Trump’s administration is appealing rulings by lower courts that he overstepped his authority.

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from individual countries — nearly every foreign trading partner — to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits. He invoked the same law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the U.S. as a national emergency.

The challenges to the tariffs in the cases before the Supreme Court were brought by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed.

Other cases awaiting rulings include disputes concerning voting rights, religious rights, Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commission member, LGBT “conversion therapy” and campaign finance limits, among others.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

USDA Releases Per-Acre Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 21:02:36 GMT

The long-awaited Farmer Bridge Assistance rates are out! Rice and cotton will receive the highest per-acre rates, in keeping with earlier predictions.

On the last day of 2025, USDA announced the Farmer Bridge Assistance program rates for row crop and oil seed farmers hit hard in 2025 by the ongoing trade wars.

“Farmers who qualify for the FBA program can expect payments in their bank accounts by Feb. 28, 2026,” says Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in the announcement.

The following per-acre rates apply:

Corn: $44.36
Soybeans: $30.88
Wheat: $39.35
Cotton: $117.35
Rice: $132.89
Peanuts: $55.65
Sorghum: $48.11
Barley: $20.51
Canola: $23.57
Sunflower: $17.32
Lentils: $23.98
Peas: $19.60
Oats: $81.75
Mustard: $23.21
Safflower: $24.86
Flax: $8.05
Chickpeas: $26.46 (large), $33.36 (small)
Sesame: $13.68

Oil seeds rapeseed and crambe — which were included in the original list of commodities to receive payments according to USDA’s Dec. 8 announcement of the bridge payments — were not included in the Dec. 31 rate list.

The payments, which amount to $11 billion, are intended to bridge the gap between current economic straits of farmers dealing with “unfair market disruptions” and the stepped-up farmer support programs from the previously titled “One Big Beautiful Bill Act ,” which will take effect in October 2026.

In addition to the $11 billion for row crops, $1 billion was set aside for specialty crops and sugar. The Dec. 31 rate announcement, like the Dec. 8 initial announcement of the bridge payments, notes “timelines for payments to producers of these crops are still under development.”

The bridge payments are funded under the Commodity Credit Corporation and will be administered by the Farm Service Agency based on 2025 acreage reports. Payments will be released to eligible producers by Feb. 28 with a limit of $155,000 per entity or individual. Click here to access USDA’s FBA program calculator.

Reaching the Farmer Bridge Assistance Rates

According to USDA, the FBA rates were developed using “a uniform formula to cover a portion of modeled losses during the 2025 crop year.” This loss average was reportedly based on planted acres reported to the Farm Service Agency, cost of production estimates from the Economic Research Service, and yields and prices from the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report.

The announced rates were mostly in keeping with earlier estimates. For example, shortly after the bridge payments were announced Farm CPA Paul Neiffer projected that corn would see rates of $43.52 to $48.35. Later in December, University of Illinois’s farmdoc Daily released its own estimates , which trended a bit higher than Neiffer’s, but they were also in line with the Dec. 31 announcement. For example, farmdoc estimated cotton would see a $115 rate.

Both based their estimates on how USDA did the 2024 Emergency Commodity Assistance Program payments given the similarities between how that is calculated and how USDA described it would calculate the FBA rates to row crop and oil seed growers.

What About the Other Commodities?

Notably absent from the list of crops benefiting from the bridge payments are fruit, vegetables, dairy, meat, and nuts, crops that collectively represent hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.

According to USDA’s Dec. 8 announcement, “the remaining $1 billion of the $12 billion in bridge payments will be reserved for commodities not covered in the FBA program such as specialty crops and sugar, for example.”

By contrast, the Dec. 31 rate announcement specified that the $1 billion would be just for specialty crops and sugar.

Shortly after the FBA program was announced, the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance expressed disappointment that specialty crop growers were not included directly in the bridge payments. The group noted specialty crops account for more than one-third of all U.S. crop sales. Later, on Dec. 18, the Congressional Specialty Crop Caucus urged congressional agricultural committees to make that $1 billion available to growers immediately .

According to records from USDA’s Economic Research Service, these agricultural commodities not directly named to receive bridge payments saw the following total cash receipts in 2024 :

Cattle and calves; $112.09 billion
Dairy products; $50.73 billion
Fruits and nuts; $31.34 billion
Hogs; $27.31 billion
Vegetables and melons; $25.31 billion
“Other Crops” which include commodities like sugar, mushrooms, flowers, and herbs; $40.58 billion

Speaking specifically about the specialty crop industry, Rebeckah Freeman Adcock, vice president of U.S. government relations for the International Fresh Produce Association, told The Packer that $1 billion is not enough : “Quite frankly, the $12 billion is not enough for agriculture in general, and USDA knows that, it’s just this is what they have.”

Some See Payments as a Bandage on a Bigger Problem

Following the announcement of the planned bridge payments, commodity groups and ag economy experts voiced appreciation for the planned payments, but some also noted the payments would be too little, too late in many cases.

Ed Elfman, senior vice president of agriculture and rural banking policy at the American Bankers Association, told AgWeb that the support will help , but it won’t fix structural issues in the ag economy.

“Any aid will help,” he said. “It’ll help make cash flow work a little better. It’ll make the margins look a little better. Profitability will go up, but at the end of the day, it’s just a Band-Aid. It’s not a long-term solution.”

Jerry Gulke, president of the Gulke Group, had much the same to say, calling the payments “like a bridge to nowhere.” Referring to earlier estimates on the FBA rates for corn, he told AgWeb a $46-per-acre payment is woefully inadequate for him to plant corn next spring and that he may need to shift to soybeans in 2026 where the cost of production is lower.

Luke Lindberg, USDA under secretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, acknowledged the bridge payments are a short-term solution in a one-on-one interview with AgWeb .

“We don’t want Band-Aid programs. We want fundamental shifts to the farm economy that allow our producers to be profitable for the long run, bring rural prosperity back to rural America,” he said, pointing to USDA’s three-point plan , announced in late September, aimed at bolstering international demand for U.S. ag products.

“Our team certainly plays an important role in generating demand overseas for the products,” he said.

“A lot of those One Big Beautiful Bill provisions, like some of the taxing, tax expenses and things, all start next year,” he added. “We’re bridging the gap from today to what that better future will look like next year.”

Caleb Ragland Named Pro Farmer's 2025 Person of the Year

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 21:32:20 GMT

Caleb Ragland , president of the American Soybean Association (ASA), was thrust into the national media spotlight in 2025, where his steady demeanor and devotion to fact-based arguments made him an effective advocate for all farmers as they fought their way through the trade fire storm. That’s why Pro Farmer selected Ragland as its 2025 Ag Person of the Year.

“If you could pick a word to describe the year, uncertainty would be it,” says the Kentucky-based farmer. Following the trade ructions of President Trump’s first term, Ragland told Pro Farmer he knew another trade disruption was possible. Like most farmers, though, he was caught off guard at the sheer scale of the trade war and the lack of a firm deal with China before harvest began.

With commodity prices suffering as harvest began, ASA knew action had to be taken. Their approach was to “respectfully, but firmly” communicate the plight of soybean farmers to the general public and lawmakers in Washington.

“We’re not presenting ourselves as victims, we simply want to make a living and let the markets work like everyone else,” Ragland says.

The lack of soybean demand made waves far beyond the reach of traditional agricultural news outlets, with nearly 45,000 pieces of online media mentioning “soybeans” since September of this year. Ragland shares he sees those efforts paying off in smaller ways. Just last week, while traveling, he had an interaction at an airport when two fellow travelers noticed his ASA hat and struck up a conversation about soybeans after hearing about them in the news.

During today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, ASA President Caleb Ragland (KY) urged Congress & the administration to take immediate action to reduce #farm production costs & prevent additional family farm closures. https://t.co/wPUdObCxyC #AgEcon #AgPolicy #Soybeans pic.twitter.com/hkBqgUghWs
— American Soybean Association (@ASA_Soybeans) October 28, 2025

Over the course of 2025, Ragland had direct contact with legislators, administration officials and other policymakers. He spoke at Congressional hearings to push for lower tariffs on farm inputs, policy changes to bolster demand for soy and direct assistance to farmers impacted by ongoing policy decisions. Progress has been made with some tariffs on fertilizer dropped in December, and a $12 billion bridge payment to support crop producers was announced earlier this month. Despite movement in the right direction, Ragland knows more work remains.

“We really don’t want to leave anything out there on the table, and the rules around biofuels and renewable fuel standards is one practical area we could still see improvement,” he says.

Ragland finishes up his term as president this month, and will move into the role of chairman for his final year on the board in 2026. He remains optimistic the trade deal with China will be honored going forward, but reserves some uneasiness due to the complex political situation between the two countries. His key takeaway from his time in the spotlight is the importance of farmers banding together to influence policy.

“If we’re not unified we have very little influence, but there’s a lot of strength in numbers when we come together to point to common goals,” Ragland says.

In addition to a Person of the Year, Pro Farmer also selects an Event of the Year and a Story of the Year . In 2025, there was a distinct theme. The trade war and its disruptions to both exports and inputs made it a shoo-in for Story of the Year. Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs on April 2 , and the volatility that shook global financial markets in its wake, made it a clear choice for Event of the Year.

—Bill Watts and Hillari Mason contributed to this article.

Moment of Truth: The Louisiana Farmer Who Captured Trump's Ear, Put Human Face on Ag Crisis

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 19:29:01 GMT

Rice country is hurting, badly.

Prices have collapsed to levels not seen in four decades, while production costs climb beyond $1,000 an acre. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, rice farmers are projected to lose more than $360 per acre this year. For many operations, that kind of math pushes losses deeper into the red and pushes tough decisions closer to reality.

That financial pressure was front and center at the White House last week as President Donald Trump unveiled his Farmer Bridge Payments, but what captured national attention wasn’t just policy — it was a farmer.

Her words, delivered candidly and unscripted on live television, put a human face on the crisis gripping America’s rice farms and mills.

That producer is Meryl Kennedy.

A Family Business Rooted in Rice

Kennedy is the youngest of four daughters, carrying forward a family operation that stretches back nearly six decades. Her father began farming rice in the late 1960s, and over time the family expanded beyond production into milling and value-added markets. That vertical integration gives Kennedy a front-row view of how price volatility affects not just growers, but entire supply chains.

“So I’m actually second generation,” Kennedy says. “My father started as a farmer back in the late 1960s, and we continue to take rice from the farm to a finished product today.”

After returning home from college, Kennedy helped oversee the startup of the family’s rice mill in 2012. The mill steadily grew, sourcing rice from roughly 60 farm families who relied on the operation as a stable market outlet. For those growers, the health of the mill is closely tied to the health of the farm economy.

“We actually mill rice, distribute it to many large companies throughout the U.S. and internationally,” Kennedy says. “But then my sisters and I have our own brand called Four Sisters that we launch about five years ago.”

As president and CEO of Kennedy Rice Mill and co-founder of Four Sisters Rice, Kennedy balances brand development, export logistics and farmer relationships. That role places her at the intersection of domestic agriculture and global trade, a perspective that proved pivotal when she was invited to Washington.

An Unexpected Moment in the Spotlight

Kennedy was one of eight farmers invited to participate in the White House roundtable on Dec. 8. Like many producers attending policy discussions, she expected a private conversation focused on data and feedback. What she did not know until moments before entering the room is that the discussion will be broadcast live.

“And my sisters and I, because there are four of us — I’m the youngest of four daughters — started our own rice brand a few years ago to just tell the story of American agriculture that hadn’t really been told before,” Kennedy told Trump and the White House Cabinet members who attended the farmer roundtable that day. “But I wish I was here under better terms.”

As the conversation turned to the financial outlook for rice, Kennedy did not sugarcoat the situation. Her remarks reflect what growers have been telling lenders and suppliers for months: Margins are gone, and losses are mounting.

“I know that prices right now are the lowest they’ve been in over 40 years, so we’re going to struggle,” she continued. “We’re going to max out on our payments probably, so that’s something that I know those in Congress can potentially help us with to change.”

Kennedy says the magnitude of the moment did not fully register until after the cameras are rolling. Sitting beside the president, she realized she was speaking not just for her own operation, but for growers across the country.

“In fact, it still seems like it is a dream, I’m going to be honest with you,” she says. “At the beginning of this year, I had a feeling that it was going to be a very difficult year. But it really wasn’t until midway through the year that we just saw a drastic drop in prices that has continued month after month.”

Farmers Asked Her to Speak Up

Kennedy says her decision to engage directly with the administration was driven by the growers who supply her mill. As conditions worsen, those farmers began urging her to use her industry position to push for action.

“And so it really is my farmers urging me a month ago to write a letter to the president,” she says. “To explain the situation to him, to urge him to help our farmers.”

That outreach, Kennedy says, marked a turning point. What began as a letter quickly became a national conversation.

“We wrote that letter, and look what the president does,” she says. “He responded.”

Kennedy explains the collapse in rice prices cannot be understood without looking beyond U.S. borders. Rice, she notes, is not just another commodity; it is a staple food for much of the world, making global market dynamics especially complex.

“Rice is a global commodity. It is the means of survival for most of the planet on a daily basis,” she says. “I truly mean it that rice is more of a currency than it is a commodity.”

While the U.S. ranks fifth in the world for rice exports, Kennedy says heavy subsidization and overproduction by major exporting nations distort markets and undermine U.S. competitiveness.

“And what has been happening is that really since COVID, there’s been truly an overproduction,” she says. “Then we over-subsidize in these nations and then dump rice globally across the world.”

A Candid Exchange With a Call to Action

That backdrop set the stage for one of the most striking moments of the roundtable, as Kennedy directly addressed concerns about dumping and unfair trade practices. The exchange unfolded live, capturing the attention of producers watching from home.

“And we do believe that countries are dumping rice into this country today,” Kennedy said during the roundtable at the White House. “We’ve never seen imports this great.”

When pressed for specifics, she named the countries she believes are contributing to the problem.

“India, Thailand, even China into Puerto Rico,” she said. “Puerto Rico used to be one of the largest markets for U.S. rice. We haven’t shipped rice into Puerto Rico in years.”

As Kennedy listed off the countries, Trump turned to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and asked him to write the countries down. Kennedy said the moment was monumental.

“None of it is scripted,” she says. “He really called me to action, and I responded.”

“When he turns to Secretary Bessent and asks him to write these countries down, it really is a powerful moment,” she adds. “It’s a moment I’ll never forget.”

Aid Helps — But It’s Not Enough

The roundtable featuring farmers on Dec. 8 was intended to announce Farmer Bridge Assistance Payment Program, for which USDA is expected to release payment rates next week. Ahead of that official announcement, University of Arkansas economists estimate rice payments could approach $115 per acre, though statutory payment caps will limit the amount many farmers actually receive.

“You know, I’ve seen some other figures kind of siding more like $50, considering that $155,000 payment cap,” says Mollie Buckler, CEO of U.S. Rice Producers. “While I think it will help some farmers, this is not putting huge profits in their pockets.”

Buckler says the assistance might keep some producers afloat short-term, but it does not address the underlying market imbalance. Without structural changes, she warns, the industry will continue to contract.

“Absolutely,” Buckler says when asked if farmers could be forced out of business. “Possibly even up to a quarter of farmers having to make tough decisions.”

Pressing Trump to Love Rice

Despite the seriousness of the discussion, Kennedy’s exchange with Trump also included a lighter moment that resonated with viewers. The humor underscores a broader effort to build demand for U.S.-grown rice.

“And you love rice, right?” the president asked.

“I love rice,” Kennedy replied. “I’m going to get you to love rice too. The next time, you’re not going to have a button for a Coke, you’re going to have a button for rice.”

It was another moment that stole the spotlight, as Kennedy’s quick-witted response garnered laughs. Kennedy says she even surprised herself in that moment.

“It just came out,” she says. “I encourage everyone that doesn’t eat rice on a daily basis to think about making rice part of your diet.”

A Voice for Farmers

For Kennedy, the experience reinforces the importance of connecting consumers with the people behind their food. She says telling that story is now more crucial than ever as farm families navigate financial uncertainty.

“This has given me a voice to encourage people to think about where their food comes from,” she says. “To think about supporting American farmers.”

As rice producers confront one of the toughest years in decades, Kennedy’s message reflects a broader industry plea for fair trade, market transparency and a future where family farms can continue growing a crop that feeds the world.

Christmas Comes Early: Trump Administration Announces $12 Billion in Bridge Payments for Farmers

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:35:23 GMT

Help is on the way for farmers impacted by the Trump administration’s trade policies. The White House released some details of its long-anticipated trade aid package, totaling $12 billion .

Up to $11 billion will go toward a newly designed “Farmer Bridge Assistance” program targeted toward row crop farmers hit hardest by trade disruptions. Those payments will be sent by the end of February, according to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. The remaining $1 billion will be set aside and is designated for other crops affected by the ongoing disputes.

President Donald Trump announced the package Monday, joined by Rollins, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and several growers. Trump said during the roundtable that tariffs will be used to fund the payments, while a release from USDA says the bulk of the funding will run through a new Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program, administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and funded under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

Rollins framed the package as near-term help while trade and farm-safety-net updates ramp up. She made comments during the roundtable on Monday, surrounded by farmers.

“President Trump will not let our farmers be left behind, so he directed our team to build a bridge program to see quick relief while the president’s dozens of new trade deals and new market access take effect,” Rollins says. “The plan we are announcing today ensures American farmers can continue to plan for the next crop year … it will allow farmers to leverage strengthened price protection risk management tools and the reliability of fair trade deals so they do not have to depend on large ad hoc assistance packages from the government.”

FARMER VERY GRATEFUL TO @POTUS: "YOU BROUGHT CHRISTMAS TO FARMERS"

Cordt Holub, Corn and Soybean Farmer from Iowa: What you're doing here in D.C. is working... I'll be able to potentially pass on a farm to my children because of you. pic.twitter.com/E3vq6jsTMM
— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) December 8, 2025

When Are Farmer Assistance Payments Expected?

Based on information released from USDA on Monday, the timing of the payments are as follows:

Dec. 19, 2025 (5 p.m. ET): Deadline for producers to make sure 2025 acreage reporting is accurate.
End of December 2025: USDA expects to release commodity-specific payment rates.
By Feb. 28, 2026: USDA says eligible FBA payments should be released.
Oct. 1, 2026: USDA points to farm bill-related improvements in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), including higher statutory reference prices for major commodities, reaching eligible farmers starting on this date.

What Farmers Need to Know

Here’s how the new tariff-funded aid package breaks down and what producers can expect it to mean for their operations.

$12 billion total in one-time assistance tied to 2025 conditions, framed as a short-term bridge while new trade access and longer-term safety net changes take effect.
Up to $11 billion is slated for the FBA Program focused on row crops, using a “simple, proportional” national formula intended to cover a portion of modeled 2025 crop-year losses.
$1 billion is reserved for commodities not covered by FBA, including items such as specialty crops and sugar, but USDA says details and timelines are still being developed.
No crop insurance link required to receive FBA payments, though USDA is urging producers to use OBBBA risk management tools going forward.

Which Crops Are Covered Under the New FBA?

USDA says FBA applies to producers of a broad list of row crops and oilseeds, including:

Barley
Corn
Cotton
Peanuts
Oats
Rice
Sorghum
Soybeans
Wheat
Plus crops such as canola, flax, mustard, rapeseed, safflower, sesame and sunflower, among others.

Is $12 Billion Enough?

The administration had been expected to roll out as much as $15 billion in aid back in October, but Rollins said the 43-day federal government shutdown pushed back the timeline.

During his first term, Trump directed about $23 billion in aid to farmers. Reuters reports producers this year were already on track to receive nearly $40 billion in ad-hoc disaster and economic assistance.

The new trade aid package is widely welcomed, but many U.S. farmers say the damage from the trade war, and China’s boycott of U.S. soybeans through harvest, has already taken its toll. Billions of dollars in lost soybean sales pushed China toward South American suppliers, creating long-term financial and market consequences.

While USDA finally unveiled its long-needed trade aid package, delayed by the 43-day government shutdown, many question whether it’s sufficient. Ed Elfman, senior vice president of agriculture and rural banking policy at the American Bankers Association, says the support will help but won’t fix structural issues.

“Any aid will help,” Elfman says. “It’ll help make cash flow work a little better. It’ll make the margins look a little better. Profitability will go up, but at the end of the day, it’s just a Band-Aid. It’s not a long-term solution.”

For some farmers already in financial distress, the relief comes too late.

“A financial bridge is vital for keeping many of our farmers in business going into 2026,” says Caleb Ragland, president, American Soybean Association. “There are some deep losses that have been incurred, and it’s been piling up over a two- or three-year period.”

Northwest Corn Belt Saw Wide Basis

In the northwest Corn Belt, the trade truce and renewed Chinese soybean purchases were too late to prevent wide basis levels and a storage crunch during harvest.

“A lot of producers were forced to sell that crop early, maybe earlier than what they wanted to,” says Kevin Deinert, president, South Dakota Soybean Association. “Given that we had some very depressed prices at that beginning October time frame before any trade deals were announced, some farmers are still reeling from that.”

Elfman says the financial strain is uneven across the country.

“One thing we’re learning from bankers, it’s creeping into the upper Midwest. The ‘I states’ are starting to feel it more and more, but really the mid-South to the South has been feeling it for three or four years now,” Elfman notes.

And while the aid helps slow the losses, he warns it doesn’t erase them.

“We are seeing with our surveys when we talk to bankers right now that they believe 50% of their producers will not be profitable next year,” Elfman says.

Ragland adds that soybean producers appreciate the lifeline but ultimately want reliable markets.

“We do not want to be dependent on the next aid program or financial bridge to stay in business,” he notes. “We need opportunities within the market.”

Meanwhile, trade negotiations with China continue. China’s Vice Premier held a video call Friday with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

Reports say both sides engaged in an in-depth and constructive exchange on implementing the consensus reached in an October meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi.

Under that agreement, the U.S. committed to trimming tariffs on China in exchange for Beijing cracking down on illicit fentanyl trafficking, resuming U.S. soybean purchases and maintaining rare earth exports.

Senators React, Thank Trump For Having Farmers’ Backs

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., praised the White House’s newly announced farm assistance package, calling it a bridge to help producers until the benefits of recent trade deals and the “One Big Beautiful Bill” show up in farm country.

In a statement, Boozman said farm families share Trump’s goal of expanding market access and that delivering the assistance will bridge the gap until farmers see gains from the new trade agreements and added certainty from the legislation. He added the announcement provides “much needed relief to rural America” and said the Senate Agriculture Committee is prepared to pursue additional steps to support farm families.

Boozman attended the White House roundtable for the announcement alongside Trump, Rollins, Bessent and farmers from across the country.

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, was also in attendance on Monday. She praised the USDA farm assistance package announced by Trump during a White House agriculture roundtable on Monday.

“Today’s farm assistance package is welcome news as we work to get the farm economy back on track,” Fischer said. She credited Trump and Rollins for stepping up to support producers and said she looks forward to working with the administration to expand trade opportunities and strengthen markets for Nebraska agricultural products.

Cutting Through the Confusion: White House Confirms Trade Agreement With China on Soybeans

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:28:26 GMT

Late last week, grain markets got a jolt. A claim about China and U.S. soybean purchases spread fast , morphed into “headline certainty” and briefly fueled market chatter that the key buying framework didn’t exist.

A marketing firm reported U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said there’s no deal with China on soybeans. That report was unverified but spread through the markets.

Then, over the weekend, additional comments, reporting and other policy analysts reiterated that China is buying U.S. soybeans because that’s what they agreed to do.

“With China, it’s always: We verify and we monitor and we watch the commitments. The commitments are quite specific,” Greer said Sunday on Fox News. “So all of these things that we’ve agreed to with the Chinese recently are very concrete, we can monitor them with some ease, and so far, we’re seeing that they’re in compliance.”

Greer said China has gotten approximately “a third” of the way through its soybean purchase commitment for this growing season.

Also over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated China is making good progress on its commitment to buy U.S. soybeans , reaching the “correct cadence,” with purchases expected to finish by February 2026, highlighting both the ongoing trade commitments and the need for continued support for farmers.

Bessent also said China’s commitment to buying 12 million metric tons (MMT) of soybeans runs through the end of February. That comment, which was seen as Bessent moving the goalpost on when China will complete its purchase commitment, also negatively impacted prices as it fueled more uncertainty.

Private exporters reported sales of 4.85 million bu. or 132,000 metric tons of #soybeans for delivery to #China during the 2025/2026 marketing year. #USDA @AgDayTV @FarmJournal @USFarmReport
— Michelle Rook (@michellerookag) December 8, 2025

Despite the mixed comments, China is still buying U.S. soybeans, a sign there is an agreement with China. USDA confirmed another 4.85 million bushel sale to China, which is 132,000 MT.

Before Monday’s confirmation, as of early December 2025, China has only booked roughly 3 MMT of U.S. soybeans toward its 12 MMT commitment for the final two months of 2025. While Bessent says China is on track to reach that commitment, the total remains far short of the target, and economists are split on whether China will meet the full volume . It’s also key to note China is actually buying, something analysts say wouldn’t happen if there wasn’t an agreement in place.

How the Market Rumor Took Off

According to Washington analyst and regular “AgriTalk” guest Jim Wiesemeyer, on Friday, at least one commodity analyst group circulated a note asserting a Trump administration official, reportedly U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, said there was no U.S.-China agreement in place for Beijing to purchase U.S. soybeans.

The problem: The claim arrived without verification. Wiesemeyer pointed out there was no transcript, no audio and no on-the-record quote. He also said there was no published statement from USTR to support the sweeping interpretation that some policy or purchasing framework had been reversed or didn’t exist.

Still, similar to what happened with a New World screwworm rumor, the rumor ricocheted through portions of ag-market media and social channels, where a single unattributed line quickly hardened into broader conclusions such as there is no agreement, the deal collapsed or China won’t buy, which according to Bessent’s comments over the weekend, isn’t true.

Wiesemeyer says soybean trade headlines are uniquely prone to rumor-driven distortion, and this flare-up checked several familiar boxes:

1) Politics gets oversimplified
Many market analysts are excellent on supply-demand fundamentals but are less reliable interpreters of negotiation tactics, tariff strategy and the way trade messaging gets used as leverage.

2) Position bias creeps in
In fast markets, some commentary “fits” preexisting long or short positions. Information that supports a bias gets amplified, while contradictory context gets ignored.

The Key Point: An “Agreement” Isn’t a Simple Yes or No

China’s soybean buying is never just about one sentence or one headline. It is shaped by a stack of moving parts, including:

tariff structures and exemptions
political leverage inside broader negotiations
Chinese feed demand and crush margins
seasonal price competitiveness (U.S. versus Brazil)

That’s why a claim like “there is no agreement” can be misleading even when it contains a sliver of technical truth. Sometimes “no agreement” means no formal, binding document in the way markets imagine, not that political commitments, buying intentions or commercial flows have stopped.

In other words: A framework can still exist even if it isn’t a tidy, enforceable contract, and purchases can still occur even if every detail hasn’t been restated publicly.

A Weekend Signal Points to a “Deal” with China

Adding context to the late-week confusion: China’s state stockpiler Sinograin plans to auction 512,500 metric tons of imported soybeans on Dec. 11, according to a notice from the National Grain Trade Center. Reuters reported analysts viewed the size of the sale, and the fact it’s the first auction in three months, as a potential signal Beijing is clearing storage space ahead of additional state-directed buying.

That kind of reserve rotation doesn’t align neatly with the idea that China’s commitments have evaporated. If anything, it’s consistent with China positioning itself for additional procurement under ongoing trade expectations.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Market talk isn’t always news. Until an official statement is issued by USTR, USDA or the White House, sweeping claims that the U.S.-China soybean buying framework has “collapsed” should be treated as exactly what they are: market noise.

And producers and traders should remember the lesson from this episode: In grain markets, a rumor can move faster than a confirmation, but it shouldn’t move your decision-making faster than the facts.

Can China Live Up to Its 12 MMT Soybean Promise?

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 21:14:40 GMT

As year-end approaches, soybean markets are entering what is normally a quiet stretch, but this year, the calm might be deceptive. Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist at StoneX, says two uncertainties could spark volatility: the EPA’s final biofuel regulations and China’s ability to follow through on its promise to purchase 12 million metric tons (MMT) of new U.S. soybean sales.

And as USDA weighs market loss payments due to tariffs and trade disruptions, which are reportedly coming this week , ag economists cast doubt on if China will buy 12 MMT yet this year, Suderman says the market might have have already priced in a lower amount.

Markets in a Holding Pattern But Not for Long

Suderman describes the current market tone as typical for late November and December, saying: “We’re in a holding pattern right now, and typically between Thanksgiving and Christmas, you get kind of sluggish markets as we’re waiting for new direction after the first of the year.”

But he immediately adds that this year could carve its own path.

“I think this year we have more potential for volatility, perhaps in both directions, because over the next few weeks, we anticipate getting direction from the EPA on the final regulations for the biofuel program,” he adds. “That could be very bullish, it could be bearish. Our bias is to the positive side, but until we know, that’s an unknown that the market’s really not pricing in yet at this point.”

The Million-Dollar Question: Can China Really Buy 12 MMT?

A major focus remains China’s pledge to buy 12 MMT of soybeans in 2025, but even the timing of those purchases is unclear.

“The White House says it’s new purchases for the calendar ’25. China hasn’t given their side of it. That’s why we need to see the agreement, and we hope to get that this week. That should detail it out in addition to details on the other commodities,” Suderman explains.

Beyond the calendar debate, he says there are real logistical limitations.

“What we hear from our cash sources on the ground in China is they don’t have enough storage space if their state grain buyers are going to buy all these because it’s not economical for the private crushers,” he says. “So the only way they could do it would be to wash out some purchases from Brazil. Now that would be bearish for Brazil, cause their basis to collapse, and then some customers who normally buy from us might go to Brazil instead, kind of rearranging the deck chairs, so to speak.”

Suderman says the core issue is straightforward and there are two looming questions that only China can answer.

“How it all plays out is a big question mark. But I think the big key is: Does China make the full 12 million metric tons of new purchases by the end of the year? And when do they take shipment? They can make the purchases and not take shipment till the next marketing year, or they could take shipment in the next few months. That’ll have a big impact on the dynamics of this market,” says Suderman.

Economists Cast Doubt

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and the White House have said China will live up to its promise to buy 12 MMT of soybeans this year, but ag economists aren’t so sure.

Farm Journal’s November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , an anonymous survey, found more than three-quarters (76%) of economists surveyed say China won’t purchase that amount of soybeans this year; 24% of economists think China will.

(Farm Journal)

Those same economists are also divided on whether additional trade aid is needed. Exactly half of economists say yes, trade aid is still necessary, while the other half say no.

But economists overwhelmingly agree on two key risks:

U.S. agriculture has become too reliant on ad hoc payments. A striking 94% say the industry has become “too addicted” to emergency programs. And it’s not just farmers, but also industry and input suppliers who have become reliant upon these payments. Many economists say repeated aid packages distort land values, cash rents, equipment purchases and overall decision-making.
One hundred percent of economists argue tariff-aid payments will keep fertilizer prices high. Every economist surveyed says tariff aid would keep input prices elevated, particularly fertilizer.

November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

But this also leads to a bigger issue: Is there enough competition in the fertilizer market? Two-thirds (67%) of economists surveyed say there is not enough competition in fertilizer markets.

Fertilizer prices track crop prices, not energy costs — a sign of market power.
The market is concentrated and driven by a handful of global producers.

“The fertilizer market appears to be very concentrated, limiting competition,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “In a competitive fertilizer market, fertilizer prices should track more closely with energy costs as the primary input cost in fertilizer production (supply) instead of tracking more closely with crop prices as the primary demand for fertilizer. Prices correlating more closely to production costs suggest a competitive supply-driven market. Prices correlating more closely with crop prices suggest a demand-driven market with some market power.”

“More competition is always better, but closing out competition with trade barriers right now is a bad idea,” one economist said.

“While we only have a few suppliers, there is not competition to offer lower prices. Fixing this is a whole other issue,” said another economist in the monthly survey.

“Economies of scale are so large that firms will be few in number. Breaking them up may lead to more competition but also higher prices as economies of scale are lost,” was another comment in the November survey.

What Traders Are Actually Pricing in

Right now, Suderman says the market is assuming something less than the full 12 MMT pledge.

“I think the market has priced in expectations that maybe they’ll take 8 to 10 million metric tons, and they’ll take it during the marketing year between now and the end of August,” he says.

He adds that traders expect the 25 MMT earmarked for 2026 could be purchased sooner but shipped later.

U.S. Soybeans Still Too Expensive for Private Buyers

Even if China lifts its 10% retaliatory tariff, as many expect, it still won’t make U.S. soybeans the cheaper option for commercial crushers.

“For the private crushers, what they would have to pay if there were no additional tariff—and there still is a 10% retaliatory tariff—we expect that to come off soon. But even if it comes off, our U.S. soybeans are priced 70 to 80 cents above Brazilian soybeans landed at the port in China,” he says. “And so we’re still not competitive from that standpoint. And with new crop harvest just weeks away in Brazil now, we’re probably not going to get competitive. So it’s going to have to be state purchases.”

Livestock Margins, Not Disease, Are the Real Drag on Feed Demand

While there are recurring late-year rumors of disease in China’s hog herd, Suderman doesn’t see unusual issues at the moment.

“Every year we hear this time of year about disease in China,” he says. “We don’t see anything at this point that’s out of the ordinary.”

Instead, he points to weak margins across all major protein sectors.

Instead, he says the real challenge is weak livestock economics.

“The bigger problem is the poor returns, the poor margins for livestock feeding—be it pork, be it poultry, be it all forms of protein right now. Demand for protein is simply not there,” Suderman explains. “So they’re shrinking the size of their herds, their flocks, etc. And that’s reducing demand for corn consumption. They actually expect to see corn consumption go down next year versus prior year. That’s a reversal of the normal trend for soymeal demand as well.”

He adds that China is still buying soybeans for a strategic reason and one that agriculture needs to prepare for now.

“Soybean demand is only being held up right now by China building its reserves so that when President Trump’s no longer in office, they can never buy another soybean from us again.”

If the U.S. Must Rely Less on China, What’s the Quickest Way to Do So?

Rollins recently warned that reducing reliance on China will be difficult. Suderman agrees but insists it’s necessary and will take not only striking new trade deals and finding new markets, but building domestic demand.
That includes:

A strong biofuel program
New trade agreements
Expanded global access
Domestic demand growth

“I’ve been saying that for four or five years, that we were going to lose China. Let’s go to all of the above,” he says.

He believes some recent trade pacts signed by Trump are “very good for demand,” though he cautions nothing can fully replace China’s market size.

Still, Suderman says there is reason for optimism as biofuel infrastructure.

“With the all-of-the-above approach, we do have a bright picture down the road,” he says.

What to Watch Through the End of the Year

China’s ability to follow through on its 12 MMT soybean promise remains highly uncertain. Storage constraints, price disadvantages, and weak domestic protein margins are all complicating factors.

Suderman says the market is prepared for 8 MMT to 10 MMT but not the full pledge.

What China does, or doesn’t do, over the next few weeks could shape the soybean market well into 2026.

“Some of these trade packs that President Trump has signed are very good for demand. It’s not going to replace China by any means. You can’t do that, it’s not the same size market. But I think with the all-of-the-above approach, we do have a bright picture down the road as we get the biofuel infrastructure built up,” says Suderman.

White House Drops Reciprocal Tariffs on Fertilizer, Other Ag Products Not Produced in the U.S.

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 23:50:06 GMT

President Trump signed an Executive Order Friday afternoon that modifies the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Executive Order now exempts several agricultural products from tariffs, including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

In a fact sheet released Nov. 14, 2025, the administration says President Trump has determined that “certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, such as certain food not grown in the United States.”

This is good news for farmers, as certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, including fertilizer. However, the announcement could open the door for more beef imports, as the move also gets rid of reciprocal tariffs on beef.

The document goes on to spell out examples of products that are now exempt from the reciprocal tariffs. According to the fact sheet, “The President has thus determined that certain agricultural products shall no longer be subject to the reciprocal tariffs.”

Some of these products include:

coffee and tea
tropical fruits and fruit juices
cocoa and spices
bananas, oranges and tomatoes
beef
additional fertilizers (some fertilizers have never been subject to the reciprocal tariffs).

“I have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257,” stated the Executive Order. “After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me, the status of negotiations with various trading partners, current domestic demand for certain products, and current domestic capacity to produce certain products, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to further modify the scope of products subject to the reciprocal tariff imposed under Executive Order 14257, as amended.”

President Defends Tariff Strategy, Says It’s Working

In the fact sheet, the White House went on to defend the reciprocal tariffs.

“In less than one year into his second term, President Trump has strengthened the international economic position of the United States by delivering a series of historic wins for the American people,” the fact sheet states.

The White House says through these tariffs, “President Trump is bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, revitalizing communities, and strengthening supply chains.The Administration will continue to use all available tools to protect our national security, advance our economic interests, and uphold a system of trade based in fairness and reciprocity.”

You can read the entire fact sheet here.

Tariff Aid Payments Could Backfire, Boosting Fertilizer Prices, Analyst Warns

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 19:16:45 GMT

Farmers are fully immersed in fall fertilizer application season. While there was talk of some farmers coming back, demand has surprisingly stayed relatively stable. With fertilizer prices remaining elevated, StoneX fertilizer expert says there’s little relief in sight. Despite speculation USDA and the White House could issue additional tariff aid payments to offset ongoing trade and input challenges, one fertilizer expert says that cash could actually trigger another round of price inflation.

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden confirmed on AgriTalk the agency is preparing to roll out $12 billion in trade aid once the government reopens.

“Until the government re-opens, we don’t have appropriations, and there’s no money to be had, whether you’re talking about recipients of our SNAP program or you’re talking about farmers who may need additional assistance for a bridge to get to next year,” Vaden told Chip Flory on “ AgriTalk .”

Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX, says the potential for new government aid has some unintended consequences for the fertilizer market.

“Unfortunately, no,” Linville says when asked if fertilizer prices might ease if aid payments don’t go out. “If the payments come out, I’m afraid it’s gonna boost fertilizer prices. It doesn’t change the supply and demand for most of these products, but it does change the timing, and timing is everything.”

Linville says the fertilizer market is as much about when farmers buy as it is about how much they buy. Injecting fresh cash into the market at once could cause a surge in demand that suppliers can’t absorb smoothly.

“If there’s a big fat check that goes into the farmer’s pockets and that gets spent on fertilizer, and you pull all that demand into one period, fertilizer is going to see its prices boosted as a result,” he adds. “We saw that the last time the checks went out.”

Without that extra aid money, Linville expects fertilizer prices to stay tied to broader global forces such as supply disruptions, production bottlenecks and logistical constraints.

“If not, I think we fall back to the global S&D — the production problems and supply problems — and prices probably hold tight,” he says. “Maybe it causes some people to back off. But look, we’re in November. It’s fertilizer time. There’s stuff moving whether we think it is or not.”

He adds that StoneX is already seeing stronger-than-expected activity at the farm level this fall.

“We’re hearing from our people in the fields — demand is better than we expected,” Linville says. “I don’t think we see anything short term that causes prices to go down. I’m more afraid of the upside.”

Despite Tight Margins, Farmers Aren’t Cutting Fertilizer Use

After two years of soaring fertilizer costs, some analysts expected farmers to trim back their nutrient applications this fall. But according to Linville, that’s not happening — at least not on a large scale.

“Phosphate’s the greatest example,” he says. “It’s exorbitantly high priced — versus grains, versus itself. Through the summer and early fall, the conversation at the farm gate was, ‘I’m cutting my phosphate application. It’s too expensive.’ And that was absolutely a rational thought.”

But harvest results are changing those plans. Many farmers are posting big yields, which means big nutrient removal, and that creates a dilemma.

“The problem is big yields mean big nutrient removal,” Linville explains. “A lot of guys are finishing harvest saying, ‘I didn’t want to put the phosphate on, but my yields were huge. I know what I took off the field, and I’ve got to replace it.’”

Cutting back on phosphorus might save $10 an acre today, he said, but it could cost much more in lost yield potential next year.

“You can save $5 or $10 an acre, but if that costs you 5 bu. or 10 bu. next year, that’s a lot more than $10,” Linville says. “Farmers don’t feel good about it, but they know what they removed. If they want to grow a crop next year and not limit their potential, they’ve got to replace those nutrients.”

The Global Fertilizer Picture: Tight Supply and Geopolitical Wild Cards

Looking ahead to spring, Linville says the odds of a major fertilizer price drop are slim. While some improvements have occurred in global nitrogen trade — including more exports from China and Russia — problems remain in other parts of the world.

“I’m never going to deal in guarantees,” Linville says. “The second I do, the market will humble me again, but it’s going to be very difficult [for prices to fall].”

He notes several ongoing challenges:

Production issues in Europe due to high natural gas costs
China’s export restrictions, as the country prioritizes domestic needs
Global logistics still playing catch-up after years of disruption

“China is going to cut their phosphate exports in half this year to keep tons at home,” he says. “And the world doesn’t have someone else ready to fill that gap.”

That creates a tricky environment for farmers trying to decide whether to book fertilizer now or wait.

“Could there be a chance prices come down? Yes,” Linville says, “but I’m not holding my breath. It would take a lot of things coming together at once.”

Geopolitics Loom Large Over Fertilizer Markets

The Russia-Ukraine conflict remains one of the biggest wild cards for fertilizer prices, especially for nitrogen. Russia is a major global supplier of urea, ammonia and other key fertilizer products. Any change in the geopolitical landscape could quickly ripple through global prices.

“One of my biggest bear points on nitrogen right now is peace between Russia and Ukraine,” Linville says. “Do we really want to make our purchasing decisions because we think we can outguess when that’s going to happen? It makes it very, very hard.”

Until that situation stabilizes, Linville says fertilizer markets will remain volatile — and farmers will need to balance risk management with crop needs.

Unexpected Demand Jump on Big Yields?

E
ven after months of warnings about fertilizer cutbacks, Linville says the North American market may be facing a surprise twist: demand is rebounding, and yields are a big reason why.

“The story all summer and fall was about major cutbacks — especially on phosphate,” Linville says. “Prices were extremely high, margins were tight, and farmers needed to make cuts somewhere. Phosphate was at the front of that line.”

But after harvest, that tone started to shift. Across the Corn Belt and Plains, strong yields are forcing a new conversation. Big crops don’t just mean full bins — they mean major nutrient removal, and that’s something growers can’t ignore for long.

“Yields are looking very good out there,” Linville explains. “And large yields mean large nutrient removal. Farmers who thought they could skip an application are now realizing if they cut too hard, it could cost them in 2026 yield potential.”He says that shift in mindset is already echoing through the market.

“We’re hearing a growing chorus of people surprised by phosphate demand,” he says. “Farmers are reluctantly stepping back in and reapplying product. They don’t want to, but they know they have to — and that’s increasing demand.”

Tight Supply Adds Fuel to the Fire

The problem, Linville warns, is that supply hasn’t improved much since last year. Imports remain limited by tariffs and duties on the four largest phosphate-exporting nations in the world, and domestic production has struggled to fill the gap.

“Imports have been relatively poor because of tariffs and duties, and domestic production rates have been extremely poor,” Linville says. “That leaves North America very tight on supplies. That’s why prices haven’t fallen much, even though everyone expected demand destruction.”

If demand continues to reappear faster than expected, the fertilizer market could quickly tighten again.

“If that demand suddenly comes back, we’ve got two big problems,” Linville cautions. “First, values will likely rise. And second, supplies may be very hard to find.”

In short, the fertilizer market may be setting up for another round of price pressure — not because of new government policies or global shocks, but because of something much closer to home: better-than-expected yields and the nutrients they’ve taken out of the soil.

Farmer Takeaways: Timing and Strategy Matter

For farmers staring at another high-cost input season, Linville’s advice centers on timing and discipline.

Watch the market, but don’t assume prices will fall
Work with your retailer or co-op early to secure product availability
Prioritize nutrient replacement based on yield removal and soil tests
Stay flexible — global supply disruptions can swing prices quickly

“Farmers don’t have to buy everything at once,” Linville says. “Spread purchases where it makes sense, and keep communication open with suppliers. The worst-case scenario is being forced to buy when everyone else is.”

Even without new government aid, fertilizer prices are likely to remain firm through spring. But if additional payments are issued, they could give the market fresh momentum, pushing prices even higher.

For now, Linville says it’s a season for patience and caution, not panic.

“Fertilizer is going to stay front and center,” he says. “There’s still opportunity, but it’s not an easy market. Timing, and discipline, will make all the difference this year.”

Setting the Record Straight: What China Actually Agreed to Buy—And When Those Ag Purchases Will Happen

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 23:05:30 GMT

The White House announced a sweeping new U.S.–China trade agreement late last week that includes substantial commitments from Beijing to purchase U.S. agricultural products — marking what officials call a “breakthrough” in restoring and expanding trade flows between the two countries.

According to the White House fact sheet , China will buy 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by the end of 2025 and 25 million metric tons annually through 2028. The deal also restores trade in sorghum, hardwood logs, and a range of other commodities while lifting retaliatory tariffs on U.S. beef, pork, dairy, wheat, corn, cotton, and other farm products.

Yet, with mixed messages from the White House and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, there was some confusion on whether China would purchase an additional 12 million metric tons of soybeans, of if it was 12 million total.

As AgMarket.Net’s Jim McCormick pointed out, the U.S. already sold China 5.9 million metric tons earlier this year, before the trade war broke out. Comments from Bessent made it sound like China would be 12 million metric ton total, which would have equated to only buy an additional 6.1 million metric tons yet this year.

However, the White House Fact Sheet released over the weekend cleared the air, saying, “China will purchase at least 12 million metric tons (MMT) of U.S. soybeans during the last two months of 2025 and also purchase at least 25 MMT of U.S. soybeans in each of 2026, 2027, and 2028. Additionally, China will resume purchases of U.S. sorghum and hardwood logs.”

What This Means for U.S. Farmers

For U.S. row-crop producers and livestock farmers alike, the agreement could spell renewed demand from one of the world’s largest agricultural importers. The 25 MMT annual soybean commitment alone represents a major market opportunity for U.S. producers, especially in key states such as Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota — and for U.S. sorghum growers in the High Plains. The lifting of tariffs on beef, pork and dairy also opens additional channels for livestock- and dairy-product exporters.

At Kansas State University, Dr. Allen Featherstone, head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, calls the deal an encouraging sign for U.S. farmers — especially after years of market turbulence.

“It certainly is a bright spot and big news,” Featherstone says. “Traditionally, China has been buying between 25 and 34 million metric tons. So certainly, the 25 million for the next three years will put that in the range of what historically has been done. The 12 million between now and January certainly is a heavy lift but also a big buy.”

Timing And The Broader Picture

According to the White House, the buys start immediately: 12 MMT in the last two months of 2025 and then on into each of the next three years. The scope of the deal also signals more than agriculture: China has agreed to suspend retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods announced since March 4, 2025 and to remove its “unreliable entity” and end-user listing measures.

Featherstone says that timing matters, since late fall and early winter are when China typically turns to U.S. soybeans before switching to Brazil in February and March.

“Based on current prices, it’s about a $4.5 billion deal between now and January,” he explains. “If you look at where we are the next three years, it’s about a $10 billion deal — and that’s good news.”

He points out that soybeans remain the No. 1 U.S. export to China, making the commodity a central part of trade negotiations.

“For the last three years, soybeans are the number one import in China from the U.S.,” Featherstone says. “As they’re trying to get leverage over the U.S., the soybean market is one of the places where they can have leverage.”

The Next Hurdle? Tracking the Purchases Amid a Government Shutdown

While the commitments are substantial, Featherstone cautions that verifying China’s purchases will be more difficult due to the ongoing U.S. government shutdown, which has delayed USDA export reporting.

“Tracking will be important,” he says. “Last week they purchased three vessels — about 180,000 metric tons. There are sources besides the government, but certainly not having the government data is a problem.”

Without weekly USDA export reports, private-sector analysts are relying on commercial shipping data and trade wire confirmations to track shipments. Economists warn that these unofficial estimates often vary widely, adding uncertainty to market reactions.

Opportunities and Caveats

Agribusiness groups, U.S. exporters and farm economists will be tracking how the commitments translate into actual purchases and shipping logistics. The upside is clear: large volume commitments from China boost U.S. export potential, may help stabilize or raise soybean, sorghum and other commodity prices, and can provide relief to ag sectors hard-hit by prior trade disruptions.

But there are caution flags too. Commitments do not always guarantee immediate shipments. Market conditions, logistics, currency movements, and China’s domestic production may influence actual demand and timing.

Exporters will want to monitor how quickly China follows through, whether the buys are genuinely incremental (vs. simply re-directing existing purchases) and how U.S. logistics chain handles increased volumes.

How This Will Impact Farmers and Ranchers in the Months Ahead

According to the White House fact sheet, here’s how the trade and economic deal, reached between President Donald J. Trump and President Xi Jinping of China, China committed to buying large amounts of soybeans, but China also said it would start purchasing sorghum again. On the livestock front, tariffs were suspended on beef, pork, dairy and more.

So, what should farmers and ranchers watch in the months ahead?

Soybeans: Given the huge volume — 12 MMT in 2025, then 25 MMT annually — soybean exporters will want to watch new crop availability, global competition (e.g., Brazil, Argentina) and U.S. export origination points.
Sorghum & hardwood logs: These categories were specifically called out for resumption of trade, suggesting new or renewed market access in China.
Livestock, dairy & other ag products: With tariffs suspended on beef, pork, dairy, and aquatic products, U.S. meat and dairy exporters may gain longer-term access to Chinese markets.
Tariff & non-tariff measures: The removal of retaliatory tariffs and other counters means fewer barriers for U.S. ag exports, but exporters should still watch for regulatory or sanitary measures that often influence trade.
Supply chain & logistics readiness: Meeting large volume commitments will test U.S. export capacity, shipping, port access and coordination between exporters and farmers.

Looking Ahead

The China-U.S. deal marks a potentially significant turning point for U.S. agricultural exports in 2025: large-scale Chinese commitments, tariff relief, and expanded access could open new markets and relieve pressure in certain ag sectors.

But the real story will be how fast, how reliably, and how fully China follows through with purchases — and how U.S. producers, exporters, and logistics systems respond.

What Row Crop Farmers Can Expect, Rabo Gives Harvest Outlook

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 15:56:40 GMT

More volatility and at least one to two more years of challenged/negative margins. That is the summary of the harvest outlook from Rabo analysts.

As Steve Nicholson, grains and oilseeds analyst, points out the average price cycle for row crop farmgate prices ranges from 25 to 35 years since 1900 to the present.

“When we think about that 25 to 35 year cycle, it helps us understand what’s happening and the movement of prices over time, and how we’ve moved each time to new plateaus,” he says. “So we are now in year 17 of the current cycle. And what’s important to note that is different than past cycles is the range was typically $1/bu to $1.50/bu in each cycle, now in our current cycle the price range is $4/bu. The range is bigger. There’s more volatility.”

(Rabobank)

Nicholson says fundamentally the volatility is driven by supply and demand shocks. for most crops.

“Take corn and wheat, for example, exporters are holding a smaller share of stocks in the world, and there’s a similar story for rice,” Nicholson says. “Soybeans are the exception, as the two big producers have big stocks being held by those exporters.”

As for stocks-to-use ratio, Nicholson says corn and wheat are at comfortable levels but in a multi-year decline, and as such when there’s any production shortfall, the potential price volatility increases and the market can move quickly.

As for how this translates to farm gate economics, Nicholson and his colleagues say their modeling shows corn and soybeans production margins return to breakeven or positive in 2027/2028 marketing year. The main culprit dragging down margins is “stickier than usual input costs.”

“We’re still two crops from breakeven,” Nicholson says.

Sam Taylor, ag inputs analyst at Rabo says since this time last year there’s been a notable dislocation between costs and returns.

(Rabobank)

“Fertilizer has kept us awake for several years,” he says. “But through 2020 to 2023, the anomaly of high fertilizer was matched by commodity price run ups. That has dissipated into the current circumstances where since May of last year we’ve had a sequence of one after another of compounding geopolitical events: gas supplies out of northern Africa, Chinese limits on exports of urea and phosphates, issues in the Stait of Hormuz, and companies limiting exports and curtailing production.”

Taylor says the current affordability indexes for fertilizer should be resulting in demand destruction, but there’s no evidence of farmers cutting back on inputs.

“For example with phosphates, the affordability index since 2022 has gotten worse. It’s a terrible situation for US growers. It doesn’t fit into our traditional context of displaying it,” Taylor says. “It hasn’t been as bad as 2008, which had a different dynamic as we had credit issues and affordability issues. But then farmers cut back on phosphates by 25%, which created an ability to correct the market. Prices corrected back to the mean.”

Taylor says to see a similar price correction, demand would have to decrease by 20 to 25%.

“We are creating a moat in trade and tariffs. U.S. farmers are paying a 10% price premium on MAP as a result of countervailing duties,” he says. “We have become near enough self-supplying in MAP as long as we don’t export any we can make our ends meet. We have headwinds going into 2026. It’s not just government subsidies that have created confusion to the market, but the tariffs and taxes have impacted the cost of production for U.S. growers.”

Taylor says there’s a delay and distortion in the market signals caused by the government interventions, which supports his idea that prices will remain higher for longer. This includes not only phosphates but nitrogen as well.

Higher production costs are weighing on the farmer balance sheet.

(Rabobank)

“If we go two or three years back, folks were pulling 20% to 30% of their operating lines. And now that number is 50% pulling off that operating line,” Nicholson says. “They need the financing because they aren’t getting the returns. And we’ve already see them pull back—pretty dramatically—on equipment purchasing for example.”

Owen Wagner, ag policy analyst for Rabo, says in assessing the levers to pull agriculture out of this lack of profitability are indicating the current government supports for farmers are potentially delaying the correction.

“More of these government supports are insurance subsidies and ad-hoc payments, and as such risk management programs are melding into income supports,” Wagner says. “The supports out of Washington are necessary in the short term, but what are the long term impacts of the well intentioned policies?”

Comparing 2025 production costs for soybeans in Iowa vs. Mato Grosso, Brazil, Wagner says it would take a 10% decline in land rental rates for Iowa’s production costs to be competitive.

(Rabobank)

As for 2026 production, Nicholson says the current models point to 2 to 3 million less acres of corn, with soybean acres changing day-to-day.

China to Buy 12 Million Metric Tons of Soybeans This Season, Bessent Says

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:38:21 GMT

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday that China has agreed to buy 12 million metric tons of American soybeans during the current season through January and has committed to buying 25 million tons annually for the next three years as part of a larger trade agreement with Beijing.

Bessent said other countries in Southeast Asia have agreed to buy another 19 million tons of U.S. soybeans, but did not specify a timeframe for those purchases.

“So our great soybean farmers, who the Chinese used as political pawns - that’s off the table, and they should prosper in the years to come,” Bessent told Fox Business Network.

LETS GOOO!!! Soybeans! Sorghum! 🇺🇸🚜 BIG news out of President Trump’s historic meeting with President Xi!

More details coming soon. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!!! pic.twitter.com/5hHpKbX70F
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) October 30, 2025

Soy bean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade were about 1% higher in early U.S. trading on Thursday after Bessent’s interview with “Mornings with Maria.”

In 2024, the U.S. exported nearly 27 million metric tons of soybeans to China.

Trump wrote in a social media post overnight following his meeting with Xi in South Korea that the Chinese leader had authorized China to begin the purchase of massive amounts of soybeans, sorghum and other farm products.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins applauded Trump’s comments on soybeans and sorghum in a post on X.

(Reporting by David Lawder, Andrea Shalal, Daniel Burns, Leah Douglas and Maiya KeidanEditing by Tomasz Janowski and Doina Chiacu)

China Buys US Soybean Cargoes Ahead of Trump-Xi Meet, Sources Say

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:05:25 GMT

China’s state-owned COFCO bought three U.S. soybean cargoes, two trade sources said, the country’s first purchases from this year’s U.S. harvest, shortly before a summit of leaders Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.

As the two nations battle over trade tariffs, the lack of Chinese buying has cost U.S. farmers billions of dollars in lost sales, after they largely supported Trump in his campaigns for president.

Today’s purchase by China of multiple ships of American soybeans signals @POTUS’ strong dealmaking and a positive step forward for our farmers.

This purchase, coming directly ahead of the Trump-Xi talks, shows that America means business and that we will restore balance, give…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) October 29, 2025

Although COFCO’s deal for December-January shipment of about 180,000 metric tons of soybeans was China’s first such buy in months, traders do not expect a significant resumption in demand for U.S. cargoes after recent large South American purchases.

COFCO did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

“COFCO has proceeded to purchase U.S. beans even before the two leaders have reached a trade agreement,” said a trader at an international trading company that supplies Chinese crushers.

“The volumes booked by COFCO are not that large, three cargoes for now.”

Benchmark Chicago soybean futures prices Sv1 jumped this week to their highest in 15 months, rebounding from recent five-year lows on hopes for a U.S.-China trade deal.

The prime U.S. soybean export season normally runs from October through January, but China has shunned soybeans from the autumn U.S. harvest this year, amid protracted trade friction with Washington, turning instead to South American suppliers.

Reuters was the first to report China’s purchase of three cargoes.

Lackluster Demand

China, which takes more than 60% of world soybean imports, has nearly completed booking cargoes from Brazil and Argentina through November, with limited purchases expected for December and January ahead of the Brazilian harvest.

“U.S. suppliers have missed out on most of oilseed crushing business,” said a second oilseed trader, who expected China to need about 5 million tons of shipments in December and January, for which market conditions favour Brazil.

U.S. soybeans, which traded at a steep discount to Brazilian cargoes in recent weeks due to subdued Chinese demand, have strengthened this week and are now priced at parity at about $2.45 per bushel above Chicago futures, traders said.

Private Chinese buyers tend to prefer Brazilian soybeans for their higher protein content, which typically brings a premium over U.S. soybeans, said Jeffrey Xu, general manager of Shanghai-based OCI, a soybean consultant and two other traders.

Still, China could take about 8 million tons of U.S. soybeans for its strategic reserves in the period from December to May, traders said, buying through state-owned enterprises such as Sinograin, which would be worth roughly $4 billion.

(Reporting by Ella Cao and Naveen Thukral; Additional reporting by Karl Plume in Chicago; Editing by Tony Munroe and Clarence Fernandez)

Potential China Deal, New Trade Pacts Brighten U.S. Soybean Outlook

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 17:35:08 GMT

Comments by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday indicate China will come to the meeting with President Trump on Thursday ready to strike a deal and make “substantial purchases” of U.S. soybeans.

“Soybean farmers are going to be extremely happy with this deal for this year and for the coming years,” Bessent said yesterday on the CBS public affairs show, Face The Nation.

American Soybean Association (ASA) President Caleb Ragland responded to Bessent’s comments in a statement that, “signals of purchase commitments are a positive step” and soybean producers are “hopeful they result in a trade deal that delivers results.”

SOYBEANS! Big news this morning by our incredible @SecScottBessent and our entire team.

China’s commitment to make substantial purchases of US soybeans brings the market BACK into balance and secures years of prosperity for American producers. More good news coming shortly. https://t.co/eIjOMa0sBD
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) October 26, 2025

Purdue Ag Economist Michael Langemeier says he believes a trade agreement with China can be reached.

“It makes sense to me, because we are such a big player, that we still have a place at the table in terms of selling soybeans to China, because [the Chinese] don’t want to completely rely on one country,” Langemeier says.

Jerry Gulke tells Farm Journal he thinks China needs U.S. soybeans to bridge a gap that will occur between the time the U.S. harvest ends and Brazil’s harvest starts.

“There’s some talk that they need about 10 million metric tons (MMT). That’s about 300 million bushels. And that’s about the deficit that would really help us,” says Gulke, president of the Gulke Group.

While Langemeier believes a trade deal can be reached, he doesn’t think the scope of the trade agreements U.S. has had with China will go back to previous levels. He anticipates Brazil will continue to capture a large percentage of China’s soybean business.

USDA reports Brazil produced a record soybean crop in 2025 of 169 MMT.

The increasing scope of the South American crop is one reason why Langemeier emphasizes the need to continue increasing domestic demand for U.S. soybeans.

“It’s a slow process, and it can’t absorb billions of bushels, but it can help long-term support a large acreage of soybeans in the U.S.,” he says.

Additional Trade Agreements In The Works
On Sunday, ASA announced the U.S. signed two trade deals with Malaysia and Cambodia as well as a framework for reciprocal trade with Vietnam and Thailand.

As part of these announcements, the White House has noted multiple provisions favorable to U.S. soybean exports, including:

The elimination or reduction of tariff barriers for U.S. agricultural products into all four countries
A commitment from Thailand to purchase U.S. soybean meal, among other U.S. feed commodities, on a per annum basis totaling $2.6 billion
The elimination or reduction of major non-tariff barriers in each country, including favorable language on biotechnology regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary provisions (SPS), and other non-tariff barriers.

Farmers Face Major Storage, Selling Decisions
While U.S. farmers are finishing up the 2025 harvest, most are trying to decide how much and where to store the crop until prices show some improvement.

Langemeier said there will be a need for farmers to make some sales this fall to meet cash flow demand. They’ll then store whatever they can until at least the first of the year – though that decision could change quickly, if a trade deal with China is struck.

“Certainly, storing a part of that [soybean] crop if you can afford to do until till we have a little bit more information on where prices are going to settle for the 2025 crop, would be a prudent strategy,” he says.

If no deal is struck with China, or it’s small, he encourages farmers to not hang onto the crop too long.

“My caveat there is, if things don’t look a little bit better by April and May be ready to sell them,” he says.

The Outlook For 2026 Acreage
Langemeier says there are few to no new production options for row crop farmers in the Midwest to embrace for next year.

“So, when push comes to shove with the plantings in 2026 you’re still looking at about 180 million acres of corn and soybeans,” he anticipates.

If the export outlook for soybeans doesn’t improve, more acres will go to corn because demand is strong despite low prices.

“Corn is firing on all cylinders with good demand from ethanol, good demand from the feed industry, and good demand from exports,” he says.

China's Trade War Playbook Keeps U.S. Soybeans Sidelined

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 18:35:25 GMT

As combines roll across soybean fields at the start of harvest, exports typically pick up. Vessels ladened with the U.S. oilseed usually begin heading to China, with the bulk of shipments made between September and January.

That’s not shaping up to be the case this year.

Not a single order for the U.S. soybean crop was placed by China at the start of harvest in September.

At about the same time, Brazil set a record for shipments to China – with sales of 2.474 billion bushels of soybeans – from January through August 2025, reports Michael Langemeier, Purdue University ag economist.

Brazil soybeans have accounted for approximately 93% of China’s total soybean imports this year, to date, according to Brazil’s National Association of Grain Exporters.

‘A More Reliable Source For Soybeans’
Langemeier expects Brazil to continue supplying the majority of China’s import needs for soybeans, a transition he says has been underway since the last round of U.S.-China trade tensions in 2017-18.

“Brazil has become a more reliable source for soybeans, if you will, than the U.S.,” Langemeier says.

He does anticipate U.S. soybean exports to China will resume eventually but not at previous levels.

“I don’t believe it’s going to go to zero – people ask me that all the time – but it’s going to be something less than what it was prior to 2025,” he says.

A large percentage of U.S. ag economists agree with Langemeier. In the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, when they were asked, ‘Do you believe U.S. agricultural exports to China will return to pre-trade war levels (e.g. 2017) in the future,’ 88% of economists responded no. Learn more here: Ag Economists Warn of Lingering Farm Economic Strain: ’Not the 1980s, But Close’

The ability of Brazil to capture more of China’s soybean business and improve its government policies pertaining to agriculture, in general, frustrates Steele, N.D., farmer Chase Dewitz.

“There’s so much progress going on there in agriculture in Brazil, outside of all the market share they’ve taken from us,” says Dewitz, referencing the country’s ethanol industry. “And here we just sit. We just keep getting backed into a corner here.”

China Prioritizes Its Own National Interests
Sandro Steinbach says China’s refusal to buy U.S. soybeans this fall is less about economics and more about politics.

“China is making a calculated move to limit its dependence on the United States,” says Steinbach, associate professor and director of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies at North Dakota State University.

“If Chinese leaders see Washington as a strategic threat, they have the resources to pay a little more for Brazilian soybeans or draw down state reserves,” he contends. “It’s about control and national leverage, not about getting the cheapest beans.”

Steinbach adds, in an effort to not be overly reliant on either Brazil or U.S., Beijing is also working to reduce its overall need for imported soybeans through domestic feed policy changes.

“Our latest analysis shows Chinese feed mills are exploring ways to lower the share of soybean meal in livestock rations, with limited pilot programs already underway in several provinces,” he says. “If those efforts expand, even small cuts in feeding intensity could trim import needs, but they come at a cost. Lower-protein rations reduce feed efficiency and could hurt China’s livestock productivity over time.”

Faith Parum, American Farm Bureau Federation economist, points out that the ongoing trade tensions between the U.S. and China aren’t limited to soybeans. She says China has not “purchased any U.S. corn, wheat or sorghum this year, and pork and cotton exports continue only at reduced levels.”

USDA projects that U.S. agricultural exports to China will total $17 billion in 2025, down 30% from 2024 and more than 50% from 2022. In 2026, exports to China are expected to fall to just $9 billion, the lowest level since the 2018 trade war, Parum adds.

Trade Talks Next Week Offer Hope
Jacquie Holland, American Soybean Association economist, says upcoming meetings between President Trump and China’s Xi Jinping at next week’s APEC summit in South Korea offer farmers some encouragement that trade between the two countries will resume soon.

“If we see a de-escalation of tariffs, then China will have financial incentive to buy cheap U.S. soybeans,” Holland says.

She adds that if Brazil farmers have any delays harvesting their crop early in 2026, the Chinese could face a potential supply crunch and move to source U.S. soybeans to bridge the gap.

“But our research suggests those volumes could be minimal, based on the high volume of South American purchases China has made so far in 2025, the capacity of their state reserves, the timing of China’s hog production cycles and negative Chinese crush margins right now,” Holland says.

Farmers across Brazil have begun planting the 2025/26 crop season, with expectations for another record in corn and soybean acreage, report Purdue Ag Economists Langemeier and Joana Colussi.

“In its preliminary estimate released on October 14, the National Supply Company (Conab) projected that Brazil’s soybean acreage will increase by 3.5%, reaching 121 million acres – the largest area on record. For comparison, U.S. farmers planted 81 million acres of soybeans in the current crop season,” Langemeier and Colussi write here .

If Trade Doesn’t Resume Soon, What Then?
Unfortunately, there is no one country or market that can absorb China’s lost U.S. soybean purchases.

“There are certainly opportunities for some market expansion, as evidenced by Japan’s sentiments to increase trade on Wednesday, but the biggest constraint is that demand outside of China is limited in the short-run,” Holland says. “Long-term, we are hoping to develop these markets, but that takes time and doesn’t provide immediate relief to U.S. farmers now.”

Looking ahead to next spring, farmers are likely to plant another huge corn crop if a trade agreement isn’t reached and soybean prices remain in the basement, Langemeier anticipates.

“In that scenario, if we have two big years of corn production back-to-back, you’re going to be looking at some very sick corn prices in the fall of 2026,” he says. “That’s a big concern. That worries me.”

Holland adds there are other factors to consider, as well. She believes soybean acreage next spring will also depend on usage factors like how quickly EPA finalizes 2026 and 2027 renewable volume obligations for biofuel blendings and how fast the U.S. can expand domestic livestock consumption and export sales for soymeal.

“With all of that uncertainty and sticky input prices, I wouldn’t blame farmers for picking lower risk acreage options next spring, and I’m guessing 2026 acreage allocations are going to rightly reflect that level of risk aversion,” she says.

Holland discusses the soybean trade outlook with China in detail with Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, here:

Beef Producers React to USDA's Plan to Fortify Industry and Trump's Social Media Comments

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 16:03:10 GMT

In an effort to strengthen the American beef industry and reinforce and prioritize the rancher’s critical role in national security, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and other cabinet members announced a suite of actions on Wednesday.

Since 2017, the U.S. has lost over 17% of family farms — more than 100,000 operations over the last decade. The national herd is at a 75-year low while consumer demand for beef has grown 9% over the past decade. Because increasing the size of the domestic herd takes time, USDA says it is investing now to make these markets less volatile for ranchers over the long term and more affordable for consumers.

“America’s food supply chain is a national security priority for the Trump Administration. We are committed to ensuring the American people have an affordable source of protein and that America’s ranchers have a strong economic environment where they can continue to operate for generations to come,” Rollins says in a press release . “At USDA we are protecting our beef industry and incentivizing new ranchers to take up the noble vocation of ranching. Today, USDA will immediately expedite deregulatory reforms, boost processing capacity, including getting more locally raised beef into schools, and working across the government to fix longstanding common-sense barriers for ranchers like outdated grazing restrictions.”

The plan includes three coordinated priorities:

Protecting and improving the business of ranching
- Strengthening the foundation of U.S. cattle production through endangered species reforms, enhanced disaster relief, increased grazing access (approximately 5 million acres), increased access to capital, and affordable risk management tools.
Expanding processing, consumer transparency and market access.
- Lowering long-term costs by cutting inspection costs by up to 75% for small processors, increasing marketing options for consumers with Product of USA labeling and ensuring consumers have clear, truthful information about American beef.
Building demand alongside domestic supply
- Growing the domestic herd while boosting domestic and international demand so that ranchers are not trapped in the boom/bust cycle that has defined past cattle markets. This strategy includes boosting long-term demand to reduce prices for consumers while growing markets for ranchers through significant farm-to-school grans and protein-focused dietary guidelines.

The plan is available through the USDA website.

Trump Takes to Social on Beef

President Donald Trump shared his perspective on beef industry success on X.

“The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% tariff on Brazil,” Trump posted.

Following the post, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) made a post on Facebook in response and also released a statement on the president’s steps to undercut U.S. cattle producers:

“In a misguided effort to lower the price of beef in grocery stores, President Trump said he plans to increase the volume of beef being imported from Argentina. Efforts to manipulate markets only risk damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” said NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “It is imperative that President Trump and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins let the cattle markets work.”

”The U.S. already faces a deep trade imbalance with Argentina, one that is made worse by the President’s plan. During the past five years, Argentina has shipped beef valued at more than $800 million to the U.S., while purchasing only $7 million of U.S. beef. Furthermore, Argentina is a nation with a long history of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and USDA has not completed the necessary steps to ensure Argentina can guarantee the safety of the products being shipped here, further endangering America’s cattle herd.

“If President Trump is truly an ally of America’s cattle producers, we call on him to abandon this effort to manipulate markets and focus instead on the promised New World Screwworm facilities in Texas; making additional investments that protect the domestic cattle herd from foreign animal diseases such as FMD; and addressing regulatory burdens, such as delisting of the gray wolf and addressing the scourge of black vultures,” Woodall said, concluding the statement.

Your Next Read: Is Argentina Beef the Answer to Lowering Beef Prices?

Grassley Urges Trump To Prioritize A Trade Deal With China

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 20:12:03 GMT

As the government shutdown continues through day 21, there is little to no hint that a resolution to the ongoing stalemate between Republicans and Democrats is about to end.

The latest setback: On Monday night, Senate Democrats rejected a Republican-led stopgap funding bill for the 11^th time with a 50-43 vote. The resolution needed 60 votes to pass, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

He says more Democrats are needed to step up and vote in cooperation with Republicans to get the government reopened.

“If we can get four more Democrat votes, the government will be opened up,” Grassley contends.

In the meantime, county Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices remain closed, keeping services like new loans, farm program sign-ups, and disaster assistance from being addressed. Market data that helps set commodity prices is also not being released.

Trump has mentioned taking action to reopen the county offices, but Grassley is unsure whether he can accomplish that.

“I don’t know that he has that authority, but he surely had it with about $8 or $10 billion in the defense budget – to shift it from one activity in the Defense Department to paying the soldiers and the military people,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Tuesday.

So far, Trump administration officials say there are no plans to shift dollars around for agriculture like they’ve done with troop pay and other priorities.

President Trump ‘Has To’ Get Trade Resumed With China
Grassley was adamant that Trump needs to make progress in pressing China for a new trade deal.

“He has to [get that done},” Grassley says. “I’d say the president needs to spend a massive amount of time, even some of his personal time, on dealing with China. I know it’s necessary to have lower-level people begin those discussions, but it’s got to be a top priority.”

The U.S. and China exchanged barbs last week, with the U.S. threatening to raise tariffs to 157% if no new deal is reached by Nov. 1. President Trump is supposed to travel to Asia later this week to renew discussions with China.

During his conversation with Flory, Grassley weighed in with his perspective on consolidation in the fertilizer, seed, equipment, the pesticide industries and how that relates to the development of potential monopolies.

“I’m going to wait until the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission gets done with their investigations before I make a decision on it,” Grassley says. “I don’t think we have to pass any laws. The antitrust laws that have been in existence for 130 or 140 years ... just use those laws as they’ve been used for the last 100 years. They’re pretty effective laws.

“It just takes the government enforced to get it done. There’s certain guidelines that have to be met and protocols be met before you actually can break up a monopoly. But the free-market system dictates you don’t have monopolies,” he adds.

Grassley also weighed in on needing year-round nationwide availability of E15, noting that he wishes the president would be more proactive in getting the product readily available on a permanent basis.

“We got legislation that would make it permanent without a presidential waiver. It ought to be easy for the president to promote that. He’s going to have a bailout for farmers because of low prices now, and he ought to connect with that – getting E15 through the Congress of the United States and have it permanent. Because until we get the law passed, we’ll never get the investment by retailers to put in the expensive pumps that it takes to get E15 out.”

Hear the complete discussion between Grassley and Flory on AgriTalk here:

Breaking Down the 4 Biggest Challenges Facing the Ag Economy

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 19:15:37 GMT

Farm Journal’s Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, an anonymous survey sent to nearly 70 ag economists each month, shows growing concern about the farm economy. “AgriTalk” host Chip Flory breaks down the latest results, pointing to four key findings.

1. Recession Calls Hit a Survey High

A record 91% of ag economists now say the farm economy is in a recession. That’s the highest level since the survey began, fueled by record input costs while commodity prices remain depressed. Still, about 10% pushed back, arguing that as long as farmland values hold strong, agriculture’s store of wealth remains intact and technically keeps the sector out of a recession.

“Basically what they’re saying is that we’re not going to be in a recession until we see land prices start to pull back,” Flory explains. “That’s where agriculture stores its wealth. As long as those land prices hold up … we are not going to be in a recession as long as that store of wealth remains safe.”

91% of ag economists say the crops sector of agriculture is currently experiencing a recession, which is a survey high.

(September Ag Economists’. Monthly Monitor )

2. Bleak Outlook for 2026

46% of ag economists say the economy situation is “somewhat worse off” compared to last month and 27% say it’s “much worse off” compared to last year.

(Lindsey Pound, September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor )

While opinions about the next 12 months are mixed — 50% expect some improvement, 30% think it will worsen — the longer-term picture is troubling. Economists expect 2026 corn and soybean crops to be breakeven at best, with potential losses of up to $200 per acre.

“The expectations on the ’26 crops are that, at best, it’s going to be breakeven on corn and soybeans,” Flory says. “There’s expectations for losses up to $200 an acre among the survey respondents … We’ve drained a lot of working capital out of the industry already. And it’s really going to get tight in 2026 if this continues.”

Results from the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound, Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor )

3. Soybean Exports Under Pressure

Economists see U.S. soybean demand as vulnerable. USDA currently projects 1.705 billion bushels in exports, but survey respondents say that’s a best-case scenario. Some expect exports could fall below 1.4 billion bushels, a 300-million-bushel drop that could be catastrophic.

“China is obviously doing everything that it possibly can to avoid buying U.S. soybeans,” Flory says. “The current USDA export estimate … is a best-case scenario that the economists expect. Some see it all the way down under 1.4 billion bushels. To take another 300 million bushels off of bean export demand might be catastrophic.”

There are still a majority of economists who think China will still buy soybeans from the U.S. this year, with 54% responding “yes.”

Even though China has bought zero new crop soybean cargoes from the U.S., more than half of economists still think China will come to the table in 2025.

(Lindsey Pound, September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor )

4. Screwworm Detection Near Border Raises Concerns Over Mexican Cattle Imports

This week, New World screwworm was detected just 70 miles from the U.S.–Mexico border, sparking renewed debate over cattle imports and whether USDA should keep the border closed to live cattle imports.

In the September Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists were asked: Should the U.S. reopen its border to cattle imports from Mexico? Eighty percent said no.

91% of ag economists say the crops sector of agriculture is currently experiencing a recession, which is a survey high.

(September Ag Economists’. Monthly Monitor )

Their concern is the risk of screwworm spreading to U.S. herds.

“It’s important we continue to protect the health of our beef herd. Screwworm could have a devastating effect,” said one economist.
“Each day of delay [on reopening the border] gives more time to develop effective treatments/response,” was another response.

With the U.S. cattle herd already at a 75-year low, screwworm infestations can cause massive losses in livestock, threatening both animal health and, according to economists, the ag economy.

The Bright Spot: Beef Demand Stays Strong

There is a bright spot. Despite record-high retail prices, which economists thought would taper the hunger for U.S. beef, beef demand is holding firm. Two-thirds of economists say beef demand is inelastic, meaning consumers keep buying even as prices rise.

Even with record retail beef prices, the majority of ag economists say beef demand is proving to be inelastic.

(Lindsay Pound, Ag Economsits’ Monthly Monitor )

“It’s quality. Quality is a big part of the reason why,” Flory says. “We’ve done an unbelievable job responding to consumer demands to put choice and prime beef in the meat case … Consumers recognize the improvement in quality, and they’re responding by continuing to buy beef. The other thing is … high protein diets. That is a real thing that we need to adjust to, not only in beef, but in pork too.”

You can see the full results of the latest Monthly Monitor here .

Ag Lender Warns Farm Finances Under Greatest Stress Since the 1980s

Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:12:18 GMT

As combines chew through this year’s crops, farmers are faced with a bleak reality: this crop they’re harvesting is coming at a steep financial loss. And for some, this marks the fourth year in a row they won’t make any money.

“What the general public doesn’t realize is these things have not just occurred over the last six months. This started in 2021 and 2022,” says Tommy Young, who farms in Newport, Ark. “In our particular situation, we started noticing shortfalls in 2021 and 2022 simply because of the input costs.”

That worry and concern took center stage and was at the heart of a meeting in Brookeland, Ark., earlier this month. A meeting that was supposed to be just a handful of farmers at a local bank turned into more of a movement. And for farmers, there was one resounding message: We need help, and we need it now.

“I think when everyone, other farmers, started seeing how many farmers showed up, it changed the overall dynamic of the meeting. It made it become emotional. It made it become more than reverence, from the standpoint that it made me feel personally that I’ve not done anything wrong,” Young says.

‘It Felt Just Like a Funeral’

In the middle of harvest, farmers from across Arkansas, southern Missouri and Tennessee parked their combines to attend the meeting. Young says as he parked his vehicle and saw trucks lining the road and lines of people standing outside to get in, the somber mood became very real.

“It felt just like a funeral,” Young says. “And then when we got inside, you didn’t see signs being held up. You didn’t hear screaming or any kind of thing like that. You saw people that were genuinely concerned about the industry as a whole.”

Young says during that meeting, the frustration farmers voiced came down to three main concerns within the ag economy:

Record-high input costs
Low commodity prices
The loss of key export markets

It’s those three factors fueling a perfect storm, but farmers are considerably concerned about the record-high input costs and what’s fueling those in agriculture.

“All we can do is hope for the best, be as efficient as we possibly can be with what we’re doing, and then thinking things would change. Well, they have not changed. They’ve gotten worse,” Young says.

Ag Lender Says Farmers Are Seeing the Most Financial Stress Since the 1980s

Greg Cole is president and CEO of AgHeritage Farm Credit Services, which serves roughly 6,700 members across 24 counties in Arkansas. Cole started in ag lending in 1984, and he says as Arkansas farmers stare at loss on every crop they grow, it’s not a repeat of the 1980s, but it’s eerily similar.

“I can tell you this, this is the most stress I’ve seen since the ‘80s when you come to farm profitability, i.e. farmers losing money,” Cole says. “One positive we have now compared to the ‘80s is land values. Our land values are still positive, which gives some lendable equity —unlike in the 80s, when I started my career, when U.S. farmland prices plummeted in some areas up to 60%.”

With a drastic drop in commodity prices, but input prices still record or near-record high, Cole says farmers in Arkansas, specifically, have been eroding balance sheets for four straight years.

“We started seeing losses in ’22 when 40% of our producers lost money,” Cole says. “In ’23, about 50% lost money. And then last year, in ’24, 70% lost money, with the average loss of about $150 an acre. And that’s after they received about a $50 per acre ECAP payments. Today, we’re looking at where we stand now. We could have a similar level of losses in ‘25 that we had in ‘24. Even though in ’24, we had very strong yields. But now we have weaker yields.”

As mounting debt shows up on the balance sheets, Cole says there are two types of farmers seeing the most severe financial strain.

“The ones who rent most of the land, especially if they pay on the higher end of rent. And here in the Mississippi Delta, most farmers who have a lot of acres rent most of their ground,” Cole says. “And then young, beginning farmers who didn’t have the opportunity to build up a lot of equity. Those are the ones that have occurred these multiple year losses where their balance sheet debt has swollen to a level that’s hard to service a debt when you add the interest rate cost on top of it.”

Farmers On the Brink of Being Forced Out of Farming

Cole says in talking to farm credit colleagues from across the country, next to the central valley of California, farmers in the Mississippi region are in the most severe shape.

“There were 62 farm equipment sales in eastern Arkansas this past winter,” Cole says. “That’s the most I can recall, anecdotally speaking, than any time in my career since the 1980s. And I think what we’re looking at now is at least that many or more. It could be double that if we don’t get major intervention in the markets or an intervention from D.C.

Cole continues: “Really, what we need is another ad hoc payment, maybe in a form of an MFP-type payment that we received back in Covid. But we need some major help here, or we’re going to have a lot less farmers in 2026 and 2027.”

It’s a desperate plea across agriculture. Without some type of market or government intervention, some could be forced out of farming this year — similar to what happened in the 1980s.

“My dad, in 1978, went to Washington D.C., stood on the capitol and was there during that time when they drove tractors to D.C.,” Young says. “It was the same thing in Brookeland, Arkansas. And if this thing continues, I think it will go nationwide because we’ve got to get through this. And the president and congress have got to make it to where we have good markets, sustainable markets and markets that we can depend on long term.”

Largest Drop in Crop Cash Receipts Ever

It’s not just farmers in the Delta seeing the financial strain. Ag economist John Newton tells AgDay’s Michelle Rook that even though the overall net farm income picture from USDA looks strong, it’s a very different situation when you take out livestock and just look at crops.

“If you look at the data, crop cash receipts over the last three years have declined by $71 billion,” says Newton, executive head of Terrain. “When adjusted for inflation, that matches the largest decline that we’ve seen in history. So, the pressure in the crop space is very real.”

NCGA and ASA Also Sounding the Alarm

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) is also sounding the alarm , saying agriculture is nearing a financial crisis. According to a new study released by NCGA, nearly half (46%) of U.S. farmers believe we are on the brink of a farm crisis, and 65% are more concerned now about their farm financials than a year ago.

American Soybean Association (ASA)CEO Stephen Censky also sees and hears the growing concern among farmers.

“It’s tough, and I can hear it in the stress in our members’ voices Our members and our board of directors are really concerned right now,” Censky says. “Some say if things don’t turn around, if we don’t get markets back or if we get economic assistance — which is not our first choice — this could be their last year in farming. That’s pretty scary.”

Censky says this time in agriculture is more serious than the last trade war simply because crop prices are lower than they were in 2018, and input prices are significantly higher.

“I will say while those programs we had, the market facilitation payments (MFP), they help keep folks in business. They stop the blood loss. They help farmers survive until the next year, but it’s not a replacement for markets,” Censky says. “And no farmer wants to be dependent on getting his or her income from the government, or from the mailbox, rather than from the marketplace.”

Farmers are also voicing frustration lately that when government assistance is given, they are simply a pass-through. The payments keep input prices elevated, and also seem to prop up high land values.

“One of the things is that when you provide economic assistance or any kind of government payments, whether that is through the reference prices and the ARC and PLC programs under the farm programs, yes, that helps. It helps keep farmers in business and helps them pay the bills. But longer term, any form of government assistance like that gets capitalized into land rents and land values, and that has consequences as well for farmers,” Censky says.

Yet, Censky was part of the Trump administration. He served as the United States Deputy Secretary of Agriculture from 2017 through 2020. That was also during the first trade war with China, and he knows the loss of the Chinese market is completely out of farmers’ control.

“We have not been publicly calling for another MFP-type program. Our priority has been ‘Let’s get a deal with China on soybeans’, because having that market is what soybean farmers want,” Censky says. “And by restoring and getting rid of the retaliatory tariffs, and ideally getting some purchase commitments from China, would be like we did under the Phase One trade deal with China. That would be great. And that also puts a lid on, or a damper on, Brazilian expansion, which has long-term benefits for the U.S. soybean industry as well.”