Trade

New Data: Is U.S. Agriculture Facing a Typical Cycle or a ‘Geopolitical Reset’?

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:56:51 GMT

The latest Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows a bit more pessimism from respondents on the current state of the ag economy as well as how the present compares to one year ago.

Farm Journal regularly reaches out to a vetted list of 80 ag economists from across the industry. Providing directional insights, 10 of the 16 economists who responded to the April survey believe the ag economy is in a worse state than it was a year ago. Slightly fewer than half expect conditions to be “somewhat better” in 12 months, while one-third still anticipate further decline.

“I just haven’t really changed my level of pessimism regarding this year. This is going to be a tough year. There’s no doubt about it,” says Michael Langemeier with Purdue University.

The conflict in Iran weighs heavy on economists’ minds; high fertilizer prices and high energy costs dominate concerns. This overshadows the previous looming concerns of the trade fragility and export deficit. The previously announced government payments are in the rearview mirror.

Wes Davis from Meridian Agribusiness Advisors agrees that profit margins squeezed by high input costs are the top concern.

“When we talk about the more pessimistic view of the ag economy, fertilizer prices driven by the outbreak of war in Iran is certainly top of mind,” he says.

But Davis says there have been some positive tailwinds for commodity prices over the past few months, and there’s ‘no slowdown’ in demand for animal proteins.

“Those tailwinds continue to be present,” he says.

A Fundamental “Structural Shift”

Three-quarters of the economists believe U.S. agriculture is undergoing a permanent structural shift rather than a typical cyclical phase. They cite increased competition from Brazil, changing trade policies and the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence as factors reshaping the industry for the long term.

(Farm Journal Survey, April 2026)

“I’m thinking of this one as the geopolitical and input reset,” Davis says. “What I mean by that is, where things go and how we interact with the global ag economy when this cycle or when this shift is over will be different. The way that farmers get their agrichemicals, their fertilizers, their vitamins/trace minerals for feed, their tractors will all be different.”

Davis brings up the farm bill as another example. He questions whether the structural shift in policy is moving away from supporting “commercial farm preservation” and more toward “rural economic development.” This distinction could change the long-term framing of ag policy.

While Davis’ perspective is in the majority, Langemeier offers a counterpoint. He says this today reminds him a lot of the 2014 to 2019 period when there were about six years in a row of relatively low crop margins.

“I know there are a lot of changes going on, and certainly we’re worried about the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture compared to Brazil, particularly for soybeans,” he says. “As one example, I think the AI developments actually could be positive, and so I don’t necessarily see why that would necessarily mean a structural shift that would be negative.”

Geopolitical Impacts on Input Costs

The conflict in Iran and broader Persian Gulf instability are identified as primary drivers of agriculture’s economic health. Economists are specifically concerned about how these tensions are “pinching margins” by driving up the costs of energy and fertilizer while commodity prices remain relatively low.

“The negative impact of the Iran conflict has been increased fertilizer and energy prices. I did some crop budget calculations: If you hadn’t bought your fertilizer and most of your fuel is yet to be purchased prior to the Iran conflict that’s a pretty large effect on corn break-even price. I calculate it to be 25 cents a bushel. And when your break-even price is already at $5, which is way above what the futures price adjusted for basis is this fall, that’s certainly not helping matters,” he says.

It’s not just fertilizer and fuel. It’s other input categories in row crop agriculture and livestock production as well.

Noting input prices are 15% to 20% higher than pre-COVID levels, Davis points out that prices for active ingredients have gone up 20% to 30% since the conflict in Iran started.

“This continues to exacerbate that question around how long are we going to continue to see input prices increasing?” Davis says. “The other things that are less talked about but are starting to show up in pricing data are things like low inclusion additives for livestock feeds, so things like vitamins and trace minerals are starting to show up in pricing increases as well as they are being disrupted in trade flow and a slowdown of exports from China.”

Langemeier adds to the question around input pricing increases, saying it’s unknown if the uncertainty and elevated costs will go into 2027.

Strategic Deferment of Capital Expenses

To manage tight margins, farmers are expected to prioritize paying down debt over investing in land, equipment/technology, capital improvements and labor. Machinery and equipment purchases are the top items likely to be reduced or deferred in 2026, with half of economists also warning that cuts to fertilizer and crop protection could start impacting yields.

(Farm Journal Survey, April 2026)

“The number one thing as always is farmers want to be paying down debt,” Davis says. “Equipment is going to continue to be in a trough, and my expectation is that tractor sales year over year are still going to be 10 to 15% lower this year versus last year.”

He also foresees a continued transition to generic crop chemicals for the next two years.

Davis makes a distinction regarding which farms could survive this pinch on profitability. He describes a “tale of two economies” where disciplined farms with high liquidity can still find financing to grow, while those who grew aggressively at the peak of the cycle are facing a “pullback” from lenders. This adds a layer of nuance to the “commercial viability” discussion.

Langemeier provides a sobering warning about how farmers are managing the third year of low margins. He notes a trend of farmers starting to borrow against their land (non-current debt) to cover operating expenses — a pattern seen during the 2014 to 2019 downturn. He emphasizes the urgent need for “contingency planning” and a “Plan B” for debt repayment this fall.

“Usually, farms will try to cover their owner withdrawals and repay debt before they even think about making down payments on machinery. Capital expenditures always get squeezed when cash flow is tight. That’s just the way it works. We’re in one of those situations where capital expenditures are just going to be lower, primarily machinery and buildings,” Langemeier says.

Trump Confirms He's Delaying China Visit By "Five or Six Weeks" Amid Iran Conflict

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 18:28:54 GMT

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he is postponing his long-anticipated trip to China by “five or six weeks,” citing the ongoing war with Iran as the reason for the delay. The summit, originally scheduled for late March, has been pushed back as the administration focuses on addressing escalating tensions in the Middle East.

JUST IN: WASHINGTON (AP) - Trump says he is delaying his trip to China until later next month as he focuses on the war in Iran.
— AgDay TV (@AgDayTV) March 17, 2026

“We’re resetting the meeting, and it looks like it’ll take place in about five weeks,” Trump told reporters, adding that China “were fine with it.”

The president had requested the delay during a Monday meeting in the Oval Office with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, emphasizing the conflict requires his attention in Washington.

Trump on his visit to China:

Because of the war, I want to be here. I feel I have to be here.

And so we’ve requested that we delay it a month or so. pic.twitter.com/LYtj1V00aP
— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 16, 2026

When asked if he still planned to travel to Beijing later this month, Trump said: “I don’t know. We’re working on it right now. We’re speaking to China. I’d love to, but because of the war, I want to be here, I have to be here, I feel. We’ve requested we delay it a month or so ... I’m looking forward to being with them. We have a very good relationship ... there’s no tricks to it either. It’s not like ‘Oh gee, I’m waiting.’ It’s very simple: We have a war going on. I think it’s important I be here.”

Soybeans Saw Limit-Down Day For First Time in 17 Years

While soybeans were in the green on Tuesday, the news was enough to spark a sell-off in soybeans — closing down 70¢ on Monday. According to Ag Trader Talk’s Garrett Toay, soybeans closing in a limit-down move hadn’t happened in 17 years — since January 2009.

Leading up to Trump’s remarks on Monday, there was hope the planned meeting would secure China’s commitment to buy more soybeans.

The postponement comes as Trump intensifies efforts to assemble an international coalition to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for global oil flows that has been threatened by Iranian activity. The administration is urging allies to provide naval support to ensure the safe transit of tankers, highlighting the importance of energy market stability.

However, Trump’s call for international cooperation has been met with resistance. Germany, Japan, Italy and Australia have declined to participate, while the United Kingdom and other nations are signaling caution about becoming involved in a broader conflict. Trump criticized this reluctance as a test of allied commitment after decades of U.S. security guarantees.

China, a major consumer of Middle Eastern oil, has been a particular focus of Trump’s outreach. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, the president said Beijing should help restart tanker traffic through the Strait following disruptions caused by Iran. While U.S.-China relations remain tense after a year of tariff threats, Chinese officials have maintained only cautious communication about the postponed visit. Spokesperson Lin Jian stated Monday that China and the U.S. “are maintaining communication regarding President Trump’s visit to China,” without addressing the Strait of Hormuz issue.

For farmers and agribusinesses, the delay carries tangible implications. Not only did the news impact soybean prices this week, but rising fuel and fertilizer costs, along with disruptions to global trade, could impact the export of U.S. crops — creating deeper uncertainty.

China Signals Potential Boost in U.S. Ag Purchases

Amid the postponement of the Trump-Xi summit, China is reportedly signaling openness to buying more American farm products, even as broader geopolitical tensions remain high. Sources say officials tied to Presidents Trump and Xi held what they described as “remarkably stable” talks over the weekend in Paris, with agriculture emerging as a key topic.

China is reportedly considering increasing purchases of U.S. goods such as beef, poultry and other crops, while remaining committed to major soybean imports in the years ahead. Cotton responded positively to that news, posting new contract highs.

However, uncertainty still clouds the outlook. Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, coupled with lingering trade disputes between Washington and Beijing, could complicate progress on large-scale deals.

Soybeans remain a focal point, with questions about the timing of renewed, large-scale buying. Markets are watching closely, and any headline developments in U.S.-China agricultural trade could trigger significant price volatility.

Soybeans as a “Trade Token”?

Brian Grete of Comstock Investments offered perspective on the China-U.S. soybean dynamic, noting short-term market moves may not reflect the long-term picture. Just last week, soybean prices were fueled by news Brazil was slowing shipments of soybeans to China and warned the situation may be overbought.

“Longer term, I don’t think that slowing down Brazilian shipments is bullish,” Grete says. “They have a record crop, about 180 million tons, give or take, and that supply will eventually reach the global market, with China as the biggest buyer. Ride the wave while you can and make some sales as prices rise, because when it crashes, it may crash hard.”

On China’s potential buying of U.S. soybeans, Grete emphasizes politics may outweigh economics.

“This was a request from China’s agriculture ministry to Brazil’s ag ministry to increase phytosanitary requirements,” he explains. “China is trying to slow down Brazilian bean shipments. People say it doesn’t make sense for China to buy U.S. beans economically. But honestly, soybeans mean more politically for President Trump than for China. China will use soybeans as a trade token.”

ARA Leads Letter to President Trump Expressing Concern Over Fertilizer Supply Chain Disruptions

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 19:24:33 GMT

The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) today led a letter, along with 24 state agribusiness associations, to President Donald Trump expressing concern regarding fertilizer supply disruptions and the potential for broader impacts on agricultural production and rural economies.

“Agricultural retailers employ thousands of workers across rural America and provide the essential link between manufacturers, global supply chains, and family farms. Every day, these businesses ensure that farmers have access to the fertilizer, crop protection products, seed, and agronomic services necessary to grow the crops that feed and fuel our nation. Today, retailers are experiencing the front-line impacts of geopolitical disruptions affecting fertilizer, fuel, and transportation markets,” the letter reads.

“Agricultural retailers in multiple regions are already reporting delayed spring fertilizer deliveries and growing allocation pressure as product arrival dates shift and transportation capacity tightens. Retailers are forced to make difficult decisions about rationing limited supplies among customers, revising nutrient plans on short notice, and absorbing increased financial and logistical risk—all while farmers face uncertainty during narrow application windows that cannot be recovered later in the season,” the coalition continued.

The group proposed both immediate short-term actions and long-term supply chain solutions that the Administration can take to alleviate global and domestic disruptions. They also highlighted the impact these disruptions can have on rural American economies.

“These disruptions do not stop at the farm gate. When fertilizer shipments are delayed or prices spike, the consequences ripple through rural communities- affecting local jobs, tax bases, lending institutions, equipment dealers, and service providers. Agricultural retailers are often among the largest private employers in their communities, and prolonged supply disruptions threaten not only farm productivity, but also the economic stability of rural towns across the country,” the group emphasized.

Additional cosigners of this letter included the Florida Fertilizer & Agrichemical Association, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association, Kansas Grain and Feed Association, AgriBusiness Association of Kentucky, Michigan Agri-Business Association, Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, Mississippi Agricultural Industry Council, Montana Agricultural Business Association, Nebraska Agri-Business Association, North Carolina Agribusiness Council, North Dakota Agricultural Association, Ohio Agribusiness Association, Oklahoma Agribusiness Retailers Association, Oregonians for Food & Shelter, Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, Southern Crop Production Association, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association, Wyoming Ag Business Association, and the Virginia Agribusiness Council.

Reciprocity and Balance: The New Blueprint for U.S. Agricultural Trade Agreements

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:01:55 GMT

Ambassador Julie Callahan is the chief ag negotiator at the U.S. Trade Representative, and she reports positive momentum toward rebuilding trade agreements equating to a positive U.S. ag trade balance.

“We came into a situation in January 2025 where the US ag trade deficit was ballooning in a really unsustainable manner,” she says.

At the beginning of 2025, USDA forecasted a $50 billion deficit for U.S. agricultral trade.

“Compare that to an agricultural trade surplus in 2020 when President Trump left office, of a $6 billion surplus. So we were $56 billion in the hole, you might say, at the beginning of the administration, but through the efforts of the president ensuring trading partners understand they need to treat U.S. farmers and ranchers right, we are seeing real shifts in our trade balance and chipping away at the deficit toward a surplus.”

Trade Wins Highlighted by Government Officials

Callahan points to eight signed trade agreements with: Malaysia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, Bangladesh, Taiwan and Indonesia. She says these are binding agreements, where the foreign governments are:

lowering tariffs for U.S. ag products
removing unfair trade practices
and lifting regulatory barriers

“These are serious binding trade agreements that will deliver real value for U.S. farmers and ranchers,” Callahan says. And when asked if Congressional action to codify agreements is necessary, Callahan says that action would be supported but should not be necessary.

“These foreign governments have made binding commitments in terms of adjusting tariff schedules, they are also making regulatory changes. USTR will be enforcing these agreements. They are enforceable.”

Examples of enforceable commitments include:

Indonesia removes its import licensing requirements
Malaysia accepts facilities on their registration list as long as FSIS has them on their list

The Future of the U.S./China Trade Relationship

At the 2026 Top Producer Summit, Lyu Jiang, minister for economic and commercial affairs at the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., characterized the U.S. and Chinese relationship being a phase of stabilization.

When prompted to react, Callahan agreed saying, “We very much want a stable, predictable, transactional relationship with our Chinese counterparts. We do want to normalize, bring reciprocity and balance back to our trade relationship and ensure that U.S. farmers, and ranchers can benefit from the Chinese market again.”

She says her office is balancing the agricultural stakeholders wanting access to the large-scale Chinese market with a strategy to also diversify trade partnerships as to not be too reliant on a single country.

“We are working through the agreement on reciprocal trade to diversify our markets so we don’t overly rely on China,” she says. “We are looking to address that very serious situation where China may see agriculture as a pain point for the United States.”

With the upcoming meeting of President Trump and President Xi in April, Callahan says her team and the larger U.S. trade team is working to prepare and set the stage for a positive outcome. Callahan points to specific issues to be worked through and market focuses spanning crops and livestock.

“Both sides want the meetings to be a success,” she says. “Certainly, in the meetings leading up to the president level discussion, we will be having open and frank conversations with China where we need to see areas of improvement. That’s not limited to soybeans to sorghum. Our beef producers don’t have access to China due to China’s unfortunate actions that are not renewing facility registrations.”

The Review of USMCA

With a goal of “reciprocity and balance across north America” the trade team is working on its review of the North American trade deal.

“We absolutely understand the importance of USMCA for U.S. farmers and ranchers,” Callahan says.

Describing this as a “comprehensive review” she says that spans:

Look at what is working
Maintain what is working
Improve on areas not be delivering the benefits U.S. farmers and ranchers expect

She brings up the overall trade balance with Canada and specifically, Canadian dairy.

“With Canada, we went from a $3 billion deficit in 2020 and now we have an $11 billion ag trade deficit. So there are certainly areas for improvement, and we’re taking all of our stakeholders’ comments into consideration,” Callahan says.

Why The ITC Review May Not Be a Silver Bullet to High Fertilizer Prices

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:04:31 GMT

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has l aunched its scheduled five-year “sunset review” of countervailing duties (CVD) on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. While these duties were intended to protect domestic industry, the landscape has shifted: one of the nation’s two major phosphate producers is now calling for their removal.

The Cost of Protection

In place since April 2021, the CVDs have been a flashpoint for farmers and trade groups who argue the duties have artificially inflated input costs. Recent research backs those concerns:

Texas A&M (AFPC) : Found the CVD increased diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices by 28.6%, costing U.S. farmers an additional $6.9 billion between 2021 and 2025.
Oklahoma State University : Estimated a 34% price hike on DAP specifically linked to Moroccan duties.

During an October congressional hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) urged the administration to act, saying, “There is something that the Trump administration can do right now to help ease the burden for farmers: lowering the countervailing duties on phosphate from Morocco.”

(Data Source: USDA)

Declining U.S. Production

The U.S. phosphate market is highly concentrated. Two producers—Mosaic and Nutrien—account for 90% of domestic volume (Mosaic’s share is roughly 75%).

In a statement, Nutrien said: “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. 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.”

Mosaic has been contacted for a statement.

The Resource Reality

Opponents of the duties point to a stark reality: U.S. phosphorus rock extraction has plummeted by more than half since 1995, dropping from 45 million metric tons to just 20 million in 2023.

Globally, there are five key phosphate suppliers, in order of largest volumes of production: China, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Morrocco and the U.S.

The “Coin Flip” Outcome

Despite the pressure to remove duties, experts warn it may not be a silver bullet for high prices. Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX, describes the ITC’s upcoming decision as a “coin flip.”

Even if the duties vanish, Linville notes that global headwinds remain.

“Whether the CVD rate is in place or not, it doesn’t fix the fact that China is not participating [in exports],” Linville said on the Top Producer podcast.

He notes that high anhydrous and sulfur prices—the two biggest variable costs in phosphate production—will keep a floor under prices.

He continues: “If we drop NOLA DAP prices by $100 per ton or $150, it would be phenomenal, but if it’s only $100 to $150 per ton, you’d see U.S. phosphate production be curtailed. We’ve got a finite amount of phosphate rock in this country. They are not going to be produce the tons of an upgraded product and sell them at a loss when they know it’s a finite supply. And once the market gets back to where we can make money, they’ll supply it again.”

USDA Forecasts Significant Drop in U.S. Ag Trade Deficit as Exports Rise

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:24:45 GMT

USDA now projects the U.S. agricultural trade deficit will narrow to $29B in FY2026 , down from about $50B a year ago. Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Luke Lindberg says the trade team isn’t done yet.

(Data: USDA)

“Our goal is to get back to surplus, but going from $50 billion (forecasted) to $29 billion in one year shows tremendous progress, 43% down over this time last year, and we’re continuing to make good progress on seeing that drop even further,” Lindberg says.

Exports rising

Three areas with notable increases in exports by year-end of 2025 include:

Dairy exports up 15%
Ethanol exports up 11%
Corn exports up 29%

Simply put, the U.S. ag trade balance is export value minus import value. Lindberg says the export side of the equation is where his team can make the most impact.

“We’ve seen great opportunities as our producers can take new advantage of some of these trade deals the president has put in place. So, the stat that I love to say right now is over half the world’s population and over half the world’s GDP have come to some kind of a trade agreement with the president in his first year in office. That’s a lot of mouths to feed and a lot of dollars that can be buying U.S. products.”

In recent decades, the U.S. maintained a positive trade balance up until 2020 when the surpluses were much smaller or became deficits.

How USDA says it will push exports

To build back trade, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ team is sticking to a three-point plan:

Get better trade agreements.
Build willing buyer and willing seller relationships.
Hold trading partners accountable.

“Our team and our friends over at the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office have done a tremendous job opening up market access with our dealmaker-in-chief, President Donald J. Trump. Our team at USDA plays an outsized role in getting our farmers and ranchers out there to sell their products. I refer to it as building buyer-seller relationships. And so we’re aggressively approaching that this year, with getting our farmers and ranchers and our agribusinesses on the ground in these countries where they have market access today that they didn’t have yesterday,” he says.

Trade missions: 2026 schedule and priorities

To continue to build trade relations and boost exports, Lindberg points to the traditional USDA agribusiness trade missions ( of which there are six scheduled in 2026 ), and the rapid response trade missions called TRUMP missions (Trade Reciprocity for U.S. Manufacturers and Producers).

“We really do have a robust, aggressive schedule this year to make sure we’re quickly getting into these markets that the president has unlocked,” he says. “We need market access. We need to be able to compete on a fair and level playing field to export our products around the world.”

Domestic angle: imports, tariffs, and “level playing field”

As for the domestic demand of ag products, and potentially reducing the value of agricultural imports, Lindberg says farmers should also have a level playing field stateside.

“Our farmers and ranchers now have a better playing field, both overseas, where we’re taking down trade barriers, but also here domestically, through the President’s aggressive use of tariffs and the way in which he has restructured the opportunities that exist domestically for our farmers. And we’re seeing that in the trade data, where on a dollar-for-dollar basis, we’re going to be importing a significant amount less this year than we did even last year. And what that does is it means more Americans, more of their dollars are going towards food that is produced, consumed, slaughtered, raised, processed, right here in the United States of America, and I think that’s a win as well.”

The next agribusiness trade mission is to the Philippines.

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.

USDA Trade Team Returns from Malaysia with a Focus on These Key Ag Products

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:53:32 GMT

As a follow up to the Oct. 26, 2025, trade deal announced by President Donald Trump, the USDA trade team just returned from a recent Trade Reciprocity for U.S. Manufacturers and Producers (TRUMP) mission.

Luke Lindberg, USDA undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, says there were good, productive meetings toward elevating the relationship between the U.S. and Malaysia, which ranks as the 26^th largest ag trade market.

“These TRUMP missions were one of the aspects of [Agriculture] Secretary [Brooke] Rollins’ and my three-point plan to really ramp up U.S. agricultural exports. So, the president’s done a tremendous job of negotiating these new agreements around the world, and our job is to get on the ground with farmers, with U.S. agribusinesses, and start to make deals happen,” Lindberg says. “The analogy I’ve been using is the president is opening the door, and it’s our job to drive a bus through it.”

The trip to Malaysia had a delegation of 16 agribusinesses and trade associations. In recent years, the biggest U.S. agricultural exports to Malaysia have been soybeans, dairy products, cotton, vegetables and nuts.

“The whole barnyard kind of came with us this time around, because one of the things that the U.S. trade representative’s team and we did with USDA and the White House was we actually got Malaysia to agree that the U.S. food system is safe, and that’s in the language of the agreement,” he says.

Of the specific categories he shared, there was progress on many fronts including:

Soybeans — In 2024, Malaysia imported almost 452 metric tons of U.S. soybeans. Lindberg says U.S. leaders met with the largest soy crush facility, and he sees opportunities for growth.
Dairy — In total for 2024, Malaysia imported $118 million in dairy products. “We’ve seen a tremendous increase in dairy access and opportunities there, 23% growth this past year for dairy,” Lindberg says.
Ethanol — “We had a great conversation around ethanol opportunities,” Lindberg says. “Malaysia is a regional distributor of fuels, and so working ethanol into the fuel supply chain that can really spread throughout the ASEAN region, a lot of good opportunities out there.”
Beef — “We visited a very successful restaurant group in Malaysia that’s been begging for U.S. beef for a long time,” Lindberg says. “They’ve actually invested in a beef processing plant in the United States to get their beef halal certified so that they’re ready to go for when the actual duties shift and the regulations come into full force.”

Lindberg says a key tenant of the trade deal is to reduce or eliminate all tariffs.

“A lot of our producer groups haven’t been able to compete on a level playing field in Malaysia in the past, and now they have that access and that opportunity,” he explains. “When our groups can compete on a level playing field, I think we win more often than we lose.”

Next steps include a Malaysian delegation visiting Washington, D.C., next week.

“We’re marching forward here with a great opportunity on the horizon. I think it’s progressing nicely,” Lindberg says. “These rapid-response missions are largely driven by building these kind of new opportunities that really didn’t exist yesterday and exist today. In the next couple months, we’ll see full implementation of the deal, and that’ll really be the access-opening opportunity for our producers.”

Looking ahead this year, Lindberg says the USDA trade team is “hyperfocused” on fixing the agricultural trade deficit. With 2026 agribusiness trade missions announced for Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Australia and New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, he highlights time spent in Southeast Asia is a strategy to build trade in a region with growing GDP and positive consumption trends for U.S. agricultural goods.

“It’s going to be a dynamic year for U.S. trade,” Lindberg says. “I keep saying to folks: Trade agreements are great, but sales are the goal.”

At a Breaking Point, More Cotton Farmers Could Be Forced to Walk Away

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 17:59:59 GMT

It’s a grim reality that isn’t improving in the South. Cotton and rice producers say their balance sheets are bleeding red. After multiple years of losses, debt continues to mount, and recently announced government payments are not expected to come close to covering the financial hole farmers face again this year.

For many, the question is no longer how to make a profit, it’s whether they can stay in farming at all.

Farmers, industry leaders and economists warn the U.S. could be approaching a breaking point for cotton and rice production, with 2026 shaping up to be another year that pushes more growers out of the business. And with more farmers potentially walking away, the fear is the U.S. could be on the verge of losing those industries altogether.

“An Average Crop Doesn’t Pay the Bills”

For Charles Williams, a farmer in Crawfordsville, Ark., he’s seen what multiple years of losses can do to an industry.

“In terms of how the year ended up, it’s pretty average to mediocre,” Williams says. “But an average crop really doesn’t pay the bills, unfortunately.”

Looking back at 2025, Williams says he feels fortunate his operation was able to plant at all. Heavy flooding across the mid-South last spring forced many acres to go unplanted, compounding losses in a region heavily dependent on rice and cotton.

The flooding came at a time when acreage was already under pressure.

“I’m on the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board, and I’ve seen some projections on acres,” Williams says. “In 2024, I think we had 1.4 million acres of rice here in the state. In 2025, USDA shows 1.25 million got planted. I’m kind of surprised by that number, but it’s probably some late-planted rice. We’re projecting under 900,000 acres. I think that’s the lowest acreage since 1983.”

Arkansas is the nation’s largest rice-producing state, growing roughly half of all U.S. rice. Cotton is the other cornerstone crop,but it comes with specialized, expensive equipment that leaves farmers with few alternatives.

Because these farmers have cotton equipment to pay for, equipment that can only do one thing, which is pick cotton, walking away isn’t an easy choice. Williams also is an owner of a gin.

“We’ll continue to plant some cotton, at least as much as we did last year,” he says. “Our production last year is half of what it historically is, so we’ll be 50% to 60%, maybe 65% of what we historically plant with cotton. Rice, I don’t know. There may not be a whole lot of rice grown, quite frankly.”

The Piece Not Many Are Saying Out Loud: “We’re on the Cusp of Offshoring Production”

Williams says many farmers are planting crops in 2026 knowing full well they won’t make money on them. That reality has him worried about the long-term future of U.S. production.

“I hate to think about the possibility of offshoring cotton production and rice production,” Williams says. “I think we’re on the cusp of that right now.”

That concern is echoed across the Cotton Belt.

When Gary Adams, president and CEO of the National Cotton Council, spoke to “U.S. Farm Report” last spring, he warned the industry had gone from just losing money to losing farms . Nearly a year later, he says little has changed.

“If you just look at the economics of where the market is, it’s been generally trading sideways over the last half of 2025,” Adams says. “For a lot of growers, the situation is kind of the same as it had been. You just put another year of losses on top of what had been a couple of years before that.”

Adams says conversations with farmers reveal a level of stress he hasn’t seen before. Average cotton losses in 2025 are estimated at more than $300 per acre.

“That’s the kind of numbers we’re seeing for the 2025 crop,” Adams says. “We compare that to 2024, even a little worse than what we saw in 2024, and 2023 had a loss as well, just not as large. That’s the magnitude we’re looking at when we stack up market returns versus cost of production.”

Government Aid Helps, But Doesn’t Close the Gap

Last week, USDA announced payment rates for the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program , with rice payments set at nearly $133 per acre and cotton payments just over $117 per acre.

Those payments drew criticism from soybean farmers who argue soybeans were hit harder by last year’s trade dispute with China.

Seth Meyer, who served as USDA chief economist for five years before taking a job with the University of Missouri to start 2026, was on the front lines of crafting the calculations for the Farmer Bridge Program payments. He says it’s key to understand the program is designed as economic aid, not trade mitigation.

“We started off this discussion about trade mitigation and simply tight margins and tough economic conditions to bridge us to ARC and PLC support,” says Seth Meyer, director of Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and former USDA chief economist. “The safety net kicks in in October of this year. When folks look at some of the commodity payments, this is an economic impact. They were calculating these very similarly to ECAP, looking at shortfalls in cost of production, not trade impacts.”

Meyer says the administration was pursuing multiple strategies simultaneously while being strategic with how the program was rolled out.

“There’s been kind of two efforts,” he says. “One is putting a program out there so the Chinese can’t hold that trade impact over our head during negotiation. At the same time, we’re pursuing other trade opportunities. When we look at ongoing trade negotiations with China and the president’s supposed visit in the spring, there’s been some progress, even though the friction lasted longer than last time.”

But the Farmer Bridge payments are capped at $155,000 per individual, a limit Adams says will constrain many cotton operations.

“I do think it’s helping offset a portion of their shortfall,” Adams says. “It gives them a chance to stay in business, not a chance at a profit, a chance to stay in business, when you combine it with the higher reference prices in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that will take effect later this year.”

He says in the OBBB, cotton’s seed cotton reference price increased about 14%, but those funds won’t arrive until October.

“There’s still a lot of weight between now and then,” Adams says. “Things can happen with the market. This serves as a bridge, but does it fill the entire hole they’re facing? No, it doesn’t.”

What it does provide, Adams says, is some reassurance to lenders.

“It gives lenders some assurance to go with them for another year,” he says. “That’s the situation a lot of growers are in.”

More Farmers Walking Away? Those Decisions Are Being Made Right Now

Even with the assistance that USDA says should hit bank accounts by the end of February, Adams says some farmers won’t make it, either by choice or because their lender won’t finance them for the upcoming year.

“Some growers will look at the markets, look at cost of production, look at what equity they still have and make the decision that that’s enough,” Adams says. “They’ll decide to get out of farming and do something else. We know those decisions are being made right now.”

When asked whether the industry expects an uptick in farmers exiting, particularly in the mid-South, Adams doesn’t hesitate.

“I think there’s a really good chance that will happen,” he says. “Whether it’s by choice or dictated by their lender, they’re taking a hard look at what equity they still have and whether they want to continue taking on that level of risk.”

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 told U.S. Farm Report last year that Arkansas farmers were staring at a loss on every crop they grow . He says it’s not an exact 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.”

What Will It Take to Turn Cotton Prices Around?

With prices still below breakeven again this year, Adams says the industry is focused on the demand side of the equation.

“Commodity markets are always cyclical,” he says. “There will be some unanticipated shock, but when we look forward. We’re really focused on demand; global cotton demand has been relatively stagnant for the last decade.”

Global consumption currently sits between 115 million and 118 million bales, down from highs of 123 million to 124 million bales. That’s why the industry is leaning into campaigns like Plant Not Plastic , highlighting cotton’s environmental and health benefits.

“We’re really focusing on cotton as a natural fiber and a healthy alternative to synthetics,” Adams says. “Microplastic microfiber pollution is in the environment, in our bodies and in our food. We want brands, retailers and consumers to be aware of that.”

Adams also points to untapped domestic demand. Of the roughly 40 million bales of fiber consumed in the U.S. retail market each year, only about 4 million bales, roughly 10%, are U.S. cotton.

Legislation known as the Buying American Cotton Act , introduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, aims to change that by offering transferable tax credits for products made with U.S.-grown cotton.

“We hope in the next two to three weeks to have a companion bill introduced in the House,” Adams says. “This would provide tax incentives to brands and retailers that document the use of U.S. cotton. We believe that translates into additional demand and better prices for producers.”

Williams says domestic consumption is critical.

“I think we need to find ways to incentivize production as much as we can,” he says. “Beyond that, domestic consumption is something we need to be looking at. The Buying American Cotton Act is an America-first approach that could reshore finished goods. That’s what we need.”

“It’s Hang On and Hold On”

Until something changes, farmers say the pressure will continue into 2026. For Williams, the stakes are deeply personal.

“It’s hang on and hold on,” he says. “I’m going on 52 years old. I’ve got four kids, two in college and two in high school, and I need to see them through.”

For many cotton and rice farmers across the mid-South, the coming year could determine whether holding on is still possible.

Economists Forecast Farm Economy to Stabilize, But High Costs and Policy Uncertainty Block a 2026 Rebound

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:39 GMT

As 2026 ushers in a fresh start, agricultural economists say the U.S. farm economy has stopped sliding, but it’s far from fully healed.

The December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows month-to-month sentiment is improving, but deep structural strain remains — especially in row crops. Meanwhile, livestock markets continue to provide strength. Crop producers face another year of tight margins driven by high input costs, weak prices and unresolved trade and policy uncertainty.

“There’s cautious optimism,” the economists say, “but very little belief that 2026 will bring a meaningful rebound without cost relief or stronger demand.”

Those themes mirror the perspective of Seth Meyer, former USDA chief economist and now director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. In a recent interview, Meyer connected the dots between narrow margins, policy responses and what might actually move the dial for U.S. agriculture heading into 2026.

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists see the ag economy holding its ground — but not gaining strength.

54% say the ag economy is somewhat better than one month ago.
Compared with a year ago:
- 42% say conditions are worse
- 33% say they are better
Looking ahead 12 months:
- 46% expect conditions unchanged
- 38% expect improvement
- 15% expect conditions to worsen

“Momentum has improved since mid-2025,” Meyer notes, “but tight margins have been with us for a long time. Turning that around requires demand growth, not just price stabilization.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Grant Gardner, assistant Extension professor at the University of Kentucky, tells AgriTalk’s Chip Flory: “I think as we move into kind of this next marketing year, you’re looking at what looks like a breakeven and not a loss, but breakeven still doesn’t look great after three years of breakeven or losses.”

He says even with the $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Program payments , it won’t drastically change the outlook for the farm economy.

“Purdue had a good survey about a month ago, where they looked at what were these payments going to go to, and research would show that a lot of these payments go into long-term assets, and so land tractors, but I think over 60% of producers right now are in such a tight cash crunch that you’re going to see a lot of these payments go into that short-term debt,” Gardner says.

Consolidation a Growing Threat

Economists are nearly unanimous that the crop sector remains under extreme financial stress. 83 percent say row crops are currently in a recession. That isn’t about production declines — acres and yields haven’t collapsed — but about persistently weak profitability.

“Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops,” one economist wrote in the survey.

Another said: “Margins remain below full costs of production for many producers.”

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Meyer traces that back to how abruptly agriculture moved from the high prices of 2021 and 2022 into today’s tighter margins.

“We moved very quickly from a very high price environment and good profitability in 2022 to very tight margins,” he says. “That usually happens coming off price peaks, but this time it happened really rapidly.”

A minority of survey respondents argued farms are “treading water,” supported by strong land values and government aid rather than eroding further, which Meyer acknowledged aligns with how risk and safety nets have interacted this year.

But when you look at how the current stress in the farm economy could impact consolidation, the ag economists say it’s the economic pressure combined with demographic trends causing the acceleration. In fact, 92% of them say consolidation is underway and unavoidable.

“Markets go to the lowest-cost producers,” one economist wrote. “That sorting is consolidation on the production side.”

Aging producers exiting and rent-heavy operations under pressure only add fuel to that trend, with one economist saying: “Consolidation happens because producers have to exit, not because they want to.

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

When economists were asked to identify the two most important factors shaping agriculture’s economic health today, their responses clustered around a familiar, but increasingly sharp, divide: strong demand in livestock and the protein sector versus persistent oversupply and cost pressure in crops, all layered with trade and policy uncertainty.

Several economists pointed to continued strength in beef demand, both domestically and through export channels, as a key stabilizing force. While the dairy sector is an area that shows signs of weakness for 2026.

“Livestock revenues are a bright spot,” one respondent noted, underscoring why the livestock sector continues to outperform crops financially.

Looking to 2026, economists overwhelmingly point to input costs, not interest rates, as the biggest barrier to profitability. Nearly 70% cited input prices as the largest challenge as well, far ahead of trade concerns or capital availability.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

“We have too much supply and not enough demand for row crops,” one economist wrote.

Another said: “Input costs are still too high.”

Trade remains a central wild card, especially relationships with China and uncertainty around global supply. Several respondents cited trade disputes and agreements as critical factors, along with questions about the size of South American crops and how that could shape global competition in the months ahead.

Policy uncertainty was also featured prominently, with economists pointing to domestic biofuels policy, government payments and broader market signals as factors influencing both short-term cash flow and longer-term demand growth.

Overall, economists say the ag economy is being pulled in opposite directions: strong livestock demand providing support, while crops struggle under high costs, oversupply and unresolved trade and policy questions — a dynamic that helps explain why the broader farm economy feels stable, but far from healthy, as 2026 approaches.

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

Livestock continues to stand out as the most financially healthy segment of the ag economy. Every economist surveyed rated beef as above average or excellent, supported by strong domestic demand and tight supplies. Dairy and pork were viewed as stable to moderately strong.

That success creates a stark contrast with row crops, where corn and cotton were cited by 38% each as the commodities most at risk financially in 2026.

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, economists say crop prices will hinge less on domestic fundamentals and more on global supply, trade flows and policy clarity.

Across responses, South America emerged as the dominant influence, with economists repeatedly citing Brazilian weather, the size of the South American harvest and how those supplies compete with U.S. exports. Several noted that clarity around South American production will be critical in setting price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Trade, particularly with China, remains another key swing factor. Economists emphasized not just the announcement of trade agreements, but whether purchases translate into actual shipments.

“China purchases of U.S. crops, but also if and when actual shipments occur,” one respondent noted, adding that details within any trade deal, including purchase commitments, will matter just as much as headlines.

Domestic factors still play a role, but economists see them as secondary in the near term. Input prices, early U.S. planting conditions and assumptions about 2026 acreage were all cited as important — especially as markets begin to trade expectations for next year’s crop mix.

Policy uncertainty also hangs over the outlook. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around trade policy, biofuels policy and broader economic conditions as variables that could amplify or mute price moves.

Economists say crop prices over the next six months are likely to be driven by how global supply unfolds, whether export demand materializes and how quickly policy uncertainty is resolved, rather than by any single domestic production shock.

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

One of the clearest themes Meyer highlights as a possible game changer for demand, and ultimately prices, is biofuels policy.

For economists, policy levers like year-round E15, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, 45Z investment tax credits and how small refinery exemptions are handled could meaningfully influence demand for corn and soybeans in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s one of the places where policymakers actually have levers to help with tight margins in the row crop sector,” Meyer says.

He emphasizes that final rules on RFS volumes and how biobased credits are implemented could impact feedstock demand.

“For the next couple of crop seasons, RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) and how EPA reallocates small refinery exemptions are big factors,” Meyer says. “Should we raise the RVO to soak up that pool like a sponge? Should imported feedstocks get full 45Z credit? Those decisions could move demand.”

On year-round E15, a long-sought policy priority for corn growers, Meyer is cautiously optimistic.

“I do think it matters,” he says. “Maybe it’s not a huge swing this year, but offering certainty and building demand over multiple seasons is supportive. Other countries like Brazil are ramping up their biofuels production too, so this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

Year-round E15 (row crops)
Trade policy clarity (row crops & livestock)
Labor reform and regulatory issues (livestock)

They also highlighted under-covered risks, which include pressure on land rents and values, labor shortages, biofuels policy details (such as 45Z credits) and slower population growth affecting long-term demand.

What Could Move Livestock and Dairy Prices in the Next Six Months

When economists look ahead to livestock and dairy markets in early 2026, they see a mix of strong demand signals, supply-side risks and policy uncertainty shaping price direction.

Consumer demand remains the cornerstone of the outlook, particularly for beef. Several economists pointed to continued buying interest from U.S. consumers as the primary support for cattle prices, even as affordability pressures rise. At the same time, some warned that a more “K-shaped” economy could begin to shift demand, pulling some consumers away from beef and toward pork.

Supply dynamics and herd trends are another major focus. Economists cited herd size, potential herd expansion and the availability of feeder cattle as critical variables. The expected resumption of feeder cattle imports from Mexico was highlighted as a key factor that could influence cattle supplies and pricing, depending on timing and volume.

Animal health risks also remain on the radar. Issues such as avian influenza, screwworm and other disease threats were mentioned as potential disruptors that could quickly alter supply conditions in both livestock and dairy markets.

Policy and trade uncertainty continues to hover over the sector. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around tariffs, restrictions on live animal trade with Mexico and the next steps under the USMCA as factors that could impact both imports and exports. Political uncertainty more broadly was also cited as a potential source of market volatility.

For dairy, economists noted that beef-on-dairy dynamics are likely to continue weighing on milk prices by increasing beef supplies while complicating dairy herd decisions.

Taken together, economists say livestock and dairy prices over the next six months will be driven by a delicate balance between strong consumer demand, evolving supply conditions and unresolved trade and policy questions, with any shift in one of those areas capable of moving markets quickly.

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

Despite margin pressure, economists do not expect dramatic acreage pullbacks in 2026. Most expect:

Corn: 93 to 95 million acres
Soybeans: 84 to 86 million acres
Wheat: 44 to 45 million acres
Cotton: 9 to 10 million acres

Corn acreage expectations have edged lower since November, as economists backed away from another year above 95 million acres. At the same time, soybean acreage expectations have firmed, with 75% now targeting 84 to 86 million acres, suggesting stronger relative economics for beans.

“Export demand has helped keep corn acres supported,” Meyer says. “The question is whether that demand holds and whether policy supports it.”

As for acreage, the major impact on prices would be a large acreage reduction, which is unlikely.

“That’s what it comes down to, too. What I’ve been thinking about is what else can you use land for? And you’ve got the pushback on urban sprawl, you’ve got pushback on other uses for ag land. But right now, the simple fact is we’ve got way too much production. Without that slowing, or a drastic increase in demand, I don’t see prices improving to very lucrative levels,” Gardner says.

Overall, The Ag Economy Is a Grind, Not a Rebound

When you look at all the results from the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists paint a picture of an industry that has stopped getting worse, but has not yet found a path to durable profitability.

Crops remain mired in margin compression; livestock continues to outperform but remains sensitive to policy decisions. Government aid is buying time but not addressing structural challenges, but it’s policy outcomes, especially around biofuels, trade and E15, that could be decisive in shaping 2026 outcomes.

For now, the farm economy has found a floor. The tougher question, economists say, is whether policy can help lift it, or if it will continue to grind forward without a genuine rebound.

Related News: As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

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.”

These Half-Dozen U.S. Ag Trade Missions Aim To Diversify Global Demand

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:39:39 GMT

Trump’s USDA team has announced its agribusiness trade missions for the year ahead.

“Our team certainly plays an important role in generating demand overseas for the products,” says Luke Lindberg, USDA undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs.

Lindberg points to a three-point plan Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ team is deploying:

Get better trade agreements.
Build willing buyer and willing seller relationships.
Hold trading partners accountable.

According to Lindberg, the goal is it “helps to cultivate, it helps to diversify, so we’re not solely focused on one or two key buyers. I think if you go to many business owners and ask them, would you rather have one buyer that buys 80% of your products or would you rather have some diversification to lots of buyers who have ups and downs of their own, I think many of them would say they prefer the diversification model.”

So far, six agribusiness trade missions have been announced for 2026 with the goal of growing global markets, increasing exports and strengthening the agricultural economy.

The six mission destinations, and potential agricultural focus areas, include the following.

1. February 2026, Jakarta, Indonesia

Since 2020, annual U.S. ag exports to Indonesia have hovered between $2.75 billion and $3.25 billion. Overall, it’s the 11^th largest trade partner for U.S. ag goods.

Indonesia is the fourth-largest market for U.S. soybeans following China, the European Union and Mexico. According to U.S. Census Bureau trade data, in 2024 Indonesia imported from the U.S. $1.2 billion in soybeans, $198 million in wheat and $139 million in cotton. This past July, the Indonesia private sector and the U.S. wheat industry signed a memorandum committing to purchasing at least 1 million metric tons of U.S. wheat between 2026 and 2030 plus a minimum of 800,000 metric tons of wheat in 2025 (prorated).

The Trump administration has worked to address long-standing barriers to U.S. agricultural trade and expanding market access into Indonesia with a trade agreement eliminating tariffs on more than 99% of U.S. products.

2. April 2026, Manila, Philippines

U.S. ag exports to the Philippines have more than doubled since 2010. In 2024, the total value was $3.5 billion, making it the ninth-largest customer for U.S. ag trade.

With limited domestic production, the Philippines imports nearly all of its dairy products, and specifically $365 million comes from the U.S. Poultry exports to the Philippines totaled $187 million, with a majority of that in frozen chicken leg quarters.

The U.S. gained market share for ethanol imports into the Philippines, having doubled volumes in 2024 with a value of $138 million.

Beef and beef products are the sixth-largest group of ag products the Philippines imports from the U.S. This category has also experienced recent growth by increasing 58% from 2023 to 2024. The U.S. is second to Brazil in market share for beef imported into the Philippines.

In 2024, the Philippines imported $120 million of pork and pork products from the U.S. The country’s local supply has been declining because of African Swine Fever.

According to an announcement in July, the Trump administration said the Philippines will charge zero tariffs for U.S. exports into their market, while the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs to the U.S.

3. May 2026, Istanbul, Turkey

According to USDA analysis, Turkey has grown its strength as an importer of raw materials and then reexported finished products. This includes importing wheat for flour and cotton for apparel.

Because of its geographic location, Turkey has also grown as a strategic regional transshipment hub, connecting U.S. exporters with trade partners across the Caucasus region.

In September, Turkey lifted its retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. ag products: rice, tree nuts, distilled spirits and more. The Trump administration says a focus for the upcoming agribusiness trade mission will be to address nontariff barriers to trade, which includes import bans on U.S. animal protein.

4. August 2026, Australia and New Zealand

The Trump administration says its trade breakthroughs with Australia will give greater access to U.S. beef exporters. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is structured to give comprehensive duty-free market access.

Other protein sectors have significant trade established with Australia. In 2024, $328 million worth of U.S. pork and pork products were imported. And $173 million of U.S. dairy products were brought into the country.

New Zealand imported $520 million worth of U.S. ag goods, including: soybean meal, dairy ingredients (lactose and whey), fresh fruit and distiller’s dried grains.

5. September 2026, Saudi Arabia

This agribusiness trade mission will focus on technical issues and nontariff barriers. Saudi Arabia is the 23^rd largest ag export market for the U.S., and it is a gateway to the $3 billion market for U.S. ag goods that is the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.

Over the past 10 years, the country has increased its imports of U.S. hay by 540% to its recent total of $152 million in 2024.

Corn, tree nuts and rice are also key ag goods exported from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, totaling $239 million, $169 million and $123 million, respectively.

6. November 2026, Vietnam

USDA says this trade mission will focus on preferential access for specialty cheese and meats as well as improved market access for U.S. peaches and nectarines.

U.S. ag exports to the country peaked in 2018 at $4 billion and in 2023 were around $3.1 billion. Ranked from highest value to smallest, the top five ag products exported from the U.S. into Vietnam in 2023 were: cotton, soybeans, distillers grains, soybean meal and tree nuts.

For meat and meat products, the key prospects include frozen/chilled beef (boneless and bone-in), frozen chicken (leg quarters, legs and paws), and turkey.

Dairy could be a growth market for U.S. exports into Vietnam as nonfat dried milk powder has led the segment to total $146 million of imports in 2023. Fresh cheese (for foodservice/restaurants) is in demand by younger generations despite not being part of a traditional diet in the country.

USDA also points to fresh fruit as a growth category for the country, namely apples, cherries and grapes.

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.

What Tariff Announcements Mean for Farmers and Fertilizer Costs

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 21:27:41 GMT

President Trump’s second term has had frequent announcements and adjustments around tariffs, and notably fertilizer. In 2025, the President has signed three executive orders specifically mentioning fertilizer.

With trade developments and threatened tariffs causing uncertainty, it has many asking what is the current status for domestic sourcing of fertilizer and what additional tons could be produced stateside.

How Much Does the U.S. Rely on Fertilizer Imports?

The answer is: it depends on which fertilizer product you’re referring to.

It ranges from the U.S. sourcing almost all of its needed anhydrous ammonia domestically to importing more than 95% of its potash. For its potash imports based on the past three years of data, the U.S. gets about 87% of its annual volume from Canada, and between 7 to 9% comes from Russia.

Nutrien is the world’s largest single producer and exporter of potash, selling more than 14.4 metric tons of potash in 2024 and delivering it to more than 40 countries around the globe. Of Canada’s 10 active mines, Nutrien owns six.

In the U.S., there are five states with significant enough potash rock: New Mexico, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona and Michigan.

It has many asking the question, could the U.S. mine more of its own potash, which we previously covered here.

How Much Fertilizer Do Farmers Buy?

According to USDA, Economic Research Service’s (ERS) Commodity Costs and Returns data since 2020, fertilizer accounts for 33% to 44% percent of costs for corn production.

The most common fertilizers applied—by volume—are: nitrogen, potash, and phosphates.
But even though phosphates rank third in terms of lb/ per acre, the cost for phosphates relative to the corn price has such a high ratio it is larger than the amount applied to the crop.

Since the end of the 2024, China has cut off its exports of phosphate, whereas the year before it was the second larger global exporter. The country used to provide up to 8 million tons to the global fertilizer market pre-COVID-19.

Where Does the World’s Fertilizer Come From?

Top 5 phosphate export countries ranked globally:

Morocco
China
Saudi Arabia
Russia
US.

Top 5 potash export countries ranked globally

Canada
Russia
Belarus
Israel
Germany

Dollars And Dirt: Navigating The Financial Reality Of Conservation Farming

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 20:48:35 GMT

Farmers like Ted Hamer and April Hemmes aren’t opposed to conservation practices or regenerative agriculture—both Iowa row crop growers already use some. What they are opposed to is taking on unmanageable risk in an environment of tight margins, volatile markets and rising input costs without clear, reliable benefits.

During their recent, wide-ranging conversation on AgriTalk, a central theme emerged: if policymakers and companies seek broader adoption of conservation and regenerative practices, they must pair expectations with practical, well-designed incentives.

Here are some of the key points the two farmers made during their discussion with Host Davis Michaelson.

‘Regenerative’ is Just Good Farming
When new programs are announced with big dollar figures and bold language, they often imply that farmers need to be “fixed.” That doesn’t sit well with farmers, many of whom have been stewarding the same land for generations.

As Hemmes, based in Franklin County, Iowa, puts it, many practices highlighted under the umbrella of “regenerative agriculture” are simply standards for good farming.

“What you’re saying is regenerative ag, I just call farming. That’s just what we do. Taking care of our ground and having healthy soils is what we farmers do because it’s our legacy to our family,” says Hemmes, who uses no-till, cover crops and water management practices.

In her and Hamer’s perspective, farmers are not resistant to regenerative practices. Instead, they dislike being told they are “farming wrong” by groups and individuals outside of agriculture who may not fully grasp the on-the-ground economic and agronomic realities.

Tight Margins Make Experimenting A High-Stakes Decision
Hamer, based in Tama County, Iowa, explains that adopting new practices—such as cover crops, reduced tillage, or diversified rotations—often means incurring upfront costs, significant management changes, and a lot of uncertainty.

“It’s terribly risky with the margins we have right now… I’ve got to make a buck… I can’t have it be so risky that I don’t see a return on my investment,” Hamer says.

This is the crux of the matter: even when farmers are supportive and willing to adopt new practices and technologies, the math has to work, and some profit must be realized.

Their collective perspective is clear: without robust ROI data, strong cost-share or incentive payments, and integrated risk-management tools (like multi-year contracts or crop insurance integration), shifting current practices is often unjustifiable.

“The margins are too tight to stick your neck out very far at this time,” Hamer says.

Incentives Must Include Technical Support
National agricultural announcements often tout the dollar amounts available, such as the recently announced $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program . While funding is crucial, Hemmes points to an equally pressing need: technical support in the field to help implement the programs effectively.

“They need more dollars for people in the field…. I’ve been a soil and water commissioner for over 30 years, and we are in desperate need for technicians out here. So, throwing money at this is one thing, but getting the people in place to carry out the programs is another,” she says.

When USDA service centers, Extension offices, and others at the local level are understaffed and technical assistance is stretched thin, good programs can stall at the farm gate. Hemmes outlines the requirements for effective incentives:

Adequate Technical Assistance: To help farmers correctly design and implement complex practices.
Reasonable Timelines: Recognizing that some benefits, like improved soil structure and organic matter, take time to develop and build.
Simple, Predictable Processes: Application and compliance should be straightforward.

Without the necessary technical support and manpower, Hemmes notes that even the best programs often just turn into frustrating paperwork exercises.

Aid Payments Don’t Fix Structural Issues
Short-term “bridge” or aid payments can help keep farms afloat during difficult years, but Hemmes and Hamer say they don’t structurally support the long-term decisions that can improve grower practices and profitability.

The main issue, they contend, is that much of the money from these aid programs never truly stays on the farm.

“This payment (the $12 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance program) isn’t for us. It’s all going to input costs, fertilizer, equipment. None of that money stays in our hands,” Hamer says.

Hemmes agrees, noting that people outside of agriculture often “don’t see what the problem is” because farmers are seemingly getting “free” money.

“It’s not like we go to Amazon and order a bunch more crap off there because we got some money,” she says. “No. It goes to everything we have to do to put the next crop in the ground.”

Ultimately, she believes, major policy change requires facing difficult truths.

“We’d love free and fair trade, but we know that’s not a possibility,” she contends. “It’s going to hurt to make a change, and I think that’s what politicians don’t like. They want to get reelected, so [their attitude is] ‘let’s just keep doing it this way.’ That’s the tough part of it all, because anything that revolves around changing policy is messy.”

Hear the complete conversation between Hamer, Hemmes and Michaelson on AgriTalk:

FarmDoc Releases Farmer Bridge Assistance Payment Estimates

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 21:04:38 GMT

USDA is scheduled to release the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program payment rates next week. In anticipation of the official numbers, University of Illinois’s farmdoc Daily rolled out its estimates with payments ranging from $21 per acre for barley to a high of $134 per acre for rice.

The FBA program will provide $12 billion in support to offset losses associated with unfair trade practices. The majority of those dollars, $11 billion, will be used for payments to eligible row crop producers while the remaining $1 billion will go toward specialty crops. Payments will be made to farmers by the end of February 2026.

The formula for figuring payments will be similar to ECAP, says CPA Paul Neiffer. He calculated payments using the mid-year average price. For example, the soybean price last year was $10.20, and this year it’s $10.50. Soybeans might see a reduced rate, but all the other crops, especially wheat and rice, are seeing a 10% to 15% increase, he adds.

“Then I took that difference in the price. So I took the old ECAP number, multiplied it by 110% because we have an extra 10% and then multiplied it by that difference in price,” Neiffer says. “If the price went down, that payment went up a little bit, and if the price went up like it did for soybeans, that price went down.”

Corn farmers will receive the largest share of payments at more than $4.5 billion as farmdoc estimates bridge payments for corn at $46 an acre. However, that still won’t make up for four-year lows in prices and near-record-high input prices, says Matt Frostic, vice president of the National Corn Growers Association.

“We’re looking at $170 [per acre] negative margins in corn this year, which is pretty dramatic. When you couple that with some of the peripheral states where they’ve had disaster the last couple of years due to drought, the grower is in pretty tough shape right now to endure some of this.”

For soybeans, farmdoc shows losses of $83 per acre and an estimated bridge payment of $25 per acre. All told, soybean farmers will receive over $2 billion of the $11 billion allocated to row crop farmers in the program.

Caleb Ragland , president, American Soybean Association, says these payments can’t make up for losing their top export customer, China, due to tariffs and the trade war. He says China accounted for 25% of all soybeans grown in the U.S. in 2024, so these payments leave a gap.

“It would help some, but I think the losses and the pain is much deeper than that, quite frankly,” he says. “We’re in a pretty tough spot on many of our operations.”

(FarmDoc)

Highest Payment Per Acre Goes to Rice Farmers
farmdoc estimates the highest bridge payment for rice farmers at $134 per acre based on losses of $446 per acre. That exceeds estimated losses for rice calculated by the University of Arkansas at $259 an acre. Arkansas farmer Nathan Reed said on a recent episode of “Unscripted” the reason for the discrepancy is because that projection was made in October and rice prices have dropped since then.

“The rice price is over 50¢ less than when that projection was made. The rice price is closer to $300 an acre, and yes, that’s very close, especially when they take every number into account, equipment payments, things such as that, land rent, etc.,” Reed says.

While the assistance is welcome, it can’t stop the systematic bleeding from three or four years of accumulated losses on the farm, he adds.

“As things kind of settle and these bridge payments come in, I think that’s when the pain is going to come. For some people that’s when the banks will look at it and say, well, we can get most of our money back, we might need to just cut them off,” Reed explains.

Big losses continue in the South with cotton at a negative $383 per acre, with a bridge payment of $115. Payments for other crops include peanuts at an estimated $64 per acre, wheat at $39, sorghum at $48 per acre and oats at $92.

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.

If Bridge Payments Are Temporary, What’s the Path to Long-Term Certainty for Farmers?

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:16:40 GMT

“I think we are putting wins on the board,” says USDA under secretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs Luke Lindberg.

In a recent one-on-one interview, he highlights the three-point plan and the three-step process Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and the team at USDA are deploying to create what they are calling “the new golden age for American agriculture.”

Lindberg says this holistic approach alongside the administration’s trade agreements is leading to expanding export opportunities.

Their three-point plan is:
1. Bring new dollars to the table.
“This includes the America First Trade Promotion Program, which helps support our cooperator groups, like the U.S. Soybean Export Council, the U.S. Dairy Export Council, U.S. Meat Export Federation, to get our producers in those markets and effectively brand and market their products,” he says.

2. Trade Reciprocity for U.S. Manufacturers and Producers (TRUMP) missions
“These rapid response trade missions are a little different than our traditional agribusiness trade missions that USDA has been known for a long time,” he says. “These are really hyper-focused and targeted on rapid response opportunities in new markets where President Trump has delivered on new trade agreements. So in President Biden’s administration, there were zero trade agreements in four years. Under President Trump, we have 15 new agreements out there already, and more coming along.”

3. Revitalize GSM 102 financing program
Linberg says this is an important tool to give countries to buy American products.

“It’s a financing program that works typically in low- to medium-income countries,” he says. “When they can’t get a loan from the private sector to buy American, our team steps in and helps increase the credit profile of that country to be able to buy American.”

To strengthen trade partnerships and correct the ag trade deficit, Lindberg points to a three-point plan which includes:

Get better trade agreements.
Build willing buyer and willing seller relationships.
Hold trading partners accountable.

“This is where these TRUMP missions are really important, because what they do is get our folks on the ground to build relationships in a market where they may not have in the past had relationships, or maybe they’ve been gone for a few years, or maybe they just needed some refresh,” he says. “But when we get a lower tariff in that country, or we get new access, or better access, we want to get in there quickly and begin to explore and take advantage of that. I say that the agreement kind of opens the door, and we’re driving a truck through it.”

The Year’s Trade Wins
“The president signed a new agreement with the United Kingdom, and they were our second-largest ethanol market after Canada globally,” Lindberg says. “We have already seen significant increases in our ethanol exports, which are having a banner year, up 11% over last year–best year ever for ethanol exports. And by first quarter of next year, we’re anticipating a 50% increase in ethanol exports to the UK over what we experienced last year. It is making a big difference.”

When asked about the announced buys of American soybeans by China, and what U.S. farmers can expect regarding China upholding those commitments, Lindberg points to the recent sales being just the beginning of more activity between to the two countries.

“The President has also made it clear that the China soybean purchases are a floor. We’re expecting more than that. He even mentioned that last week, when he had a group of farmers come in to talk about these bridge payments and also talk about the farm economy, and said he anticipates and expects that China may do even more yet than what was agreed upon,” Lindberg says. “That floor is a great place to start, gives our soybean farmers enough of the ability to plan for the future. But also be hopeful and optimistic that there’s a brighter future out there as well.”

Bridge Payments Are a Short-Term Solution
With farmer economic support announced at the beginning of the month, Lindberg says that’s a short-term solution, and the goal moving forward is to provide long-term certainty.

“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 says, noting how trade is imperative to the economic success of the American farmer.

He continues: “Our team certainly plays an important role in generating demand overseas for the products. So part of the calculus that goes into a profitable farm is, do you have the markets and the demand to sell your products into? So all these initiatives we’re working on, the three-point plan that all helps to cultivate, it helps to diversify, so we’re not solely focused on one or two key buyers. I think if you go to many business owners and ask them, would you rather have one buyer that buys 80% of your products, or would you rather have some diversification to lots of buyers who have ups and downs of their own, I think many of them would say they prefer the diversification model.”

Outlook For 2026
Lindberg points to tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill as an example of the administration’s strategy to help farmers economically.

“The president had a big win in the One Big Beautiful Bill, which helps with the farm economy in a number of key ways, and the bridge payments that came out are really designed to get folks from today, which is an economy that was largely driven by Biden-era policies into that new golden age of American agriculture. A lot of those One Big Beautiful Bill provisions, like some of the taxing, tax expenses and things, all start next year,” he says. “We’re bridging the gap from today to what that better future will look like next year.”

Why Corn Prices Aren’t Responding to Record Export Demand

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 19:45:20 GMT

From record-setting corn exports to unresolved trade negotiations and a new round of federal support payments , grain markets are sending mixed signals as producers begin to think beyond the current marketing year. While headlines point to strong demand and government assistance, underlying supply dynamics and policy uncertainty continue to weigh heavily on market confidence.

WASDE Offers Encouragement, But Supply Still Looms Large

The December WASDE report is typically considered a low-impact release, but this year’s update, released last week, caught the market’s attention with another sizable increase in corn export projections. That adjustment immediately invited comparisons to last year, when a similar move marked the beginning of a multi-month rally.

“We’re watching the price reaction off that WASDE because the similarities to last year are pretty incredible,” says Garrett Toay, principal with AgTraderTalk. “Last December, we had a 150-million-bushel increase in exports — the largest on record. We have 125 million this week. This week last year is when the rally in corn started and lasted through February.”

Despite that demand-side improvement, Toay says the broader supply picture remains difficult to ignore. Ending stocks are still large by historical standards, and upcoming USDA adjustments could reshuffle the balance sheet without meaningfully tightening supplies.

“We still have a fairly large carryout,” Toay says. “If we do get a yield reduction in January when they come in with final production numbers, I still feel there’s enough corn out there to keep the carryout relatively burdensome.”

U.S. ending stocks projections released in the December WASDE report.

(Lori Hayes/USDA Data )

He also notes that much of the demand strength is already embedded in USDA assumptions, leaving limited room for additional bullish surprises.

“We have a 600-million-bushel year-over-year increase in feed residuals,” Toay explains. “There’s a lot of demand that’s kind of baked into these S&Ds that could possibly be whittled away if they do cut supply.”

Record Exports Highlight Demand, But Prices Still Lag

Even as exports surge, corn futures have struggled to reflect that strength, raising questions about where the disconnect lies. For corn growers, the issue isn’t whether demand exists, but whether it’s translating into meaningful price support.

“We’re talking about record corn exports — 3.2 billion bushels — and we’re about 70% above where we were a year ago,” says Krista Swanson, chief economist for the National Corn Growers Association. “We’re off to a great start, but while this is a record in terms of volume, it’s not a record in terms of value.”

That distinction matters, she says, particularly in an environment of high input costs and tight margins.

“One of the problems is how does that value get back to the farmer?” Swanson says.

Looking ahead, acreage decisions will play a major role in determining whether supply growth continues to overwhelm demand gains. Swanson points to the soybean-to-corn price ratio as an early indicator of producer behavior.

“The soybean-to-corn price ratio is coming in really close to 2.5,” she says. “Above that favors soybeans, below that favors corn.”

After a historically large corn acreage year, some pullback appears likely — but even modest reductions would still leave the U.S. with substantial production capacity.

“Coming off such a high corn acreage year, we’re likely to see acres come down a little bit,” Swanson says. “But even if we came down to 95 million acres, that’s still a high corn acre year.”

That reality brings the focus back to demand expansion, both domestically and abroad.

“So, where does the demand come from?” she says. “We’ve seen good progress in trade agreements. Southeast Asia — Vietnam, Thailand — those markets have good potential. Diversified exports are one of corn’s strengths.”

Policy also remains central to that discussion, particularly ethanol blending.

“We are pushing for E15 to get done before Jan. 30,” Swanson says. “That’s the next funding deadline when Congress either has to act or go into shutdown.”

China Trade Uncertainty Weighs On Soybeans

Trade disruptions are a major reason those payments exist in the first place, and nowhere is that uncertainty more apparent than in ongoing negotiations with China. Conflicting messages around timing, volume commitments and enforcement have kept markets on edge.

“It feels like there’s a lost-in-translation aspect of these negotiations,” Toay says. “The White House wants China to buy a lot of soybeans. China wants to end the trade war and appease the White House, but we still don’t have a trade deal signed.”

While China has made purchases, Toay says they don’t reflect a return-to-normal commercial trade flows.

“The purchases we’ve seen have largely been from Cofco and Sinograin,” he says. “Those are government entities, and the beans are going into state reserves.”

Toay says while government entities might be buying, private crushers remain cautious about the current status of trade relations between the two countries.

“I don’t think you see private crushers in China buying U.S. soybeans until we have a trade deal,” Toay says. “There’s just too much risk.”

But he points out that uncertainty has also influenced speculative positioning.

“The funds started getting long when it looked like we were going to have a deal,” he says. “Now, with uncertainty about timing, they’re paring that back. If we get everything signed, sealed and delivered, the funds will know we’re good to go.”

Could Corn Enter The China Conversation?

While soybeans, sorghum and cotton dominate trade discussions, corn could still play a role if negotiations advance.

“I definitely think there’s a possibility,” Swanson says. “China is a big corn producer, but they’re also a big importer.”

She notes questions surrounding China’s domestic supply estimates.

“I’ve heard some rumblings that their corn production maybe wasn’t as big as the numbers indicate,” Swanson says. “If we have a deal, anything’s on the table, even though we haven’t seen that yet.”

Federal Payments Factor Into 2025 Outlook

Beyond market fundamentals, government support is shaping income projections for the coming year. USDA’s recently announced farmer bridge payments are designed to offset trade disruptions and weak prices, and early estimates suggest they could be meaningful for row-crop producers.

“We’re coming in with an estimate of about $45 for corn and $25 for soybeans,” says Gary Schnitkey, agricultural economist with the University of Illinois. “The corn payment is a little higher than the ECAP payment, and the soybean payment is a little lower.”

Schnitkey’s estimates are based on calculations by Nick Paulson of University of Illinois. He estimates the USDA per acre bridge payment will be:

Corn: $46
Soybeans: $25
Wheat: $39
Cotton: $115
Oats: $92
Rice: $134
Peanuts: $64
Sorghum: $48
Barley: $21

While final rules have not yet been released, Schnitkey says the estimates are broadly consistent with other analyses across the industry. When you combine that with anticipated ARC and PLC payments, the amount of government payments that will go on this year’s balance sheets will be significant, but still makes margins tight.

“As we’re looking at incomes for 2025, we’re looking at almost $100 of federal payments [for corn and soybeans],” Schnitkey says. “That gives us a positive income projection for 2025.”

However, those payments largely arrive after expenses have already been incurred.

“That’s also putting about $100 of receivables on the balance sheet,” he says. “These payments are significant, but we will have cash flow issues for a while.”

As Corn Farmers Face Tight Margins, One Policy Solution Gains Urgency

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 20:53:16 GMT

Harvest 2025 has wrapped up on Drew DeSutter’s Knox County, Ill., farm, but the work is far from finished. Attention has shifted from yield maps to balance sheets. Like many farmers across the Midwest, DeSutter is now focused on marketing grain in an environment defined by volatile prices, stubbornly high input costs and uncertainty about what comes next.

That unknown is shaping decisions not only for the current crop year, but also for planting intentions in 2026 — at a time when farmers are closely watching Washington policy moves and global markets.

DeSutter says yield variability, particularly in corn, was a key harvest theme in 2025. While overall production was solid, uneven results across fields complicate profitability calculations and marketing strategies. However, many farmers saw record soybean yields, which might have tilted the balance sheets in favor of soybeans.

“I think the jury’s still out, and we’ll see what prices do from this point on,” he says. “But I think if you look at your input prices and the price of corn this fall, versus the price of beans, maybe beans were a little bit more profitable, but it’s just a tight margin environment in both corn [and] soybeans right now.”

White House Announces $12 Billion in One-Time Farm Relief

As farmers work through those margin calculations, a major announcement from the White House is shaping the broader conversation about farm income and risk management. On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump unveiled what the administration describes as one-time bridge payment relief to help farmers facing trade disruptions and rising production costs. The per-acre payment rates are expected to be announced the week of Dec. 22.

Many farmers acknowledge the relief payments could provide short-term stability when disbursed early next year, but others question whether the assistance addresses the deeper structural issues facing agriculture, including high fertilizer prices, rising interest rates and trade uncertainty.

“It definitely feels like that it’s the new norm,” DeSutter says about the current tight margin environment. “Agriculture is cyclical. When I got out of college it was pretty good, then you go through some years that are a little tougher and we seem to always bounce back.”

Still, he says the current downturn feels longer and more persistent than previous cycles.

“Heading into 2026, I think it’s going to be another tight year from a profitability standpoint,” he adds.

Corn Growers Focus on Domestic Demand

For corn farmers, the conversation increasingly centers on demand and how to create new outlets for a crop facing heavy supplies. Corn exports are currently at record levels, according to the latest USDA report, yet prices don’t reflect that monumental demand.

That concern is echoed by national corn grower leaders, who say price pressure is intensifying at the same time production costs remain elevated.

“There’s been a lot of talk lately about soybeans, but corn prices have been down about 10% since the beginning of 2025. It’s a pretty significant drop, especially when you consider how high input prices are,” says Lesly Weber McNitt, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).

With USDA projecting more than 2 billion bushels of corn carryover, Weber McNitt says farmers are increasingly focused on how that grain will move.

“Export demand has been great, but that value isn’t there,” she says. “Even though our export volumes are record-setting this year, values are down about $1 billion year over year.”

That reality has sharpened NCGA’s focus on boosting domestic demand, particularly through expanded ethanol use.

Year-Round E15 Could Be What The Market is Searching For

One policy solution gaining renewed attention is year-round nationwide E15, which would allow gasoline blended with 15% ethanol to be sold throughout the year. The issue surfaces repeatedly during conversations with farmers and policymakers, including during the White House roundtable last week as the president rolled out the farmer bridge payments.

“Ethanol, you’re working for ethanol trying to get E15 year-round. I think we can have a lot of domestic product used here in the country, and we can keep America first, and you’re good at that, that is who you are,” said Iowa farmer Cordt Holub to the president.

“So E15 is a big deal?” Trump asked.

“E15 is a great deal year-round. Farmers would love you more than anything if we could continue to use domestic product, use the byproducts,” Holub added during the roundtable discussion.

Weber McNitt says it’s no secret E15 offers multiple benefits, extending beyond farm income alone, which is why it aligns strongly with the Trump administration’s agenda.

“It helps farmers. It helps achieve American energy dominance,” she says. “It helps tackle affordability because year-round E15 could help consumers pay about 25¢ less a gallon at the pump.”

Despite bipartisan support, Weber McNitt stresses that action ultimately rests with Congress.

Legislative Hurdles Remain

NCGA supports the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, which would permanently allow year-round E15 sales. While the bill has backing in both chambers, Weber McNitt says progress has stalled.

“Individual bills aren’t really moving, and there isn’t a lot of time left on the legislative calendar,” she says. “We need to find other bills that are likely to pass so that we can hitch a ride on them.”

Asked whether E15 could still be finalized in 2025, Weber McNitt says she remains cautiously optimistic.

“I would like to achieve it in 2025 still,” she says. “My hope is that we can get the E15 bill passed by the end of January.”

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, shares that optimism.

“We think there are still decent odds we can get it passed here in 2025,” Cooper says. “This period between now and early 2026 is really our best shot at getting this legislation done.”

What E15 Could Mean for Corn Demand

According to NCGA data, growth in corn use for ethanol has largely stagnated since 2011. Weber McNitt says removing regulatory barriers to E15 could dramatically change that trajectory.

“For every 1% you raise the national fuel blending rate, you’d grind an additional 470 million or 490 million bushels of corn,” she says. “Once you scale up to that full 15%, we could be looking at additional demand of 2.4 billion bushels, which is just about what USDA is estimating we’ll have left over.”

She says demand growth would happen over time but the potential impact is significant for a sector searching for new outlets.

Looking Ahead to 2026

Back in Knox County, DeSutter says early signs suggest corn acres could remain strong again next year. Favorable harvest conditions allowed for extensive fall fieldwork, which could influence planting decisions.

Despite the financial pressure, DeSutter’s optimism remains intact. He says at some point agriculture will get back to profitability. Until then, he says incremental policy wins could make a meaningful difference.

“If you can get some small victories, whether it’s year-round E15 or less regulations, every dollar per acre helps when you’re in a tight margin environment,” he says.

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.

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.

Grain Movement Into New Orleans Shifts From Usual Routes This Fall

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 19:47:04 GMT

Year-over-year, Susan Olson says there are few interesting updates comparing how the Mississippi River is being used for grain transport.

Most surprising to her is according to USDA data there was a 3.4 million metric ton increase in grain exports from NOLA in mid-year 2025, however from her firm’s proprietary data, barge movements decreased. This could mean a shift toward rail being used to bring grain to the port for export.

(Action Intel)

Olson founded Action Intel, which uses proprietary data combining AIS signals that come from tow boats, imagery, computer vision tools and more to analyze barge movement and logistics volumes. Since 2023, the company has assembled barges per tow and reported its data.

Trade Flow and Logistics

While September and October usually usher in higher barge volumes due to grain harvest in the Corn Belt, this year did not see as high of a peak for traffic into New Orleans.

“Patterns changed this year. The numbers are lower and aren’t the peak of October last year. It is a little less than 1 million metric tons lower this fall into NOLA,” Olson. “Outbound north from NOLA volume is up 1 million metric tons. Also, notable, we are very slowly increasing trends in liquid tows moving in and out of NOLA.”

(Action Intel)

Increased backhauls is being attributed to another trend emerging this year – longer turn times for dry bulk tows. In 2024, turn times for dry bulks tows averaged 4.8 day but it’s up to 5.6 days in 2025. Olson points out backhauls usually carry fertilizer, metals, minerals, salt, etc.

“We could be seeing a change in the historic trends and a flattening of supply and demand of barges instead of peaks,” she says. “It could be a trend this year and may not persist. But we’ll have to watch the logistical patterns and flows changing.”

To-date in 2025, grain barge freight rates have remained high, averaging 500% to 600% of tariff compared to 400% tariff in 2024. Converted to dollars per ton, the first quarter of 2024 averaged $18.71/ton, and the first quarter of 2025 averaged $25.20/ton.

Delays and wait times also rose with higher barge wait times in 2025 due to lock delays and high water levels. In Cairo, Ill., this year saw an average of 1,000 barges waiting compared to 800 in 2024. The first half of 2025 had high water levels and lock delays, which contributed to the waits, whereas the second has been plagued with lower water levels and the slower turn times.

In September, the Coast Guard issued low water restrictions on barge drafts and configurations, which are still in place on the lower Mississippi River. Earlier this week, the Coast Guard issues an update to deep water tows to leave the St. Louis area, and all vessels to travel at slow speed because of narrow channel width.

For marketing year 2024, corn was 32% of the exports out of New Orleans (5.5 MMT), and in 2025, corn is 48% (7.6 MMT).

“The reduction in exports of soybeans to China has changed what exports overall look like,” Olson says.

Looking at the top 15 destinations for corn exports out of New Orleans, there’s been a dramatic shift.

(Action Intel/USDA)

Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:42:19 GMT

The current state of the cattle market and beef industry has been described as chaotic. “There’s chaos in cattle,” as Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, put it.

The industry turmoil follows recent statements made by President Donald Trump regarding the need to lower beef prices as well as his request for the Department of Justice to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University, affirms these are unique times, emphasizing while political factors have always indirectly influenced agriculture, it’s unprecedented for the cattle and beef markets to be at the center of direct political debate.

On a recent AgriTalk segment, Peel points out the inherent biological and production constraints of the cattle industry — particularly the fixed timeline to raise cattle — make quick fixes impossible. Both Flory and Peel stress that no political policy can shorten the cattle production process; any effective supply response requires patience and long-term adjustment.

Packers Under Fire

The concept of industry consolidation and foreign packer ownership has long drawn scrutiny with frequent government investigations. Peel says highly concentrated industries such as beef packing have been targets for skepticism and regulatory attention for over a century, to the point suspicion of packers is almost “a cultural thing” within segments of the industry.

He characterizes the latest call as another attempt to target convenient scapegoats rather than addressing deeper systemic realities of supply and demand.

“The reason we have the industry structure we do is because the economies of size and cost efficiencies are such a powerful economic force,” Peels explains.

He confirms researchers have long studied market power, and while concentration does have a small negative price impact for producers, the efficiency and cost-savings from large-scale firms more than compensate. These benefits, he says, keep cattle prices higher for producers and beef prices lower for consumers than they would be with a less efficient structure.

Dissecting the economics of margin markets Peels explains why price changes in different parts of the beef supply chain — cow-calf, feeders, packers and retailers — don’t move in lockstep. He uses a “bungee cord” analogy to illustrate the complex, dynamic and time-lagged interactions linking cattle prices at the farm with retail beef prices.

“All cattle prices and beef prices are ultimately connected, but they’re not connected with a stick or a chain,” Peel summarizes.” They’re connected with a bungee cord. There’s just an enormous amount of dynamics in this thing.”

Regarding the foreign ownership debate, Peel says there is no evidence foreign ownership alters packer behavior within the U.S. marketplace. He emphasizes foreign firms have made large investments in U.S. facilities and continue to operate them by the same market logic that would govern domestic ownership.

He also points out it is unclear who else would be in a position to make such significant investments if these foreign companies were not involved. This pragmatic view suggests the ownership issue might be less important than is commonly believed, at least concerning everyday operations and market outcomes.

A Lot Hinges on Rebuilding the Cow Herd

In his latest article, “ All Bets are Off ,” Peel says: “The latest edition in the torrent of recent political attentions directed at the cattle and beef industry includes allegations of market manipulation against the beef packing industry. Beef packers are the one segment that has been most negatively impacted in the current market, incurring huge losses due to poor margins and limited cattle supplies.”

(Meat Institute)

Peel reports packers have been losing enormous amounts of money for about the past 18 to 24 months. According to the Meat Institute, packer margins slipped into the red in September 2024. Through the week ending Oct. 4, 2025, packer margins were a negative $126.50 per head, up slightly from a year earlier at a negative $125.65 per head, according to Sterling Profit Tracker. The outlook for the year is a negative $165.96 per head packer margin.

“There’s just simply not enough cattle for them to operate at cost efficient capacities,” Peel explains.

This negative trend was anticipated — the reduced supply of cattle has made it difficult for packing plants to function at cost-efficient capacities, leading to the accumulation of operating losses. Peel points out the combination of low unit margins and insufficient cattle supplies challenges the economic viability of packers, further illustrating the complexity of the current environment.

This decline in inventory is not the result of a single factor but is driven by several years of drought and other market pressures. It is clear high beef and cattle prices are a result of these tight supplies and, according to Peel, these high prices are likely to persist for several years. The industry simply cannot turn around production levels quickly, and it will take time — a matter of years, not months — for conditions to normalize.

“Using logic that only works in the office of a politician, packers are supposedly wielding unacceptable market power while paying record high cattle prices and artificially raising beef prices … but not enough to avoid losing a couple hundred dollars on every animal they process — certainly many millions of dollars,” Peel says. “If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, I am certain that we would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money.”

Peel suggests the federal government attacks on beef packers are aided and supported by a vocal minority of the cattle industry and a few sympathetic politicians who view packers as a perennial villain and always worthy of attack anytime the opportunity is presented.

“The timing of such attacks this time is particularly puzzling as dismantling the packing industry would certainly jeopardize current record high cattle prices and the best economic returns most producers have ever enjoyed,” Peels says. “I guess some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says the cattle market is fundamentally broken citing years of an inverse relationship between falling cattle prices and increasing retail beef prices when the only ingredient in beef is cattle. Read more about his perspective.

Patience not Politics

Beef and cattle prices, Peel notes, are historically high, a result of industry-wide low cattle inventory. Rebuilding the nation’s cow herd will be a long, slow process, keeping prices elevated for an extended period. And Peel says there is no definitive evidence producers are saving heifers to start the rebuilding process.

“2025 may prove to be technically the cyclical low, but 2026 is going to be barely bigger, if it is, and no growth in 2026 and probably none in 2027 ... it’s 2028 into 2029 before that turns into increased beef production,” Peel predicts.

He summarizes neither regulatory nor political action will can speed up the rebuilding process. It will take years of concerted effort, market healing and stability before the industry can expect a meaningful rebound in herd numbers and production — a reality that requires patience across the industry.

“There is absolutely nothing anybody can do to make beef prices go down, or cattle prices, other than maybe tear up the industry completely,” Peels says. “And if we tear up the industry, it’ll make cattle prices go down, but it won’t make beef prices go down. It’ll make beef prices go even higher for consumers and the only way to fix this is to give the industry time to rebuild, and that’s going to take two to four years if we ever get started.”

He says a majority of cattle producers understand the beef industry is extremely complex and all segments are critical and essential.

“Though the outcome of current political actions is uncertain, the potential for long-term harm to the industry is substantial,” Peel says. “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry to this point become irrelevant. Expectations for prices and production going forward are now completely clouded…therefore… all bets are off.”

Your Next Read: You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial