Chaos, Confusion, Instability— Trump's Brand
Chaos and instability— Trump’s trademarks— impact farmers more negatively than other people. Agriculture relies on stability in terms of climate, markets, policy and labor. When any of these areas become unstable— and let’s face it, the MAGA agenda would make them all unstable— farmers face a heightened risk of severe losses due to their reliance on predictable growing cycles, weather patterns, consistent market access, etc. Farmers are highly vulnerable to fluctuations in market prices for both their inputs (like seeds, fuel and fertilizer) and their products (like crops and livestock). Climate change has brought more extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and heat waves, directly impacting crop yields and livestock health. For farmers, who depend on stable weather patterns for planting and harvesting, this unpredictability can be catastrophic. On top of that, Trump’s trade wars cut off access to export markets, lowered prices and left farmers with excess crops they unable to sell. Meawnhile, farming, particularly in sectors like fruit and vegetable production, depends heavily on a reliable seasonal workforce. When immigration policies change unpredictably, farms struggle to find enough workers during critical harvest periods, leading to massive losses.
So, you might think that the strong support for Trump among farmers— and in rural areas in general— is kind of paradoxical, given how much his policies and rhetoric have contributed to instability and chaos. Non-economic reasons explain this loyalty which are cultural, economic and social, and rooted in the political dynamics of rural America. His shamelessly dishonest rhetoric on issues like patriotism and traditional values resonates with rural communities, where cultural identity often feels at odds with what they see as urban elitism and woke values. Trump's brash, anti-establishment tone also aligns with the deep-rooted suspicion of government and “big-city” power structures common in rural areas.
While Trump’s trade policies and immigration stances harmed farmers economically, he consistently voiced strong support for farmers and rural communities, which created a sense of loyalty. Rural areas often have less access to diverse media sources and are more likely to rely on conservative outlets like Fox News and Harte Talk radio, which strongly favor Trump and downplay criticism of his policies. These sources amplify the perception that Trump is fighting for rural America, while portraying Democrats as distant and unsympathetic to rural concerns. Trump’s populist economic message, particularly his critiques of globalism, NAFTA, and trade with China, resonates with many farmers and rural Americans who feel left behind by globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. Even though his policies sometimes worsened market instability (as with tariffs on Chinese goods), his anti-globalist stance felt like a corrective to years of policies that rural communities saw as favoring other countries over American workers.
In tight-knit rural communities, social and political views are often homogenous, and support for Trump has become part of a shared identity. This can create a kind of “social lock-in,” where diverging from the group’s political stance feels like a betrayal of community values, making it difficult for individuals to express alternative political perspectives.
Trump’s “‘tariff’-is-the-most-beautiful-word-in-the-dictionary” gaslighting won’t take in farmers again this year. They know what his trade wars mean. Yesterday, Alan Rappeport reported that he says that “if he wins the election he will put tariffs as high as 50 percent on imports from around the world. Tariffs on Chinese imports could be even higher, and some foreign products would face levies upward of 200 percent. Economists have warned that such tariffs could reignite inflation, slow economic growth and harm the industries that Trump says he wants to help. American agricultural groups, bracing for the worst, have been warning against the kinds of tariffs that Trump envisions. China is the biggest market for U.S. soybean exports and a major buyer of corn. A study published this month, commissioned by the American Soybean Association and the National Corn Growers Association, found that a new trade war with China could cause U.S. soybean and corn exports to China to drop once again. If China retaliated with a 60 percent tariff on U.S. corn, soybeans and soybean products, American soybean and corn growers could lose as much as $7.3 billion in combined annual production value. That economic hit would reverberate beyond the farmers themselves, affecting other sectors that provide services to farms or rely on what they grow. ‘A trade war would not only reduce the value of production for U.S. farmers but also have a ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy, the report said.”
Iowa and Illinois produce the biggest soy bean crops in the U.S. and these are the counties, in order, with the most annual output— along with the percentage of their votes went to Trump in 2020.
McLean County, Illinois- 46.35%
Cass County, North Dakota- 49.53%
Champaign County, Illinois- 36.92%
Iroquois County, Illinois- 77.45%
LaSalle County, Illinois- 56.09%
Sangamon County, Illinois- 50.87%
Woodford County, Illinois- 68.83%
Stark County, Ohio- 58.44%
Story County, Iowa- 39.85%
Ford County, Illinois- 72.46%
Butler County, Ohio- 61.16%
Clay County, Minnesota- 46.66%
Did you expect more like Iroquois and Ford counties in Illinois and fewer like Story Co. in Iowa and Clay Co. in Minnesota? Rappeport wrote that for many farmers “the blanket import duties that Trump wants to enact if elected are a nightmare that they would rather not live through again. As president, Trump imposed tariffs in 2018 and 2019 on $300 billion of Chinese imports, a punishment he wielded in order to get China to negotiate a trade deal with the United States. His action triggered a trade war between Washington and Beijing, with China slapping retaliatory tariffs on American products. It also shifted more of its soybean purchases to Brazil and Argentina, hurting U.S. soybean farmers who had long relied on the Chinese market.”
Trump handed out $23 billion in agricultural subsidies but most of the money went to industrial farm operators and most were paid out in the South, leaving many farmers feeling ripped off and bitter.
An analysis by the council on Foreign Relations found that 92 percent of the tariff proceeds that the U.S. collected during the trade war with China were redirected to bail out farmers who had been harmed by retaliation.
The end result of Trump’s trade war— an initial agreement by China to purchase an additional $200 billion of U.S. products— also did not live up its expectations.
The pandemic disrupted global supply chains in 2020 and, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, China only bought about 83 percent of the U.S. farm products that it had committed to purchasing through 2021.
…Renegotiating the trade deal that Trump reached with China in 2019 will likely be a top priority if he wins a second term.
John Paulson, an adviser and fund-raiser for the Trump campaign, suggested in an interview that Trump would not immediately unleash across-the-board tariffs but that he would first seek to strike deals to ensure that American exporters were being treated fairly by other countries.
“There needs to be, first, negotiation to try and level the playing field, and then if we can’t negotiate, then it’s time for targeted tariffs,” said Paulson, the hedge-fund billionaire who is under consideration to be Trump’s Treasury secretary.
He added that he does not believe the two countries should disengage.
“I don’t think we can decouple,” Paulson said, noting that the U.S. and Chinese economies are reliant on each other in many ways. “We do have to reset the table so that trade policy is not one-sided and there’s a reciprocity to it and that it benefits Americans as well as it does China.”
How to approach trade with China would likely be a subject of intense debate in a Trump White House, as it was last time.
Peter Navarro, who served as Trump’s trade adviser, said in an interview that Trump would ensure that American farmers are protected from any retaliation against U.S. tariffs with more subsidies.
“He would do exactly what he did before and then some, if any farmer is threatened again,” Navarro said while riding a campaign bus across Pennsylvania. “Provide them with the financial resources they need to stay whole.”
Unlike Paulson, Navarro said that the U.S. should skip negotiations with China and move directly ahead with more tariffs.
At an event with farmers in Pennsylvania in September, Trump said that he would take a blunt approach to resuming economic talks if he wins, calling China’s president, Xi Jinping, and telling him, “You have to honor the deal you made.”
Vice President Kamala Harris has said little about agriculture or how she would handle trade with China if she wins the election. She has criticized Trump’s proposed tariffs as taxes on consumers and when she was running to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2019, she lamented that the trade wars had left farmers with soybeans “rotting in bins.”
Despite their concerns about Trump’s trade policies, the farmers who would bear the brunt if he followed through don’t necessarily oppose the former president.
Yesterday, Trump closed out the election by threatening to slap 100% tariffs on Mexico, our biggest trading partner.