Politics

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:27 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

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

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:09:58 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USDA Pushes Industry: Bring Projects Forward or Explain the Bottlenecks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Market Concentration at Center of USDA Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Responses, Trade Policy Pressure and the Mosaic Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigations Expand as USDA Seeks Farmer-Reported Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This Has Been Going On for Too Long”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farmers and Congress Demand Action as Fertilizer Prices Spike

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 14:18:57 GMT

As temperatures rise across the Midwest and Delta, the familiar sound of spring planting is returning. From Missouri to Mississippi, planters are beginning to roll, signaling the start of another growing season.

But beneath that seasonal optimism lies a deepening financial strain for U.S. farmers, driven not just by high input costs overall, but by sharp increases in fertilizer and diesel prices that are reshaping planting decisions and profitability outlooks. The recent price surge is also fueling Congress to push for greater transparency into fertilizer pricing.

Lawmakers Push for Transparency and Answers

Just this week, Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Brad Finstad (R-MN) introduced the bipartisan Fertilizer Transparency Act in the House with support from co-sponsors, including Angie Craig (D-MN). The legislation would require USDA to publish weekly fertilizer price reports, providing farmers with more timely and accurate market data.

The House legislation came a week after the Senate introduced similar legislation. The Senate Fertilizer Transparency Act of 2026 was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers last week, led by Sen. John Thune (R‑SD) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D‑MN), with additional support from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D‑WI) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R‑IA). The Senate bill would also require USDA to collect and publish weekly fertilizer price data to give farmers clearer, more timely market information.

Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is calling for a federal investigation into recent fertilizer price spikes, raising concerns about possible gouging linked to shipping disruptions and demanding answers from major fertilizer companies by the end of the month. He sent a letter to the Department of Justice and fertilizer companies earlier this month demanding answers by today, March 27.

Farm Journal reached out to Mosaic Company, Nutrien and CF Industries for comment but did not receive responses.

Texas Corn Producers member and farmer Dee Vaughan says Hawley is asking the questions farmers need answered.

“This shouldn’t even be impacting us for another 75 days, but yet our prices on fertilizer that’s already in the warehouse are seeing dramatic increases,” he says. “It certainly appears to be price gouging on the part of the fertilizer industry.”

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2022 study also found of the nitrogen fertilizer industry found that four major manufacturers - CF Industries, Nutrien, Koch Industries, and Yara International - account for roughly 75% of total U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production.

While the industry cited inflation and nationwide supply chain disruptions as drivers of higher prices for farmers at the time, the study found trends that challenge that narrative. According to the research, natural gas, which typically makes up 70-90% of variable production costs for nitrogen fertilizer, contributes only a fraction to recent price spikes. Specifically, for anhydrous ammonia, the study showed that natural gas accounts for just 15% of the increase, about $102, suggesting other factors are influencing soaring costs.

That concern is also the focus of a reported antitrust investigation by the DOJ announced in September, which is looking into whether major fertilizer producers have coordinated to inflate prices.

Similar to Perdue’s sentiments, Vaughan says farmers are waiting for results.

“Very simple; take action,” he says. “It’s one thing to have a memorandum of understanding or an executive order. But if it’s not followed through with actual investigation and actual work, it’s just words on paper.”

Fertilizer Prices Add Additional Strains at Planting

Perdue says the situation on the ground is as concerning as he has seen in years. Speaking after a recent fly-in to Washington, D.C., Perdue says many farmers are bracing for a difficult year ahead.

“We’re really, really concerned about the state of the farm economy,” Perdue says. “I asked our group yesterday to raise their hand if they anticipated breaking even in 2026, and not a single person raised their hand. That’s a message that Congress needs to hear.”

Perdue says fertilizer prices have become one of the most pressing challenges this spring. While some producers locked in inputs early — either through fall application or prepurchasing — many others delayed decisions, hoping for price relief that never came.

“There are some producers who got ahead with it and did some fall application, some who saw that prices were going to start jumping and bought their fertilizer a few weeks ago,” he says. “But there are a lot of people who still have fertilizer to book. When we’re seeing skyrocketing prices already at high levels, that’s a big concern for farmers across the country.”

That hesitation, he says, was driven by both financial pressure and uncertainty. Many farmers spent the winter working with lenders to map out their 2026 plans, while others gambled that prices might ease.

“I think there were two factors,” Perdue says. “One is the economic pain. A lot of producers have spent the last few months trying to figure out what 2026 looks like with their lender. The other is that producers saw high fertilizer costs in the fall and winter and said, ‘Maybe I’ll hold off and see if we get some relief.’ That’s obviously not coming with the current environment.”

Policy Pressure Builds in Washington

Fertilizer costs were a central topic during Perdue’s recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. While the hearing focused on increasing domestic consumption of U.S. agricultural products, input costs quickly entered the discussion.

“The fertilizer cost on an acre of wheat is about 40% of your production cost, and that’s going up 30% now,” Perdue says. “You can’t make it work. You can’t make it pencil out. We have to look at market structures and the way they create challenges for market participants.”

At the same time, global events are compounding the issue. The White House recently announced a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act, citing disruptions tied to conflict involving Iran that have impacted global shipping routes, including the Strait of Hormuz. The move is intended to ease pressure on energy and fertilizer markets by allowing foreign vessels to transport goods between U.S. ports.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says the waiver will help keep supplies moving, while National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett says the administration is also seeking alternative fertilizer sources, including potential imports from Venezuela and Morocco.

“It’s almost planting season, and there’s a lot of fertilizer that usually goes down during planting season,” Hassett says. “What we’ve been doing as an insurance policy to the disruption is finding other sources. I’m not saying we can eliminate disruption, but we can minimize it.”

The Search for Immediate Relief

As farmers head into planting season, the search for both short-term relief and long-term reform continues. Darren Hudson of Texas Tech University suggests one immediate step could involve revisiting regulations tied to diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), which uses urea — a key nitrogen fertilizer component.

“Do away with it for multiple reasons,” Hudson says. “It’s urea that’s being put into people’s tanks rather than on people’s fields. That would ease things in the short run. In the long run, that was a disaster of a regulation.”

For now, however, most farmers are focused on getting crops in the ground, despite an economic outlook that remains highly uncertain. With input costs climbing, global instability lingering and policy solutions still in development, the 2026 growing season is shaping up to be one of the most financially challenging in recent memory.

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

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:17:18 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.”

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

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 18:43:16 GMT

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

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

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

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

American Farm Bureau Calls for Intervention

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

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

Middle East Tensions Highlight Fertilizer Market Risks

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

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

(American Farm Bureau Federation )

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

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

(American Farm Bureau Federation )

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

Why U.S. Farmers Feel Global Price Swings

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

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

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

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

(American Farm Bureau Federation)

Short-Term Fixes: Policy and Supply

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

Among the recommendations:

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

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

Are Fertilizer Prices in a Worst-Case Scenario?

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

Linville says the answer is “no.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Are Possible Longer-Term Fixes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building Fertilizer Plants Is a Massive Investment

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

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

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

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

Even after construction begins, production still takes time.

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

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

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

Should Fertilizer Companies Be Investigated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tariffs on Moroccan, Russian Phosphate Imports Up for Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even so, he cautions against farmers expecting a reversal.

A Complex Market With No Single Fix

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

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

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

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

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:13:29 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.

Confidence in USDA Reports Erodes as USDA Launches Internal Review

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:48:17 GMT

Confidence in USDA reporting is slipping across the agricultural economy, and it’s not just talk in the countryside.

According to Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , released at Top Producer Summit , the majority of economists, producers and retailers say their confidence in USDA reports has declined compared to past years.

68% of economists say they are less confident in USDA reports.
73% of producers say their confidence has declined.
78% of retailers report waning trust.

The findings framed a candid conversation on stage at Top Producer Summit featuring Seth Meyer, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri; Grant Gardner of the University of Kentucky; and Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk.

At the center of the discussion: A June acreage “miss” and subsequent revisions left many in the industry questioning how such large shifts could occur in a short window and whether the data driving markets can be trusted.

The June Acreage Shock

Flory points to a key frustration voiced by producers: How could USDA show such a drastic acreage change in a short amount of time?

Meyer, former USDA chief economist, acknowledges the issue.

“Quite honestly, I think this is a problem,” he says. “If you’ve lost confidence, we have to ask why.”
He emphasizes, however, the issue is not political interference or hidden agendas in USDA or the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS ).

“It is not that these people have a political agenda,” Meyer says. “They want to do a good job. I hated being wrong.”

Instead, he pointed to structural challenges, including survey fatigue among producers and confusion about how acreage numbers are constructed and revised.

The June planted acreage miss triggered a chain reaction. Planted acreage revisions led to harvested acreage revisions. Add in larger September carryout stocks, and the cumulative effect was a bigger crop supply than the market anticipated.

Several adjustments in a row, some related, some not, all moved in the same direction.

“That September acreage adjustment gave me a better understanding of how misunderstood the process is by producers,” Meyer says. “You certify planted acres, not harvested acres. Harvested acres is where the big change occurred.”

Why Not Just Use FSA Data?

A frequent question from producers: If acreage is certified with the Farm Service Agency (FSA), why doesn’t USDA simply use those numbers?

Meyer says they do use FSA numbers and increasingly earlier in the process than in the past.

Four years ago, FSA-certified acreage data wasn’t fully incorporated until the October report. Today, USDA has moved that integration forward into August, releasing certified data alongside other reports to improve transparency and eliminate timing confusion.

If anything, Meyer argues, FSA data is being used better now than it was in the past.

He also notes private industry analysis of FSA data pushed USDA toward earlier use, increasing transparency in the process.

Can Satellites Replace Farmer Surveys?

With fewer farmers responding to surveys, another question surfaced: Why not rely more heavily on satellite imagery?

Meyer says Earth observation tools have improved, but they are not yet a substitute for field-level survey data.
Satellite tools can get close. But he warned there is a threshold effect: Once survey quality drops below a certain point, the value of the report doesn’t slowly decline, it collapses.

“You’ve got to ground-truth it,” Gardner adds. “Even if satellite data improves, you still need to go look.”

Meyer says he would want to see satellite systems consistently match field survey results for years before replacing traditional methods.

Workforce Reductions Come Into Play

Since January 2025, USDA’s workforce has been cut by more than 20,000 staff members, which former acting deputy undersecretary Spiro Stefanou says hampered FSA from processing planting data last summer and feeding it to NASS.

Meyer admits that experience can’t be replaced.

“I would say the cushion we have in terms of knowledge base is largely gone,” he says. “We wouldn’t want to go through another period of losses where I would have lost more people in those units who did the WASDE report.”

Internal Review: Will It Restore Confidence?

Following the January WASDE report, in which USDA raised harvested corn acres by 1.3 million for a record 4.5-million-acre increase since July, the agency launched an internal review of its data collection processes. Will that help?

Gardner says economists’ concerns often focus less on methodology and more on staffing and budget cuts.
“From the economist perspective, it wasn’t as much, ‘Is this the best data we have?’” Gardner explains. “It was, ‘Do we have the best people in place?’”

From the producer perspective, however, the frustration is different, involving surprise adjustments and a perception that official reports don’t match what’s happening at the farm gate.

Meyer believes the review might restore some confidence, but he doesn’t expect sweeping findings.

“It’s 100% the best data out there,” he says. “Follow it, because you’re not getting anything better.”

Still, he acknowledges the partnership between USDA and producers must be strengthened.

“This is an important partnership,” Meyer says. “USDA has to prove its value proposition to producers. They have to prove this is good for producers, and that it creates symmetry of information in the marketplace.”

Confidence Tested, Not Broken

While trust in USDA data might be eroding, panelists stopped short of declaring the system broken. The message from the stage was clear: The data remains the best available, but maintaining its credibility will require transparency, engagement and renewed participation from producers themselves.

Inside the Room: What Farmers Heard as USDA Rolled Out Its $700M Regenerative Ag Plan

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:54:32 GMT

When USDA quietly selected a small group of farmers to help roll out a new $700 million regenerative agriculture pilot program, most producers never knew the meetings were happening. Missouri farmers Jon and Brittany Hemme did, because they were invited into the room, sitting face-to-face with two cabinet secretaries and hearing firsthand how Washington plans to reshape soil health policy.

“We are very average farmers,” Hemme says. “It was a very humbling experience that we were chosen. My biggest takeaway is that I truly believe they’re trying to do the right things, bringing better health options to people through the way food is produced.”

Reinventing a Small Dairy to Stay Viable

Jon is one of three Hemme brothers continuing a dairy operation their father started 30 years ago. Today, the Hemmes operate the only dairy left in Saline County. Survival hasn’t come easily. As small dairies disappeared, the Hemmes reinvented their business model, adding on-farm processing and direct-to-consumer sales.

“That’s where our direct market part of our business came in, the creamery,” Hemme says. “Being able to go to processing and then direct market that end product has made us a viable operation yet as a small dairy.”

Their Hemme Brothers cheeses are now sold throughout Kansas City and central Missouri, but what also caught the attention of USDA was how they manage their land.

“We started planting cover crops the first time in 2017, got really aggressive by 2018 to where we tried to have all of our acres covered in one way or another,” Hemme says.

That shift began at the request of a landlord nearly a decade ago. Hemme says it pushed him to learn what regenerative agriculture really meant and how it could pencil out.

“We initially started just looking to try to reduce inputs to where we could keep a little more of our income,” he says. “For quite a few years we managed them that way trying to reduce our herbicide and we were successful, but that takes a lot of time and management. Here recently we’ve kind of mainstreamed it to where the main reason for them is erosion control.”

A Text Message From USDA

That work that started nearly a decade ago led to an unexpected invitation from Washington.

“We got a text message on Dec. 8 saying: ‘Would you and Jon want to come to USDA and be a part of Secretary Rollins’ announcement?’” Brittany Hemme says. “Thought it was a joke maybe at first, because it was so random. But we were on a plane the next morning and then with them in D.C. on Dec. 10.”

In the midst of the madness of the holiday season and school activities for their kids, the Hemmes went ahead and said yes, knowing this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

A First-of-its-Kind $700 Million Pilot Program

Not knowing exactly what USDA was going to unveil, at the event, USDA and HHS announced what they call a first-of-its-kind, $700-million Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program, administered through NRCS. The goal is to test a farmer-first model that improves soil health while maintaining long-term farm viability.

“We’re doing things a little bit differently than typical Washington, D.C.,” said U.S Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins during the announcement at USDA. “We have encouraged the states to think differently and creatively as our laboratories of innovation about how to solve the many health issues facing America ... but really today is about the next step in making America healthy again, and that is talking about regenerative agriculture.”

During thee announcement, Rollins said the focus of USDA and HHS for the new pilot program was on protecting soil and is critical for farm productivity and longevity.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” she said. “We must protect our top soil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil.”

But it wasn’t just USDA unveiling the new program. Rollins was standing beside Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called the program a milestone tied to promises outlined in the MAHA Report.

“Among the recommendations of the report was the promise to make it easier for farmers in this country, farmers who are dependent on chemical and fertilizer inputs, to give them an off-ramp,” Kennedy said in December. “An off-ramp where they can transition to a model that emphasizes soil health. And with soil health comes nutrient density.”

An ‘Off Ramp’ for Farmers

When “U.S. Farm Report” recently caught up with the Hemmes to get their reaction, Jon says one of the key takeaways from the announcement is the structure of the pilot program and why that matters.

“It’s a five-year program, a five-year contract,” he says. “You can address multiple things in the same contract that you want to address. The farmer gets to pick his goal. They’ll develop a plan to help them achieve that goal, and then they’re going to quantify it with a soil test up front and one at the end.”

Along with the announcement, the Hemmes then had the chance to take part in a closed-door roundtable discussion with Rollins, Kennedy and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who serves as administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Kennedy.

“They notified us that we would be in a roundtable discussion with Secretary Kennedy, Secretary Rollins and Dr. Oz; that made us pretty nervous,” says Jon, laughing.

Brittany says one word stood out during that discussion.

“He said ‘off-ramp’ several times,” she says. “I really appreciated that, because this is voluntary. There’s nobody forcing anyone to do this program. It’s not all or nothing. You can work with USDA NRCS and come up with a plan that is going to work for you on your farm, in your context.”

With no cameras in the room, Hemme says the conversation felt genuine.

“They wanted some feedback from farmers,” he says. “They allowed us to each go down the line and explain our operations, our motivations behind using regenerative agriculture, and then they followed it up with some really good questions.”

Those questions included market access and how long the transition takes.

“You could see him, the wheels turning,” Hemme says of Kennedy.

What Was (And Wasn’t) Discussed

Before Kennedy joined the cabinet, some farmers worried his focus would be on restricting tools like glyphosate. The Hemmes say that never came up.

“It’s been more voluntary, putting something out there instead of coming in with a stick,” Jon says.

“There was mention of tools in the toolbox, and there was no mention of taking any of those tools away,” Brittany adds.

As Brittany has watched Jon’s regenerative journey on their own farm, she says regenerative agriculture is often misunderstood.

“Some of the negative connotation has come in from an all-or-nothing mindset,” she says. “They demonize certain tools in the toolbox, and that’s unfortunate. True regeneration is what works in your context.”

Lessons From Their Nearly Decade-Long Journey in Regenerative Ag

For Jon, this really isn’t unconventional or something new. He says regenerative ag, to him, all comes back to building resilience in your soil.

“It is conservation, but it’s also trying to build resilience into your soil,” he says. “If you follow the soil health principles, minimize disturbance, keep residue on the surface, a living root in the soil, you will start to build carbon. You’ll hold more water, perform better in dry conditions, and handle weather shifts.”

But in the nearly 10 years of diving into regenerative ag, Jon says that journey didn’t come without mistakes.

“I was very aggressive when I started out, and I kind of set myself back,” Hemme says. “If I were to give any advice, it would be to start slow and safe.”

He points specifically to cover crops. He says by trying to put cover crops on every acre at the start, he learned the hard way that if you let those cover crops get too tall, it can actually negatively impact crop production.

“If you’re too aggressive up front, you almost constipate your soil,” he says. “Eventually that residue has to leave.”

As the Hemmes say, they still want to pinch themselves over a trip that seemed like a dream, it was those direct conversations with President Donald Trump’s cabinet members that made them believe USDA’s support of regenerative ag will be a practical approach and one any farmer can try or do.

What else should you expect when it comes to regenerative ag? That’s exactly what “AgriTalk” Host Chip Flory asked Richard Fordyce, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, just last week.

Trump Confirms Support for Year-Round E-15 Deal

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 23:17:51 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.

'Dust Bowl' Agency at USDA Looks to Cut Red Tape and Speed Up Slow Computers That Frustrate Farmers

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:50:43 GMT

USDA’s reorganization plan in 2025 drew criticism over the number of job cuts and headcount reduction’s potential impact on farmers, with fears it would hinder field office staff and county offices, many of which were already understaffed. However, third-generation California farmer Aubrey Bettencourt, who’s now serving as chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), says those local constraints aren’t due to staff reductions. She says those issues stem from outdated infrastructure and processes that are creating bottlenecks for farmers and ranchers trying to sign up for programs through USDA agencies such as NRCS. And that’s something she’s now working to change.

By any measure, Bettencourt did not come to Washington to keep things the same. But then, her background for a government official isn’t that traditional either. Bettencourt was raised on her family’s farm in Hanford, Calif. But her political interest really started with her efforts to help lead California’s fight over water.

During the first Trump administration, she first served as the state executive director for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). She was then selected to work with both the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA as a deputy assistant secretary with the DOI, where she oversaw water and science policy.

Bettencourt says conservation policy has never been theoretical for her. Instead, it is personal and it is operational, as she’s experienced the frustration firsthand with the slow speed at which many USDA agencies were forced to work.

As she entered into her role as chief of NRCS, Bettencourt says the changes she’s working to implement are about time and how much of it farmers lose navigating paperwork and how much time NRCS staff lose staring at what she calls the “spinning wheel of death” on outdated systems.

“I’ve always said my whole goal has been to keep farmers farming, get water to people who need it, take care of the resources that take care of all of us, and have high-speed internet everywhere in the United States, the indoor plumbing of the 21^st century,” Bettencourt says. “NRCS gets to do all of that.”

Now, nearly 90 years after the agency was created in response to the Dust Bowl, Bettencourt says NRCS is again confronting a foundational threat. This time, it is not erosion or war but the pace at which farmland is disappearing and the friction farmers face trying to stay productive on what remains.

“We are losing 5,000 acres of farmland a day in the United States,” she says. “Two thousand acres of prime farmland a day.”

To meet that challenge, Bettencourt is driving sweeping internal reforms, many of them invisible to farmers at first glance, that aim to reduce the number of times producers have to sign up, re-sign up, re-enter data or wait for answers. The goal, she says, is to get NRCS staff out from behind desks and back into the field, and to make USDA work at the speed agriculture actually operates.

From Policy to Processing, NRCS Is Undergoing Rapid Change

One of the most consequential changes underway is how NRCS processes applications for its flagship programs, EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program). Bettencourt explains years of layering subcategories, scenarios and hyper-specific ranking criteria slowed everything down, not just for farmers, but also for USDA field staff.

“The reason it took so long for us to get an answer back as a customer of ‘where is my application and where am I in this process’ is because we had so many individualized and subcategories and scenarios of practices that we would have to rank and score the application for every scenario, every single time,” she says

Rather than forcing applications through dozens of narrowly defined pathways, NRCS is shifting toward higher-level practice codes that still rely on vetted science but allow district conservationists, those who she says are closest to the land, to make judgment calls based on local conditions.

“I think it’s getting people to where they need to be, and it’s giving them the tools they need to be there. So one is freeing up time. Time is a huge component, and the ability for someone to have less time in front of a computer,” she says. “And the numbers, I kid you not, just by going to email notifications, we’re going to save 96,000 hours a year. 96,00 hours. Just by going to a singular ranking that then, you on your adventure. We’re going to save over 75,000 hours. That amount of time is a huge capacity builder for us, for our staff.”

Fixing the Infrastructure Farmers Never See

While some reforms focus on simplifying rules, Bettencourt points out some of the most significant barriers to faster program delivery have nothing to do with policy at all. They are physical and technological shortcomings inside USDA field offices, and problems farmers rarely see, but ones they often feel.

“I already knew we had rough bandwidth capacity at our offices,” Bettencourt says drawing on her experience at FSA. “What I didn’t realize is statistically how bad it was.”

She says industry standards call for five to eight megabits per second per person. Many NRCS offices, she says, operate with roughly 10 megabits total per office, regardless of whether that office has four employees or two dozen employees. She says the result is a system where applications stall through no fault of the farmer or the staff.

“You get your application in on time, and staff is working their rear ends off trying to get these things uploaded,” she points out. “And you miss out on the opportunity, not by any fault of your own, not by fault of the staff’s own, but because of a failure of the basic infrastructure to support the operations of our mission.”

As USDA programs have become more digital and data-heavy, those limitations have only been compounded. Bettencourt says improving connectivity might not sound exciting, but it is essential to restoring fairness and predictability in the process.

“It may sound boring. It may just sound not that sexy,” she says, “but it is so vitally important that we get the basic structure available to our staff, because that is doing respect to them and doing respect to our customer.”

The payoff, she says, is capacity. When staff are not losing hours to failed uploads and system delays, they can spend that time where it matters, and that’s working directly with farmers on conservation solutions.

“That’s how you build capacity,” Bettencourt says. “Not by asking people to work harder but by removing the friction.”

New Initiative Called ‘One Farmer, One File’

If infrastructure fixes address how fast data can move, the new “One Farmer, One File” initiative tackles how often that data has to move at all.

Bettencourt says USDA agencies routinely ask farmers for the same information, even though that data already exists elsewhere within the department, just often with a different agency within USDA.

“That’s why I have to fill out the same eligibility form twice,” she says. “That’s why I have to fill out the same direct deposit form twice. It makes no sense. It’s the exact same form with the same information.”

Working with FSA and RMA, NRCS is building a unified, protected back-end system that allows agencies to securely share core farmer information. Privacy protections remain unchanged, Bettencourt emphasizes, but usability improve dramatically.

“We share so much data between us to operate our different programs,” she adds. “But we don’t actually have it in one place where we can see it … It saves time, it saves energy and it saves my dad having to drive 50 miles back to the office to sign the same farm file that he signed four months earlier for FSA.”

For farmers who participate in multiple USDA programs, Bettencourt says redundancy has been a persistent barrier, especially during busy seasons. One Farmer, One File is designed to remove that friction by allowing USDA to view farmers holistically rather than as separate program participants.

“When we can see the farmer as a whole. It improves the customer experience, and it improves our operational capacity,” she says.

The More Talked About Issue: USDA Faces Major Workforce Shake-Up Amid Departures and Reorganization

The reality in 2026, though, is USDA has seen a sharp decline in staffing over the past year, with more than 20,000 employees leaving between mid-January and mid-June 2025, which was a 20% drop in total workforce during that time. Data also shows roughly 15,000 employees accepted voluntary buyouts through the Deferred Resignation Program, while others retired or resigned. Reports also show agencies such as NRCS and FSA experienced some of the steepest losses.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the downsizing last summer and said she would oversee a rapid reorganization aimed at reducing bureaucracy. That included the relocation of 2,600 Washington-based staff to five regional hubs and aligning staffing with budget constraints. That relocation plan is still underway.

At the time, Rollins framed the restructuring as a move to make USDA “efficient, nimble and innovative” while bringing staff closer to rural farmers and ranchers.

“Over the last four years, USDA’s workforce grew by 8%, and employees’ salaries increased by 14.5%, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them,” USDA’s announcement stated last summer. “This all occurred without any tangible increase in service to USDA’s core constituencies across the agricultural sector.”

Still, it’s those cuts that critics say will further strain field staff. But Bettencourt says it’s current changes underway with processes and infrastructure that will help relieve some of the time constraints on staff, ultimately getting staff back in front of farmers and bringing NRCS back to its roots as a field-based agency.

Bringing the Office to the Farmer

Through a new Integrated Field Tool, NRCS staff will be able to build conservation plans with farmers in real time, on the farm and in the field.

“Our staff will be able to go out in the field with you and design your farm plan in the field with you,” Bettencourt says. “Auto-populate your application, verify it, sign it, send it off and get the process going.”

Rather than requiring multiple office visits, Bettencourt says NRCS wants to reverse the dynamic.

“This will actually be a digital and mobile-based platform where our staff at NRCS will be able to go out in the field with you, the farmer, and design your farm plan in the field with you in real time and say, ‘All right, here’s your options. What would you like to focus on? Let’s go ahead and do these EQIP practices here, here and here. Let me auto-populate your farm and your application. Can you verify this is right for me? Great let’s go ahead and just sign that and send that off and get this process going,’ and we’ll be able to do that in the field with the farmer in real time,” she says. “Again that’s back where we should be; that’s where we’re working with you instead of, you know, trying to make you come to the office and go back and forth 9 million times. We’re just going to be out in the field and bring the office to you.”

County offices will still play a role, she says, but the future of NRCS is face-to-face where it’s convenient for farmers.

A New Sense of Urgency Inside USDA

Behind the scenes, Bettencourt says collaboration across the administration is happening at a pace she has not seen before, including with USDA’s recently announced $700 million Regenerative Ag Pilot Program , which will be administered through NRCS.

“The conversations are happening lightning fast, and there is that sense of urgency,” she says.

That urgency, she says comes from a shared understanding that redundancy, inconsistency and delay cost farmers real money.

“As a Californian, I pay for the privilege to farm to 86 separate agencies,” she adds. “I know that frustration.”

Her charge at NRCS is to ensure farmers feel the difference, not through press releases but through fewer forms, fewer trips to the office and faster answers.

“We’re judged by one lens every day,” Bettencourt says. “Farmer first, and how are we producing in practical and measurable terms?”

For Bettencourt, she says it’s vital NRCS gets back to the basics, which is exactly what this new plan intends to do.

You can watch the full episode of “Unscripted” on the Farm Journal YouTube page.

Water Fight With Mexico Leaves South Texas Farmer Unable to Plant Half His Acres

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:27:57 GMT

For South Texas farmers, the ongoing water dispute between the United States and Mexico isn’t an abstract policy issue. It’s a crisis that has reshaped planting decisions, reduced production and injected deep uncertainty into every growing season along the Rio Grande.

Brian Jones, a South Texas farmer, says years of shorted water deliveries under the 1944 Water Treaty have forced him and many of his neighbors to dramatically scale back their operations. What once was a fully irrigated farming system has turned into a constant struggle to stretch limited water supplies across fewer acres.

“I believe it really starts to reach a crescendo in the 2023 crop year,” Jones says. “For 2024 and 2025, basically I’m only able to plant half of my farm because we don’t have enough water.”

Jones says the water shortages are not the result of drought alone, but of Mexico failing to live up to its treaty obligations. Under the 1944 agreement, Mexico is required to deliver water to the United States through the Rio Grande basin. However, U.S. officials and South Texas producers argue those deliveries have fallen well short in recent years.

“That’s exactly right,” Jones says, confirming that he has been unable to plant roughly half of his acres. “Going from fully irrigated to basically only being able to plant half the farm — and not even having full irrigation for that half — has been quite a struggle over the last couple of years.”

The reduced water supply has forced farmers to make hard decisions, prioritizing which crops and fields can survive with limited irrigation. Jones says even the acres that do get planted are often under-irrigated, increasing risk and lowering yield potential.

“Mexico has willfully held back water that they had,” Jones says. “That puts us in a huge shortfall.”

Hope on the Horizon?

Earlier this month, USDA announced it had reached an understanding with Mexico to release 202,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S., following heightened pressure from the Trump administration — including threats of tariffs if Mexico failed to comply. The announcement marked the most significant movement on the issue in years. But for growers on the ground, the news has been met with cautious optimism.

“I would say I’m both hopeful and skeptical,” Jones says. “I’m hopeful because President Trump and his administration really take the bull by the horns on this and bring the fight to Mexico.”

Jones says farmers in South Texas have long felt ignored as water shortages worsened, and he credits the current administration for taking a more aggressive stance.

“Under the previous administration, it’s like talking to a brick wall,” he says. “Under this administration, President Trump and Secretary Rollins really pick up the club and use it to bring Mexico to the table.”

Despite the agreement, Jones says trust remains an issue. Years of unmet commitments have made farmers wary of celebrating until water is actually flowing into the Rio Grande and irrigation systems.

“On the other hand, I’m still skeptical because Mexico has willfully withheld the water for a number of years,” Jones says. “Until it really starts flowing and they meet that full agreement of the 202,000 acre-feet, we’re still skeptical.”

Water Releases Reported to Start Immediately

According to Jones, Mexico indicates water releases should begin immediately, though geography and infrastructure mean the impact is not instantaneous for South Texas farmers.

“It should start this week,” he says. “It takes about three to four days for the water, once they release it in the lower parts of Mexico, to reach the Rio Grande. Hopefully by now, we start seeing that flow.”

Beyond the immediate relief, Jones says the water dispute highlights deeper concerns about fairness and competition. He believes the issue should be addressed in broader trade discussions, particularly as the U.S. reviews the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

“We actually hope it is a point of contention,” Jones says. “Not only is Mexico withholding water, they’re using that water to grow products we normally grow here in South Texas and compete directly in our marketing window. That creates a trade imbalance.”

Water Issue Could Be at the Center of USCMA Review

Jones says Texas lawmakers and agricultural groups are pushing to bring the issue into USMCA negotiations, arguing water compliance should carry real consequences.

“We’re hoping to use USMCA as a tool to put some punitive measures and some teeth into the water-sharing agreement,” he says.

Planting Decisions Uncertain

As planting season approaches, uncertainty remains front and center. Jones says decisions for the 2025 crop year will hinge almost entirely on whether Mexico follows through on its promises — and how quickly water arrives.

“We’re about 45 days from corn planting here in South Texas,” he says. “I’ll definitely get all my corn in, then switch over to milo. Cotton is the big question mark.”

Cotton planting typically begins in mid-March, leaving little margin for error if water deliveries fall behind schedule.

“All the details are supposed to be out by January 31, and they’re guaranteeing all that water by the end of March,” Jones says. “By early- to mid-March, we should know where they stand on deliveries, and that will shape how I plant this upcoming year.”

For now, Jones and other South Texas farmers are watching river levels, weather forecasts and diplomatic negotiations with equal intensity — hoping that this time, the water fight turns into real relief on the ground.

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

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 19:29:00 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.

The Death of DEF? Trump Says He’ll Roll Back Environmental Requirements to Cut Farm Equipment Costs

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 16:41:02 GMT

During a White House roundtable on Monday tied to a new $12 billion “bridge payment” plan , President Donald Trump said his administration will move quickly to ease environmental requirements affecting tractors and other farm machinery, arguing the changes will lower sticker prices and simplify repairs.

While the headline of the event was to announce the payments, which Trump says will be funded by tariff revenue, the roundtable discussion with farmers also revealed other actions the Trump administration is working on to reduce regulations. Trump told farmers Monday his administration plans to scale back environmental requirements on tractors and other farm equipment, framing the move as a way to bring down machinery costs that have climbed in recent years.

President Trump said that farming equipment has gotten too expensive and his administration would help tractor companies by removing some environmental rules that affect them https://t.co/nKzE5ACyBp pic.twitter.com/oexiZnfxgf
— Reuters (@Reuters) December 9, 2025

“The other thing I’d like to add … we’re going to also give the tractor companies, John Deere and all of the companies that make the equipment … we’re going to take off a lot of the environmental restrictions that they have on machinery,” Trump said. “It’s ridiculous.”

While Trump didn’t provide specifics on how the details of that plan will come together, Trump said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin would be involved in carrying out the effort. There’s speculation on if that will be removing diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) requirements on tractors or also addressing the long-standing right-to-repair issue.

Earlier this year, EPA announced guidance to change, not eliminate, DEF requirements, allowing for softer power loss in new trucks (from model year 2027) when DEF runs low, preventing sudden shutdowns and enabling software fixes for existing vehicles, easing burdens on truckers and farmers. This guidance removed what EPA called “red tape,” allowing manufacturers to develop less disruptive fixes for performance issues caused by emissions systems, though it doesn’t legalize “deleting” emissions equipment.

EPA Says DEF Is “Unacceptable”

While Trump didn’t outline exactly what EPA plans to roll back, he hinted toward DEF being the target. Farm Journal reached out to EPA for clarification and comment, and EPA’s press secretary confirmed rolling back DEF requirements is the target for this administration.

“EPA has heard loud and clear from truckers and farmers across the United States that the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system was unacceptable and cost millions of dollars in lost productivity,” Brigit Hirsch, EPA press secretary, told Farm Journal. “This summer, Administrator Zeldin issued clear guidance urging engine and equipment manufacturers to revise DEF system software in existing vehicles and equipment to prevent sudden shutdowns. It is essential manufacturers give operators more time to repair faults without impacting their livelihoods or safety. EPA will continue to evaluate ways to expand the work the agency has already done on DEF and looks forward to working across the administration to do so.”

She also pointed farmers toward EPA’s website dedicated to actions on Diesel Exhaust Fluid .

Trump Says “It Makes the Equipment Much More Expensive”

Trump argued added systems meant to meet environmental rules have driven up price tags and made equipment harder to operate and repair.

“You buy it, it’s got so much equipment on it for the environmental, it doesn’t do anything except it makes the equipment much more expensive and much more complicated to work,” he said, adding, “it’s not as good as the old days.”

Trump said the administration’s goal is to remove what he called “nonsense” and require manufacturers to pass savings along to farmers.

“And we’re going to do it, and we’re going to say: ‘You’re going to reduce the prices.’ We’re not going to do it, and they’re not going to reduce. They’re going to have to reduce their prices because farming equipment has gotten too expensive,” Trump said during the roundtable. “A lot of the reason is because they put these environmental excesses on the equipment which don’t do a damn thing except make it complicated, make it impractical.”

Trump Claims Modern Equipment is Overly Complex and Difficult to Service

Trump also described modern equipment as overly complex and more difficult for farmers to service themselves.

“For you really have to be, in many cases, you need about 185 IQ to turn on a lawn mower,” he said. “So we’re going to take that … off … that they put on Biden mostly.”

Trump claimed the changes would quickly impact costs, bringing down equipment prices and saying: “We’re going to do that immediately.”

“The machines, they’re always under repair because they’re so complicated that you can’t fix them,” “he said. The old days you used to fix it yourself. Now you can’t do that. You have to be a Ph.D. from, let’s say, MIT.”

Comments Came During Event Announcing $12 Billion in Bridge Payments

Trump made the remarks during a roundtable discussion with farmers at the White House that coincided with an announcement by the White House and USDA of $12 billion in bridge payments for farmers.

Up to $11 billion will go toward a newly designed Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) 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.

USDA says the bulk of the funding will run through the new 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.

John Deere Reacts

In a post on X following the announcement, John Deere commended the Trump administration’s announcement of relief and bridge payments for farmers saying: “The timely assistance will protect this essential industry, help rural communities and support critical long-term investments in the future of U.S. agriculture and manufacturing.”

Hat’s off to those who feed and fuel America pic.twitter.com/UWBvmAus20
— John Deere USA (@JohnDeere) December 8, 2025

John Deere also said it shares the administration’s focus on reducing costs for both producers and consumers.

“We are doing all we can to help U.S. farmers reduce input costs,” according to the post. “The equipment and technologies Deere makes here in the U.S. are giving American farmers new tools and technologies that can substantially reduce their input costs and labor costs while increasing yields, boosting margins.”

Those comments are drawing backlash from farmers and others online. Some argue if John Deere truly wants to help farmers, then they can start by lowering the price of their equipment. While others Deere will be one of the beneficiaries of farmers receiving these payments.

https://cms.farmjournal.com/cms/content/edit.jsp?id=0000019b-0351-d956-a5ff-8bdf58620000&typeId=c2a98712-61fa-35ef-bd5d-e0bfe394c8b6

Of course you commend relief and bridge payments, you make more financing tractors than you do selling them 🤣
— Drake (@silvopasturist) December 9, 2025

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

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 22:01:09 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Are Farmer Assistance Payments Expected?

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

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

What Farmers Need to Know

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

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

Which Crops Are Covered Under the New FBA?

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

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

Is $12 Billion Enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Northwest Corn Belt Saw Wide Basis

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

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

Elfman says the financial strain is uneven across the country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senators React, Thank Trump For Having Farmers’ Backs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 15:53:55 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the Market Rumor Took Off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Weekend Signal Points to a “Deal” with China

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

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

Where Do We Go From Here?

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

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

Why EPA Says Farmers and Ranchers Won't Need a Lawyer to Understand the Newly Proposed WOTUS Rule

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 16:10:30 GMT

Agricultural groups have been asking for a new WOTUS rule that eliminates red tape and clears up confusion for farmers and ranchers. As EPA unveiled its latest proposed Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule this week , Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi says the agency’s goal was simple: clarity, consistency and fewer regulatory headaches for farmers and ranchers.

Fotouhi joined “U.S. Farm Report” for an exclusive interview to break down what this new rule means and why EPA believes it hits the mark.

A Rule He Says Brings Clarity and Certainty

Fotouhi says the agency’s top priority is eliminating uncertainty farmers have faced under previous interpretations of WOTUS.

“We really emphasize the need for farmers, ranchers and all stakeholders to have clarity in terms of how broad or narrow federal regulation of waters is in this country,” he says. “From Day 1, we start working on a proposed rule to bring that clarity and certainty to landowners across the country. On Monday, we are able to announce a proposal that is consistent with the law, that provides needed clarity on the extent of federal regulation, and that recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states and localities because they know their resources best.”

He adds that the proposal strikes what he calls a good balance.

“We think we really strike a good balance between protecting our nation’s waters and making sure farmers and ranchers can do the work that feeds Americans and produces the fuel this country relies on — without adding unnecessary regulatory burden to their day-to-day life,” he says.

EPA Says Farmers “Won’t Need a Lawyer” to Understand the New Rule

Fotouhi stresses one of EPA’s biggest priorities in rewriting WOTUS was ensuring farmers no longer need legal help just to determine whether they can work their own ground. He says the agency intentionally crafted the language to be plain, practical and rooted in the realities producers face every day.

“We take a fresh look at the Supreme Court’s direction and try to apply that in language that is easily understandable. Producers should not need a lawyer to understand how this rule applies to their property. We write it in a way that lets farmers look at their land and have a clear sense of whether federal permits are required.”

Fotouhi explains past WOTUS rules often included terminology that was vague, overly technical or open to interpretation, something EPA heard repeatedly during outreach with farm groups.

He says the agency makes a conscious effort to eliminate that ambiguity.

“We listen to farmers tell us repeatedly that the rule has to be understandable,” he says. “So instead of broad definitions that leave too much room for interpretation, we focus on concrete, workable language. We take geographic differences into account, we remove subjective criteria and we make exclusions, like the groundwater exemption, explicit so there’s no second-guessing.”

Fotouhi says that level of clarity is a direct response to years of frustration in rural America.

“We know farmers need certainty,” he says. “They need to know what they can and can’t do without waiting months for an answer. That’s why we put so much effort into making this rule clear, transparent and grounded in what the Supreme Court actually tells us to do.”

EPA Pushes Back on Claims the Proposal Overpromises

Some critics argue the agency risks overpromising. Fotouhi strongly rejects that idea.

“We take a fresh look at all the critical issues the Supreme Court lays out in the Sackett decision,” he says. “We think the previous administration does not faithfully implement that decision when they revise the rule, so we come back, reassess everything and come up with a definition that fully implements what the Court tells EPA and the Army Corps to do.”

He notes the agency made readability a priority.

“We try to apply the Court’s direction in language that is easily understandable, that takes geographic differences into account, and that doesn’t impose unnecessary burdens on farmers when they’re trying to decide if they need a permit,” he says.

Groundwater Exclusion: “We Want It Crystal Clear”

One standout change is the explicit exclusion of groundwater — language EPA says is included to eliminate confusion.

“Groundwater has never been part of the Waters of the United States, but we think it is absolutely necessary to make that exemption clear as day so there is no confusion about whether someone would need a permit for a discharge that may impact groundwater,” Fotouhi says.

He says repeated questions from stakeholders and newer case law convinced the agency to spell it out directly.

“Based on the case law that’s come out in the last few years and the general confusion we hear from stakeholders, we think it is incumbent on us to clarify this as clearly as we can,” he adds.

Final Rule Expected in Early 2026

EPA filed the proposal with the Federal Register , which means the rule’s comment period is officially underway.

“We publish the rule today, and it will be out for public comment for 45 days,” he says. “We know there is an absolute need for certainty and clarity and one nationwide standard, so we move quickly. We are hopeful that in the first few months of 2026, we can have a final rule out for the public.”

RFS: EPA Reviewing Comments, Aims for Certainty

Fotouhi also discusses EPA’s proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes, including record-setting biomass-based diesel levels.

“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right. From day one, Administrator Zeldin is laser-focused on ensuring the RFS strikes the right balance,” he says. “We know farmers and all stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action.”

EPA’s Deregulatory Push: More Actions to Come

Fotouhi says the agency’s deregulatory actions announced earlier this year will have significant impact on agriculture.

“Reducing the cost of energy is one of our biggest focuses,” he says. “Many of the actions we identify are aimed at reducing energy prices for farmers, ranchers and manufacturers so we can reduce input costs and ultimately reduce the cost of the products they produce.”

This is evident through their efforts on WOTUS.

“The WOTUS proposal is a prime example; it’s designed to reduce unnecessary and illegal regulatory burden, and we are undertaking a score of additional actions across offices, working with USDA, the Department of Energy and the Interior Department, to identify ways to reduce input costs for agriculture,” Fotouhi says. “A thriving agricultural sector is a priority for the president, and lowering consumer prices is something we have to achieve.”

U.S. Drops 40% Tariff on Brazilian Beef in New White House Executive Order

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:31:41 GMT

A White House Executive Order issued Thursday modifies the scope of earlier tariffs placed on products from Brazil, effectively removing the additional 40% duty applied to Brazilian beef. The change reverses part of a July trade action that had imposed elevated import duties on multiple categories of Brazilian goods. It’s the latest effort by the Trump administration to bring food prices down for Americans.

Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter, and its product plays a key role in filling U.S. demand, especially in processing beef and manufacturing trim. The tariff increase earlier this year had raised costs for processors and food manufacturers, tightening supply availability and contributing to price pressure.

This latest move follows an Executive Order signed on Friday that modified the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Friday EO exempted several agricultural products from tariffs , including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

What Thursday’s Executive Order Does

According to the new order, certain agricultural imports from Brazil are now exempt from the extra ad valorem tariff that had been layered on top of existing duties. Beef is among the commodities specifically impacted — meaning importers will no longer pay the higher tariff rate that had been in effect since mid-summer.

A complete list of the products that will no longer face the 40% tariff was posted online. That list includes the following beef products:

Fresh or chilled beef
Frozen beef
Edible bovine offal, fresh or chilled
Edible bovine offal, frozen
Salted, dried, smoked or brined beef

Read More: What Does Talk of $10 Ground Beef Mean to Producers?

Why the White House Lifted the Tariff

In the Executive Order, President Donald Trump specifically referenced the call he had with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Oct. 6, which he said addressed concerns in the previous Executive Order that added the additional tariffs.

“These negotiations are ongoing. I also have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14323,” said Trump in the Executive Order. “For example, in their opinion, certain agricultural imports from Brazil should no longer be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323 because, among other relevant considerations, there has been initial progress in negotiations with the Government of Brazil.”

The Executive Order went on to say: “after considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me and the status of negotiations with the Government of Brazil, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify the scope of products subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323. Specifically, I have determined that certain agricultural products shall not be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323.”

Accordingly, an updated version of Annex I to Executive Order 14323 is attached to this order, which shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on Nov. 13, 2025. In my judgment, these modifications are necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14323.

Background on Tariffs on Brazilian Beef

The Trump administration issued an executive order on July 30, 2025, instituting an additional ad valorem duty of 40 % on many products of Brazilian origin. That 40% duty was in addition to an existing 10% tariff under a separate “reciprocal tariff” measure —bringing the total effective tariff to about 50% on most affected Brazilian goods.

Fear of Trump Dumping Tariffs Caused Selloff in Cattle Earlier This Week

Even the fear of Trump removing the steep tariff on Brazilin beef caused cattle prices to tank earlier this week.

Brad Kooima with Kooima Kooima Varilek told Michelle Rook on Monday that concerns of the tariff being lowered was part of the selloff in the cattle futures last week and why the market started off lower Monday.

Kooima said futures stabilized after it was confirmed the 50% tariff on Brazil beef was only lowered 10%.

Looking ahead, Rook reports the other major issue hanging over the cattle market is when the Trump administration will reopen the Mexican border to live cattle import. Some reports say the Trump administration is pushing for that to happen in January.

Read More: Did the Administration’s Plan to Lower Beef Prices Wreck the Bull Run in the Cattle Market?

New House Bill Pushes For Fertilizer Price Transparency

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 19:40:04 GMT

A companion bill to the Fertilizer Research Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House version, sponsored by U.S. Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA), echoes the same goal as the Senate’s Fertilizer Research Act of 2025 (S.2808) – to provide U.S. farmers with more clarity and certainty regarding fertilizer costs and supply.

“America’s farmers are being squeezed by high fertilizer costs and low commodity prices, making it incredibly difficult to afford the inputs needed to maintain strong yields,” Hinson said in a statement on Thursday, noting that farmers tell her they need greater fertilizer price transparency and stability.

The legislation, if passed, would require the USDA to conduct a study on the competition and trends in the fertilizer market and their subsequent impact on fertilizer prices and then provide a comprehensive report of the agency’s findings.

The study would examine market competition and trends, the impact of these trends on fertilizer prices, the size and value of the U.S. market over the past 25 years, and the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on retail fertilizer prices. It would also assess market concentration and the regulatory environment.

Within one year of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Economic Research Service, would be required to issue a report on USDA’s website regarding the U.S. fertilizer industry.

Mark Mueller , an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, had said during a Senate hearing last month that increases in fertilizer costs are “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“We need to assess the fertilizer industry to better understand pricing practices, tariffs and the exertion of market power by companies within the industry,” Mueller added. “The continued commitment to highlighting the impact of fertilizer prices on corn farmers does not go unnoticed by Iowa’s corn growers.”

Co-sponsors of the bipartisan House bill included Republican Randy Feenstra of Iowa, and Democrats Nikki Budzinski of Illinois and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

Budzinski noted, “Fertilizer is an essential tool for farmers to maximize their crop yields, but they often lack insight into how fertilizer prices are determined – making it harder to balance their books. I’m proud to introduce this common-sense, bipartisan legislation to give our farmers more transparency and ensure that farm inputs are priced fairly.”

Hinson said that the House bill is supported by the American Soybean Association, the National Farmers Union, the Iowa Farmers Union, the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Corn Growers Association, and the Iowa Soybean Association.

Your next read: Fertilizer Prices Under Fire: Monopoly or Markets to Blame?

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

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 23:50:06 GMT

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

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

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

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

Some of these products include:

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

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

President Defends Tariff Strategy, Says It’s Working

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

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

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

You can read the entire fact sheet here.

Another Temporary Fix: Stopgap Bill Includes Farm Bill Extension — Is This the New Normal for Ag Policy?

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:26:14 GMT

A new stopgap spending bill to reopen the government also extends key Farm Bill programs for one year—covering the provisions left out of July’s budget package. While the Senate waits on the House to vote, it brings up what some economists think may be a new reality: the days of passing a comprehensive Farm Bill may be over, and a piecemeal approach could be the new norm in Washington.

It’s been about 6 years and 11 months since Congress passed a new, comprehensive (5-year) farm bill. This week, the continuing resolution (CR), which funds the federal government through January 30, includes an extension of the current farm bill, again. This prevents outdated “permanent law” provisions from taking effect. Without action, those Depression-era statutes could have triggered mandatory price supports for certain commodities, disrupting markets.

The bill also includes an extension of the U.S. Grain Standards Act, ensuring official grain inspection and weighing services continue without interruption.

Senate Votes 60–40 to Advance the Measure

The Senate advanced the package in a 60–40 vote Sunday night, providing farmers relief from uncertainty over whether core safety-net programs might lapse.

An earlier package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” increased funding for commodity programs, crop insurance, and export promotion, but it left out several smaller and conservation-related initiatives—including the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The new CR temporarily fills that gap while Congress works toward a full Farm Bill reauthorization.

Boozman: “Critical USDA Services Resume”

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, praised the bill’s passage, emphasizing its importance for both producers and rural communities.

“Ending the government shutdown ensures critical USDA services resume so vulnerable families no longer experience disruptions to nutrition benefits, farmers can access the programs and personnel they rely on to keep their operations running efficiently and disaster assistance is delivered,” Boozman said in a statement.“We advanced long-overdue farm bill policy improvements in the One Big Beautiful Bill, including enhanced risk management tools farmers have been calling for, and we’re continuing work to reauthorize other key initiatives. Extending the farm bill and the U.S. Grain Standards Act gives us more time to finalize these programs essential to farmers, ranchers and rural America.”

Is This the New Norm?

The extension buys lawmakers additional time to complete a comprehensive Farm Bill reauthorization, expected to be one of the top legislative priorities in early 2026.

But the loss of urgency to pass a new, comprehensive five-year farm bill may be due to the fact Congress included key enhancements to the Farm Safety Net in the One Big Beautiful Bill earlier this year. The Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists in July if that makes it more difficult or easier to pass a Farm Bill this year. 70% said yes. And in September, the Monthly Monitor asked when Congress will pass a new farm bill. Nearly 40% (39%) said a piecemeal approach for passing the farm bill is the new norm.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Sections 10101 and 10108 (Title I, Agriculture) would increase federal outlays by about $52.3 billion + $1.6 billion over 10 years.

The American Farm Bureau Federation says the bill directs about $65.6 billion in new agricultural investment over 10 years: ~$59 billion for core farm safety-net enhancements, ~$6.6 billion for other ag priorities.

Key Farm Bill-style Provisions in the OBBB

Here’s a breakdown of major provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that impact legislation within the Farm Bill:

1. Extension & enhancement of commodity support / safety-net programs

The bill extends core programs originally in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) through crop year 2031.
Reference prices under the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program are raised.
The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program’s revenue guarantee is increased (for example, from 86% to 90%) and maximum payment rates increased.
Marketing Assistance Loan rates are increased.
The bill provides a one-time opportunity for eligible producers to update base acres (“new base acre holdings”).

2. Crop insurance and disaster assistance

Premium subsidies for crop insurance increase; the bill boosts coverage levels for the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policies.
Disaster assistance programs are expanded: loss types eligible are broadened, thresholds for payment triggers are lowered, and coverage levels increased.

3. Dairy, sugar, and specialty commodities

For dairy: The bill increases the amount of milk production a producer can enroll in the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program. Also, it requires dairy product manufacturers to report cost/yield data so that “make allowances” under the federal milk marketing order system can be updated.
For sugar: Under the sugar support program, priority is given to sugar-beet processors if marketing allotments are raised; the bill also mandates reallocation of tariff-rate quota shortfalls by March 1 and requires USDA to report on refined sugar imports.

4. Agricultural research, animals, trust funds, and miscellaneous programs

Section 10108 of the bill funds: the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, National Animal Disease Preparedness Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank.
Extends funding for trust funds supporting pima cotton, wool, certain textile, and citrus industries.
Miscellaneous investments in horticulture, energy (for agriculture), trade promotion, and rural infrastructure also included.

While nothing is easy in Washington, it seems addressing portions of farm bill funding within other legislation is the path of least resistance. Which could change the way farm bills are shaped - and passed through Congress- in the years ahead.

Opposition to the Farm Bill Extension

While most farm groups applaud the one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) says it comes with potential issues for small and medium size farmers.

“The Senate’s deal to reopen the government has a number of problems that will hurt farmers and rural communities. The Senate attaches a 12-month Farm Bill extension to the deal, setting up the possibility for more chaos just a year from now,” says Michael Happ, Program Associate for Climate and Rural Communities. “Even worse, it is not a clean extension. The text proposes eliminating payment limitations for Farm Bill conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In most years, well over half of applicants to EQIP are turned away due to a lack of funds — and without payment limits, the USDA will likely issue fewer, larger EQIP contracts. By getting rid of the payment limit, the Senate opens the door for more of EQIP’s finite resources to be diverted to the largest operations while more small and midscale farms are closed out.”

IATP is urging the Senate needs to keep payment limits in place and go back to the negotiating table.

Soybean Stalemate? U.S. Farmers Want China To Take Concrete Action On Its Commitments

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 21:07:59 GMT

Dust continues to hang over the agreement President Donald Trump made with China President Xi Jinping, clouding the details of how a reduction in retaliatory tariffs will play out for U.S. farmers who are anxious to move soybeans into the export market.

Despite some initial positive steps, a 13% tariff on U.S. soybeans remains, making them less competitive than Brazilian alternatives, according to a Reuters article published Thursday.

Kevin Paap, a farmer in Blue Earth County, Minn., remains cautiously optimistic. While he welcomes the trade agreement, he emphasizes the critical need for implementation.

“Trade agreements aren’t over once they’re signed. They’re really just getting started, and we need to make sure they’re enforced, they’re used, and hopefully they’re improved,” Paap says.

Western Iowa farmer Kelly Garrett shares a similar sentiment, albeit with a slightly more positive outlook.

“It’s nice to see we’re moving in the right direction, but I would sure like to see some deliveries made because China’s canceled so many orders in the past. Once the boats start heading in that direction, I’ll feel more confident and positive about the whole thing,” says Garrett, who produces grain and beef cattle near Arion.

The White House announced last week that China will purchase at least 12 million metric tons (mmt) of U.S. soybeans in the last two months of 2025 and at least 25 mmt in each of the subsequent three years. However, Beijing has yet to officially confirm these figures.

How China will meet its soybean commitments remains unknown. Past patterns show Chinese purchases closely track U.S.–Brazil price spreads, with strong buying when U.S. prices are competitive and sales falling when premiums widen.

“It is unclear whether China will prioritize the 25 MMT target despite unfavorable pricing, overlook the retaliatory ... tariff, or keep purchases contingent on competitive cost fundamentals,” reports Sandro Steinbach, associate professor and director of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies at North Dakota State University, in the monthly NDSU Ag Trade Monitor .

Farmer Sentiment Sees Slight Improvement
Despite the ongoing tariff challenges, there has been a modest uptick in U.S. farmer sentiment over the past month.

The Purdue University-CME Group Ag Economy Barometer index rose to 129 in October, a 3-point increase from September. The improvement is largely attributed to positives in the livestock sector, according to James Mintert, Purdue Center for Commercial Agriculture, and one of the administrators of the barometer.

“That’s clearly part of it,” Mintert told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Wednesday. “The second thing is, I think it was a recognition that yields were really good this year. I know there’s been some exceptions to that, and there’s some variability out there, but overall yields have been pretty positive.”

Both Paap and Garrett report harvesting above average or better corn and soybean yields for the 2025 season.

Paap says yields were “above APH for both corn and soybeans, and more importantly, we were over 30% above last year’s corn yields.”

Garrett, while slightly below his initial corn yield expectations due to disease pressure, still achieved 225 bushels per acre. That is “10 bushels better than last year, and we’re going to be 5 bushels over APH,” he told Flory.

Basis Shows Signs Of Strengthening
Soybean basis improved 40¢ to 50¢ from September lows following the U.S.-China deal on anticipated demand, though recent softening and YoY weakness persist, reports Steinbach.

Paap, while acknowledging the improvement in basis, notes it’s moving up from one of the lowest he has ever seen. “Yes, it’s an improvement, but it’s not back to what you would expect a harvest basis to be,” he says.

Therein is a key rub for both Paap and Garrett. They see some improvement in basis and marketing opportunities, but they still aren’t at the level either farmer wants or needs.

Steinbach notes that new trade arrangements with Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Vietnam broaden export access and could support U.S. feed grains, meats, oilseeds and other products.

Despite the continued uncertainty in the marketplace, Mintert reports that over 70% of U.S. producers responding to the latest Purdue Ag Barometer say the U.S. is headed in the “right direction.”

Paap says he can agree with that perspective if “legislators will set politics aside and concentrate on policy and getting things done.” He especially wants to see a new farm bill and year-round nationwide availability of fuels with a 15% ethanol blend (E15).

“But if we’re going to take this opportunity and continue to make it a challenge and be all political and not work together, that’s not the right direction in my mind,” Paap notes.

Garrett says he is hopeful the farming economy is finally moving in a positive direction.

“We hit rock bottom with the basis on soybeans and with the corn market being down there around $4,” he says. “Now, with some of the news we have, I think we are headed up.”

Garrett and Paap detail more of their hopes for trade in the discussion they had Wednesday with Chip Flory on AgriTalk:

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

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 23:05:28 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

What This Means for U.S. Farmers

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

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

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

Timing And The Broader Picture

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Hurdle? Tracking the Purchases Amid a Government Shutdown

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

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

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

Opportunities and Caveats

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

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

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

How This Will Impact Farmers and Ranchers in the Months Ahead

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

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

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

Looking Ahead

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

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

'Everything’s a Game of 3D Chess': The Real Reason Behind U.S. Ties to Argentina

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 19:32:24 GMT

The U.S. is tightening ties with Argentina, and that’s raising eyebrows across farm country.

From a $20 billion bailout to plans to import Argentine beef, farmers and ranchers say the growing alliance feels like it’s coming at the expense of U.S. agriculture.

But according to Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist with StoneX, there’s more to this story, and it has everything to do with China .

A Geopolitical Chess Match

“Everything’s a game of 3D chess,” Suderman explains. “At the center of it is China.”

For years, China has been strengthening ties with Argentina, investing heavily in infrastructure and agriculture to secure long-term supply lines and influence. Suderman says the U.S. sees an opportunity to pull Argentina away from Beijing’s orbit, using economic incentives to win its allegiance.

“The White House sees this as a way to create a split between Argentina and China,” Suderman says. “It’s not just about soybeans or beef. It’s about global positioning.”

The Beef Backlash

But for cattle producers, that strategy feels like betrayal. President Donald Trump’s recent talk of importing Argentine beef sparked anger across rural America. Many worry increasing imports will undercut domestic markets.

Suderman urges producers to stay calm. He points out the announced beef imports, around 80,000 metric tons, are only equal to about two day’s worth of U.S. beef production.

“It’s not enough to impact prices,” he says, “but it does show a disconnect between Washington and agriculture.”

He adds that advisers to the president might have misunderstood how ag markets work.

“These aren’t controlled industries like pharmaceuticals,” Suderman notes. “Ag markets are driven by supply and demand, and right now, we have record demand with tight supply.”

Soybean Farmers Feel Left Behind

While beef producers protest, soybean farmers are already bruised. Argentina’s temporary suspension of export taxes earlier in the year allowed them to undercut U.S. prices and quickly sell beans to China — a major blow to American growers. Suderman says it’s a reminder that the U.S. is no longer the world’s low-cost soybean producer.

“Argentina and Brazil have a cheaper currency and lower costs,” he explains. “And China has been investing there for decades.”

Suderman says he’s been warning the industry for years that the U.S. would eventually lose China as its top soybean buyer.

“This didn’t happen overnight,” Suderman says. “China has been building toward this for 20 years. The current administration may have sped it up, but it was coming.”

Beijing’s refusal to buy American and its pivot to Brazil could be less about economics and more to do with politics. “It’s a calculated decision about control and national leverage, not about getting the cheapest beans,” says one ag economist. Read more here.

Caught in a Bigger Battle

Beyond agriculture, Suderman says the real fight isn’t over soybeans — it’s over rare earth minerals. China currently controls about 90% of the world’s processed rare earths, which are essential to making electronics and advanced defense systems.

“That’s the real leverage,” he says. “Soybeans are small compared to the rare earth battle.”

The Trump administration is now trying to expand domestic rare earth supply chains, sourcing from Australia, Greenland and even within the U.S. But Suderman says it could take two to three years before those efforts meet national defense and economic needs.

What Farmers Need to Know

To many farmers, Washington’s global strategy feels like it’s coming at their expense. While the administration is playing the long game with China, rural America is paying the short-term price. Still, Suderman sees opportunity ahead if the U.S. can continue developing new markets, strengthen biofuel demand and tap into growing trade opportunities in Africa and beyond.

“We weren’t ready to give up China,” he admits, “but we need to look forward not backward.”

Farm Groups Offer Additional Thoughts On MAHA Strategy Report

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 22:23:22 GMT

As the dust settles from the rollout of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) strategy report – the action plan for the initial report which was released in May – farmers, farm groups and industry continue to assess what this latest document means to agriculture.

There was “a lot more transparency” in the process of developing the strategy report, released Tuesday, according to Brian Glenn, director of government affairs at American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

“It led to a more positive outcome in this report,” Glenn told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory.

That was not the case in May, when the initial report – which did not include farmers’ input – called out atrazine, chlorpyriphos and glyphosate as pesticides that are “exposure pathways” for potential chronic disease issues in U.S. children.

“Our biggest plea coming back into this August report was, ‘Please listen to the farmers. Ask us for our input.’ And they did ask us,” says Amy France, who farms with her family in western Kansas, near Scott City, and chairs the National Sorghum Producers.

“We had great conversations, and a big chunk of those conversations were directed to education,” France adds.

France addresses the MAHA report and her outlook for the sorghum industry at the AgriTalk link below:

Specifics On Soil Health And Precision Agriculture
What the Commission delivered on Tuesday was a 20-page report outlining 128 recommendations – a roadmap it plans to enact via a series of research projects and multiple federal agencies. Among those recommendations, pages 18-19 of the latest report specifically address “Soil Health and Stewardship of the Land” and “Precision Agriculture.”

The report says “USDA and EPA will promote and incentivize farming solutions in partnership with the private sector that focus on soil health and stewardship of the land,” and provides six specific actions. Read them and the entire report here .

Glenn told Flory that the NFBF had a mostly positive reaction to the report, which included several positive policy recommendations that support U.S. farmers and ranchers.

“There were recommendations to provide a foundation for a lifetime of smart choices, which include focus on American-grown fresh fruits, vegetables and meat. They included a recommendation on reintroducing whole milk into school meal programs. They took an opportunity to highlight efforts to prioritize and support voluntary conservation programs under USDA-NRCS and specifically mentioned the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,” Glenn says. “They even included a recommendation on highlighting EPA’s already robust pesticide regulatory process … with ways to optimize that robust process to accelerate innovation.”

While Glenn says the Commission acknowledged the safety and health of the American food supply, he stressed the importance of the Commission having continued discussions with farmers and farm groups.

“More engagement is needed [with agriculture] as there are a lot of recommendations in this report, asking for different federal agencies to look at different things, and I certainly don’t think this will be our only bite at the apple,” Glenn says.

“I think there will be more opportunities for us to engage, and that is really the message that needs to ring loud and clear for farmers and ranchers. I think us sharing our voice and story has led to a more positive outcome in this report, and I think we need to continue to do that,” he adds.

Glenn offers more perspective from the NFBF on the new MAHA strategy plan here:

MAHA Report 2.0 Gets A Thumbs Up From Farmer Groups And Industry

Tue, 09 Sep 2025 21:36:10 GMT

The Department of Health and Human Services released its action strategy to address children’s health from its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission on Tuesday.

This is the second installment of the MAHA report – a highly anticipated follow-up to the report released by the Commission in May. Many farm organizations had said the original document was filled with “ fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides .”

The latest report offers more than 120 initiatives that will serve as a road map to help address and resolve what Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described as “America’s escalating health crisis, with a focus on childhood chronic diseases.”

Among the initiatives, the second report is calling for better nutrition, more physical activity and the need to address environmental health factors to improve children’s health.

Regarding environmental health, the report stops short of calling for restrictions on pesticide use. Instead, the report recommends collaboration with the agriculture industry to identify “precision agricultural techniques” that can help farmers reduce their use of crop-protection products.

🚨 Putting America’s farmers first starts with our kids. That’s why @USDA is launching a new Farm to School Grant opportunity!

What it means:

✔️Easier applications for schools & communities
✔️More small family farms connected to the lunch line
✔️Fresh, local food fueling kids’… pic.twitter.com/xBMROKGNKZ
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) September 9, 2025

“Together with our partners at HHS and EPA, we are charting a new course, strengthening the health of our families, and ensuring the United States leads the world with the safest, strongest, and most abundant food supply,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins, in a statement about the report.

As examples, Rollins referenced the removal of artificial food dye from major brands, providing technical assistance to states interested in restricting junk food and soda from SNAP, and providing farmers with new tools to maintain and improve soil health, including the introduction of a regenerative farming practice pilot program.

Farm Groups Weigh In With Their Perspective

The 20-page report was met with varying degrees of approval and feedback from U.S. farm organizations.

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) said the latest report appears to be a reasonable and science-based approach for achieving its objectives.

“We are encouraged that when the commission engaged with agricultural stakeholders and followed the science, it reaffirmed what we already know: EPA is the appropriate agency for regulating crop inputs,” Kenneth Hartman Jr., NCGA president, said in a statement. “We are also delighted to see precision agriculture, soil health and land stewardship prioritized, as these are areas in which corn farmers have led the way for many years.”

The Make America Healthy Again Commission released its recommendations today. We are encouraged that when the commission engaged with agricultural stakeholders and followed the science, it reaffirmed what we already know: EPA is the appropriate agency for regulating crop inputs.… pic.twitter.com/1ildZ39Wl2
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) September 9, 2025

The American Soybean Association (ASA) expressed cautious optimism about the report with some caveats.

“Soybean farmers are thankful the MAHA Commission recognized EPA’s approval process as the global gold standard,” said Caleb Ragland, ASA president, in a statement. “Between the May report and today’s strategy, the Commission was accessible and open to learning more about modern farming practices. We truly felt like we had a seat at the table, and for that, we are incredibly appreciative.”

However, the statement from ASA said the organization remains concerned about the misinformed rhetoric from some Commission members around edible soybean oil. “We urge careful consideration of any upcoming rulemakings that could negatively impact U.S. farmers and the public,” ASA said.

A Focus On Collaboration For Crop Protection

The MAHA strategy report offers the crop protection industry some degree of a reprieve, according to Callie Eideberg, a policy expert and principal at The Vogel Group, an international government affairs and consulting firm headquartered in Washington, D.C.

“We saw…an effort to educate the public about the EPA and their processes that they use to approve chemicals,” Eideberg told AgDay TV’s Clinton Griffith on Tuesday.

“We saw a partnership with the private sector to focus chemical applications in a very precise way. I think, overall, the chemical industry in the agricultural space is probably doing cartwheels right now because they could have faced some really tough questions and some tough recommendations. But this report, at least the way I read it, is not making major changes or really any changes at all to how agricultural chemicals are regulated by the federal government,” Eideberg said.

TFI welcomes the release of the second Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report and the chance to highlight how nutrient stewardship, cover crops, and conservation practices strengthen both our land and our communities.

Read our full statement here: https://t.co/7taWqM4qIh
— The Fertilizer Institute (@Fertilizer_Inst) September 9, 2025

Her message was similarly echoed by the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA):

”ARA commends the MAHA Commission for its common-sense, forward-thinking recommendations related to agricultural innovations and environmental stewardship. This report recognizes the importance of essential tools needed for America’s production agriculture using innovative precision ag technologies and other innovations,” said Daren Coppock, ARA president and CEO.

Report Recognizes The Nutritional Value Of Meat

Eideberg said she is pleased to see the approach the strategy report is taking to resolve issues laid out in the initial report through a large emphasis on education and awareness.

“Whether that is in nutrition and health or the pesticide industry, education and awareness are a big emphasis of this report, and we also saw a big push for deregulation,” Eideberg said. “The deregulation options in this report are primarily focused on smaller meat and dairy processors, which has been a big concern in [those industries] for a while. But I think those folks are going to really like what they see in this report.”

The Meat Institute noted that the latest report “is a good first step toward recognizing the nutritional value of meat and poultry after years of misguided policies attacking meat consumption.”

Farm Journal’s Drovers and Pork Business editors highlighted feedback on the MAHA strategy details from their respective industry leaders in separate reports.

Your next read: MFP 2.0? Ag Committees Consider Farm Aid Through Farm Bill 2.0

Environmental Groups Want Enlist Registrations Vacated

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 23:48:25 GMT

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and partner groups have filed a motion for summary judgment in federal court to vacate the EPA ‘s registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo herbicides.

The lawsuit alleges the EPA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by improperly approving the herbicides, relying on outdated data, and downplaying health and environmental risks.

Farmers use Enlist One and Enlist Duo herbicides, manufactured by Corteva Agriscience, to control tough broadleaf weeds like marestail and waterhemp in corn, cotton and soybean crops.

Enlist One contains 2,4-D choline salt, while Enlist Duo contains 2,4-D, choline salt and glyphosate.

Kristina Sinclair, staff attorney at CFS says in a press release that EPA approved the Enlist products “without performing the rigorous cost-benefit analysis the law demands.”

Another Round Of Legal Challenges

This is not the first legal challenge to the Enlist system. CFS and its partners previously challenged the EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo in 2014, leading to a 2020 Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the registration, keeping the technology available to farmers.

If the federal court would vacate the registrations for the Enlist technology, the products would be unavailable for sale or distribution in the U.S.

Corteva Agriscience has been granted intervener status to the legal challenge. Intervener status in this scenario means a person or group, that is not an original party in the lawsuit, is permitted by the court to become a party to the lawsuit, effectively joining the case to protect their interests.

“We fully stand behind our own as well as the EPA’s stringent review processes, which have affirmed, and reaffirmed, the safety and benefits of our products when used as directed,” a Corteva Agriscience spokesperson told Farm Journal via email.

EPA has until Oct. 20. 2025, to file a response to the litigation.

Corteva will have until early November to file its responses.

Your next read: Corn Ear Drop Before Black Layer Signals Yield Loss Is Ahead

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:16:02 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor