Trade

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

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:56:48 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fundamental “Structural Shift”

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

(Farm Journal Survey, April 2026)

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

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

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

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

Geopolitical Impacts on Input Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Deferment of Capital Expenses

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

(Farm Journal Survey, April 2026)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:01:57 GMT

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

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

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

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

Trade Wins Highlighted by Government Officials

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

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

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

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

Examples of enforceable commitments include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Review of USMCA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:24:46 GMT

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

(Data: USDA)

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

Exports rising

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

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

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

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

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

How USDA says it will push exports

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

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

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

Trade missions: 2026 schedule and priorities

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

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

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

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

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

The next agribusiness trade mission is to the Philippines.

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

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:32:47 GMT

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

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

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

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

The Court’s ruling on Friday has major implications.

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

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

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

What This Means for Trump’s Tariffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Trump Reacts By Announcing New Tariffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Now? Exploring Alternatives to IEEPA Tariffs

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

According to the recent analysis, the possible alternatives include:

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

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

New U.S.-Argentina Trade Deal Opens Door for Dairy Exports

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 16:40:24 GMT

A newly signed trade agreement between the U.S. and Argentina is creating new opportunities for U.S. dairy exports, with industry leaders pointing to meaningful progress on both tariff reductions and long-standing trade barriers.

The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) welcomed the U.S.-Argentina Agreement on Reciprocal Trade and Investment, finalized Feb. 5. The agreement includes specific provisions aimed at improving market access for U.S. dairy products while protecting the use of common food names that have become a growing point of contention in global trade.

As part of the deal, Argentina committed to eliminating tariffs that currently reach as high as 28% on select dairy products, including milk powders, dairy proteins, lactose and other dairy ingredients. The agreement also establishes a 1,000-metric-ton quota for certain U.S. cheeses entering the Argentine market.

In addition to tariff relief, the agreement addresses nontariff barriers that can complicate exports. Argentina agreed not to impose processing facility registration requirements on U.S. dairy plants and to provide explicit protections for 39 common cheese names, including Parmesan.

“The commitments secured in the U.S.-Argentina reciprocal trade deal bring new, real opportunities for our dairy exports to South America,” says Krysta Harden, USDEC president and CEO. “USDEC appreciates USTR’s (U.S. trade representative’s) hard work in securing agreements that lower tariffs and meaningfully address nontariff barriers, particularly those to protect common cheese names. We look forward to building our market presence in Argentina as the agreement is implemented.”

Beyond tariff and market‑access details, industry organizations say trade agreements such as this one can shape broader market conditions, including milk demand and longer‑term stability.

“Trade deals like this bring dairy farmers promise for the future,” says Gregg Doud, president and CEO of NMPF. “Dairy farms operate 365 days a year, and the U.S. negotiating team is keeping pace to secure new market access. NMPF will continue to work with the Administration as all the reciprocal trade agreements are translated into real results on the ground for our farmers.”

Protection of common cheese names was also a central priority for CCFN, especially as the European Union continues to pursue trade agreements that seek to restrict the use of terms U.S. producers consider generic.

“Argentina’s commitment to protect 39 common cheese names and 10 generic meat terms could not have come at a more important time,” says Jaime Castaneda, CCFN executive director. “As the European Union is advancing toward implementation of its trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc of countries, our ability to use common names is increasingly at risk. We cannot thank Ambassador (Jamieson) Greer and the USTR negotiating team enough for the foresight and leadership in protecting U.S. exporters’ rights.”

The Argentina agreement follows recent reciprocal trade deals the U.S. signed with El Salvador and Guatemala that also include commitments to prevent barriers to U.S. dairy exports.

Trump Signs Executive Order Quadrupling Beef Imports from Argentina to Keep Ground Beef Affordable

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 22:39:03 GMT

In a move aimed at easing pressure on U.S. beef supplies and keeping prices in check for consumers, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Feb. 6, 2026, temporarily quadrupling imports of lean beef trimmings from Argentina under the U.S. tariff-rate quota (TRQ).

The action comes as USDA confirmed just last week the U.S. cattle herd is now at a 75-year low . Not only are producers showing no signs of herd rebuilding, the White House says low cattle supplies can be attributed to droughts and wildfires in 2022 that impacted key U.S. cattle-producing states, including Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, which have constrained domestic beef production.

Compounding the supply challenges are restrictions on cattle imports from Mexico following detections of the New World screwworm have limited feedlot stocks, contributing to a record-low U.S. cattle herd.

“As President, I have a responsibility to ensure that hard-working Americans can afford to feed themselves and their families,” the proclamation states. “To increase the supply of ground beef for U.S. consumers, I am taking action to temporarily increase the quantity of in-quota imports of lean beef trimmings under the U.S. beef TRQ.”

The proclamation authorizes an 80,000 metric ton increase in in-quota lean beef trimmings imports for 2026, which will be allocated entirely to Argentina. The additional beef will be distributed in four quarterly tranches of 20,000 metric tons each, beginning Feb. 13, 2026, and continuing through the end of the year.

Record Beef Prices Drive Action

U.S. consumers have seen beef prices climb steadily in recent years, with ground beef reaching an average price of $6.69 per pound in December 2025, which was the highest level recorded since the 1980s. Despite higher prices and the availability of alternative proteins, demand for beef remains strong, prompting record beef imports of 4.64 billion pounds in 2024, a 24% increase over the previous year.

But this is not the first time President Trump has proposed measures to address rising beef costs. In October 2025, he told reporters at the White House, “We are working on beef, and I think we have a deal on beef. The price of beef is higher than we want it, and that’s going to be coming down pretty soon too. We did something,” without elaborating.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) responded at the time with a strong warning, criticizing the President’s approach. NCBA CEO Colin Woodall says. the plan risked “damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

He emphasizes concerns about trade imbalances, the risk of introducing foreign animal diseases from Argentina, and the importance of focusing on domestic solutions such as New World screwworm facilities, regulatory reforms, and disease prevention programs.

The Trump administration, however, argues the current import expansion is a necessary response to natural disasters and market disruptions that have reduced domestic beef supply. The administration will continue monitoring supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures that may be necessary to ensure stable beef prices for American families.

This proclamation highlights ongoing challenges facing U.S. cattle producers, including climate-related disruptions, disease risks, and supply chain pressures, while signaling the administration’s willingness to leverage international trade to stabilize consumer costs.

Are Beef Prices Too High? Consumer Demand Signals No

Since the president’s initial comments in October, there’s been a debate about if beef prices are too high. Oklahoma State extension livestock specialist Derrell Peel agrees consumer behavior continues to support higher prices, even if there is talk about bringing beef prices down.

“I don’t think we have a demand problem or a beef price problem. Consumers are still paying,” Close says. “If consumers didn’t want to pay high prices for beef, they don’t have to. There’s places they can go. They’re still paying it.”

High prices have raised concerns about whether consumers will eventually push back, but Terrain’s Don Close says demand data continues to defy that narrative.

“Over the last two years at Terrain, we’ve spent more time trying to evaluate and study what we can about demand,” he says. “We’ve known what the supply is.”

By examining beef prices relative to income, inflation and competing proteins, Close said the results remain consistent.

“We’re looking at all-fresh beef prices against the consumer price index. We’re looking all fresh against average hourly wage. We’re now looking at beef in relationship to both pork and broilers,” he says. “And all those matrices that we’re looking at, we’re not seeing and have not yet seen any softening in beef demand. It’s still in place.”

Economists Weigh In: Can Beef Prices Be Lowered Without Harming Producers?

In October, Trump’s initial comments tanked the cattle market. To better understand whether retail beef prices can be reduced without affecting cattle markets, Farm Journal spoke with two economists and livestock market experts. When asked if there’s a way to lower beef prices without impacting cattle futures, both economists say the short answer is, “no.”

“Simple answer is no,” says Close. “I would add to that that when we look at beef prices in relationship to the other proteins, I would absolutely say that pork and broilers have been a beneficiary of the record high beef prices. No doubt. But they are not yet to a point that they are a detriment to beef prices; beef is still gaining market share relative to other proteins.”

David Anderson, extension livestock economist at Texas A&M, echoed that perspective. “I think it’s a great, interesting question, but from the ranch to wholesale beef to retail beef, these prices are all related,” Anderson says. “If it was possible to do something that actually brought down retail prices to consumers, it’s going to have an effect upstream, downstream, however you want to call that. But even then, I’m not sure there’s much you can do to bring down retail prices. We’ve got a product that’s in demand. Even though we look at our nominal retail beef prices that are record high, I think that for consumers, beef delivers value for the money and they’re going to keep buying. That and tighter supplies is a recipe for higher prices. People continue to buy. There’s a bunch of big trends there, heck, let’s eat more protein, you know, and that helps the whole meat complex: beef, dairy, eggs, beans, you name it. So while this supports cattle prices, it also means there’s not a whole lot you can do to bring down beef prices significantly.”

New U.S.-Argentina Trade Deal Sets Stage For President Trump’s Latest Proclamation

The move this week follows a new trade and investment agreement between the United States and Argentina, signed earlier this week by USTR Jamieson Greer and Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno. The agreement provides preferential market access for U.S. goods, eliminates or reduces tariffs on a wide range of products, and enhances cooperation on economic and national security issues.

On agriculture, Argentina has agreed to open its market to U.S. poultry and poultry products within a year and simplify export regulations for U.S. beef and pork. The agreement also requires Argentina to accept U.S. food safety and regulatory standards for meat and poultry, while prohibiting restrictions on U.S. use of certain cheese names, such as asiago, feta, or camembert.

USTR officials said the deal will also enhance cooperation on export controls for sensitive items, protect telecommunications infrastructure, and prevent digital trade barriers that could affect U.S. tech companies. Although China is not mentioned in the text, the agreement is designed to strengthen U.S.-Argentina coordination in addressing unfair trade practices from third countries.

What’s Ahead?

The Trump administration will continue monitoring domestic beef supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures necessary to maintain affordable prices for American consumers. While some in the cattle industry remain cautious about importing Argentinian beef, the administration frames the decision as a short-term solution to natural disasters and market disruptions that have tightened domestic beef availability.

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

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:24 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:38 GMT

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

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

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

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

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

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

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

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

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

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

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

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

Consolidation a Growing Threat

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

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

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

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

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

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

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

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

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

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

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

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

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

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

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

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

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

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:31:42 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?

President Trump Threatens New Round of Tariffs Over the Weekend: Here’s the Latest

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:39:35 GMT

U.S. commodity markets were down to start the week in Sunday night trade as the markets digested the latest tariff announcement by President Donald Trump. On Saturday, President Trump threatened to impose 30% tariffs on Mexico and the European Union starting on August 1. The announcement came after a string of new tariff threats last week, as the Trump administration’s deadline for trade deals came due.

On Monday, President Trump continued with tariff talk, saying he would implement “severe tariffs” on Russia unless a peace deal is reached with Ukraine within 50 days.

He provided few details on how they would be implemented but described them as 100% secondary tariffs, meaning they would target Russia’s trading partners in an effort to isolate Moscow in the global economy.

The latest tariff threats weren’t good news for farmers looking to price fertilizer for fall, as StoneX Group says Russia is the United States’ top destination for both urea and UAN imports. StoneX points out Russia’s market chair has “grown substantially in recent years.”

Monday’s news follows a week where many anticipated trade deals. Instead, President Trump made a series of announcements with new tariffs. The new tariffs on Mexico and the European Union, which Trump announced Saturday, capped off a week of sweeping tariff threats.

Earlier in the week, Trump warned of a possible:

50% tariff on all copper imports
50% tariff on all goods from Brazil
35% tariff on Canadian goods
25% tariff on goods from Japan
25% tariff on imports from South Korea
200% tariff on imported pharmaceuticals

The positive side of the announcements is the Trump administration says any products covered under the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (UMCA) won’t face the new tariffs.

President Trump also sent letters to both Japan and South Korea last week, saying their goods will be taxed at 25% starting August 1st.

The President posted the two letters he sent to those countries’ leaders on his Truth Social site. In the letter to South Korea, he stated when it comes to Korea’s tariff and non-tariff polices and trade barriers, the relationship between the two countries has been far from reciprocal. He added the 25% tariff was far less than what he says is needed to eliminate a trade deficit disparity.

The letter to Japan added if Japanese companies decide to build or manufacture a product within the U.S., there will be no tariffs. Japanese and U.S. negotiators have been working for several weeks to try and reach a deal.

Lack of Progress Impacts Commodity Prices
The lack of trade announcements last week was just one factor that caused corn prices to tank, according to AgMarket.net’s Matt Bennett. While rain in the upper Corn Belt was also bearish for the markets, little to no movement on trade is also pressuring prices.

“We had no trade announcements, and then we continued to talk about tariffs. The unfortunate reality right now is it appears the administration is playing the long game, trying to get people to come to the table with better trade deals than what we currently have seen. But it certainly isn’t doing any favors for the corn market,” Bennett said on U.S. Farm Report this weekend. “I think something like a big trade agreement certainly could tilt the tide more in the favor of the corn market moving higher. Until you get that, with weather being as good as what it is, there’s nothing there.”

It’s not all bearish, though. Arlan Suderman of StoneX Group says the 50% tariff on Brazil is actually bullish for beef.

“We already have a shortage of protein in America with the cattle herd being shrinking over recent years because of lingering drought in the western half of the country, and supplies are tight. We’re just getting to the point of trying to rebuild those supplies, which holding back heifers, tightens up the supply of meat even more. We’re feeding to record-high carcass weights to try to fill the void. We’re increasing imports to record levels. Brazil is the primary supplier of those imports: 27% of our imports come from Brazil in the first five months of the year, according to the latest data we have available, that’s 666 million pounds. That’s 4% of consumption,” Suderman says.

If you think 4% doesn’t sound like a big deal, Suderman says it is - especially considering meat demand in the U.S. has turned out to be inelastic.

“We’ve been shifting from a starch-based diet more heavily toward protein-based. And as the prices go up, we’re actually increasing demand for beef and the other proteins - but we don’t have the supply of it. I think that could be a real problem going forward for the meat industry and the meat supply. We will have to find somewhere else to get that meat,” Suderman says.

Are Trade Deals Close?

While President Trump initially stated he had reached trade agreements with 200 countries, only a few have been officially announced. These include deals with China, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam, however. Negotiations with other countries are ongoing, with the administration extending the deadline for tariff-related negotiations to August 1.

The European Union says it was working on sealing a trade deal with the U.S. by the end of this month, and the European Commission president says the EU was working closely with the Trump administration to reach a deal.

Breaking: Mexican Border Closed Again as New World Screwworm Comes Within 370 Miles of the U.S.

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:18:05 GMT

On July 8, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality reported a new case of New World screwworm (NWS) in Ixhuatlan de Madero, Veracruz, Mexico, which is approximately 160 miles northward of the current sterile fly dispersal grid on the eastern side of the country and 370 miles south of the U.S./Mexico border.

This new northward detection comes approximately two months after northern detections were reported in Oaxaca and Veracruz, less than 700 miles away from the U.S. border, which triggered the closure of our ports to Mexican cattle, bison and horses on May 11, 2025 .

While USDA announced a risk-based phased port re-opening strategy for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7, 2025 , this newly reported NWS case raises significant concern about the previously information shared by Mexican officials and severely compromises the outlined port reopening schedule of five ports from July 7 to Sept. 15. Therefore, in order to protect American livestock and the U.S. food supply, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has ordered the closure of livestock trade through southern ports of entry effective immediately.

“The United States has promised to be vigilant — and after detecting this new NWS case, we are pausing the planned port reopening’s to further quarantine and target this deadly pest in Mexico. We must see additional progress combatting NWS in Veracruz and other nearby Mexican states in order to reopen livestock ports along the Southern border,” Rollins says. “Thanks to the aggressive monitoring by USDA staff in the U.S. and in Mexico, we have been able to take quick and decisive action to respond to the spread of this deadly pest.”

To ensure the protection of U.S. livestock herds, USDA is holding Mexico accountable by ensuring proactive measures are being taken to maintain a NWS free barrier. This is maintained with stringent animal movement controls, surveillance, trapping and following the proven science to push the NWS barrier south in phases as quickly as possible.

In June, Secretary Rollins launched a 5-point plan to combat NWS by protecting our border at all costs, increasing eradication efforts in Mexico, and increasing readiness. USDA also announced the groundbreaking of a sterile fly dispersal facility in South Texas. This facility will provide a critical contingency capability to disperse sterile flies should a NWS detection be made in the Southern U.S.

Simultaneously, USDA is moving forward with the design process to build a domestic sterile fly production facility to ensure it has the resources to push NWS back to the Darien Gap. USDA is working on these efforts in lockstep with border states – Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – as it will take a coordinated approach with federal, state and local partners to keep this pest at bay and out of the U.S.

USDA will continue to have personnel perform site visits throughout Mexico to ensure the Mexican government has adequate protocols and surveillance in place to combat this pest effectively and efficiently.

Click to enlarge.

(USDA)

Your Next Read: Protect Your Livestock: Signs of New World Screwworm

Trade Dominance or Trade Domino? Trump Announces Trade Deal with Vietnam

Wed, 02 Jul 2025 19:22:28 GMT

Less than a week before the Trump administration’s 90-day pause on many reciprocal tariffs with several countries is set to expire, President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with Vietnam on Wednesday. The deal, according to Trump, allows the U.S. “total access” to Vietnam’s markets with a zero tariff on U.S. products exported to Vietnam.

A deal with Vietnam could benefit U.S. commodities that face higher tariffs, including fruits, nuts, pork and beef exports.

The president made the announcement on his Truth Social site, saying Vietnam will pay the U.S. a 20% tariff on any goods sent into the U.S. and a 40% tariff on any goods that originate in another country and then are transferred to Vietnam before coming to the U.S.

🚨 pic.twitter.com/i35oMvbEvW
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 2, 2025

When trade talks started with Vietnam last month, Vietnamese officials had pledged to boost purchases of American goods, including farm products and energy. However, no specific trade volumes were announced with the trade deal.

What’s the potential for agriculture? Dan Basse, founder and president of AgResource Company, says this could help gain greater access for fruits, nuts and horticulture products, which have tariffs ranging from 15% to 20%, versus corn, soybeans and soybean meal.

“In the case of corn and soybeans and meal and wheat, we’re talking about tariffs today that are 1% to 2%, that’ll go to zero, so it’s something, don’t get me wrong, it’s 5¢ or 10¢ in a bushel of corn, maybe 7¢ to 12¢ on beans, but it is not the panacea that’s going to get a lot of Vietnamese demand going forward,” Basse says.

The trade deal came as a bit of a surprise on Wednesday. Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this week that while the focus of the administration is getting the One Big Beautiful Bill across the finish line this week, that focus shifts back to trade next week. Bessent warned countries could be notified of sharply higher tariffs as a deadline approaches.

Is this trade deal the start of a domino of trade deals that could fall ahead of next week’s deadline? It’s possible, but Stand Grain’s Joe Vaclavik says many more are needed to shift the sentiment in the commodity market to a bullish tone.

“Get a trade deal with China that mirrors Phase One, that includes large purchase agreements, then it’s a game changer,” Vaclavik says. “But anything less than that, as of right now, I don’t think is going be a market mover or a game changer from a supply and demand standpoint.”

Vaclavik agrees with Basse, in that Vietnam alone isn’t a huge demand story for corn and soybeans.

“I think you’re going to see a lot of these announcements like with Vietnam where it sounds great, but Vietnam consumed 16 million metric tons of corn last year. That’s not enough to really put them on the map as something that’s going to move the market. You need a China, a country who consumes 300 million metric tons of corn per year to come in and agree to agree and also agree to buy. And that’s how you move the needle.”

Push for More Protein?

Protein exports are also an area of opportunity. U.S. dairy exports have shown strong growth into Vietnam, with increases in nonfat dry milk powder, whey, and lactose.

As for meat exports, figures from the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) show shipments to Vietnam in 2024 included:

5,052 metric tons of beef and beef variety meat valued at $43 million
and 4,662 metric tons of pork and variety meat with a value of $10 million.

The U.S. current ranks fifth in top exporters to Vietnam, but it’s key to note the U.S. is the largest trading partner with Vietnam that does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). With talks of tariff reductions, it could hep make U.S. pork more competitively priced compared to big competitors like Brazil, the European Union and Canada. Those countries currently have duty-free access to Vietnam.

The current tariff rates vary by product, including:

Chilled beef carcass/ ½ carcass: 30%
Chilled beef bone-in: 20%
Chilled beef boneless: 14%,
Frozen beef bone-in/frozen carcass 20%
Frozen boneless beef: 14%
Chilled pork: 22%
Frozen pork: 10%
Offal: 8%.

Fact sheet on meat exports to Vietnam

(USMEF )

Vietnam’s Growing Population

Farm Journal’s Michelle Rook visited Vietnam earlier this year and saw firsthand the potential growth. Vietnam has a 100 million people and a growing middle class looking to add protein to their diet. With limited soybean crushing capacity, the country currently depends on soybean meal imports for their livestock and aquaculture feed needs.

She reports the country’s soy processing industry is small with only four plants, which import 2 million tons of soybeans annually, including from the U.S. According to Rook’s reporting, that could be an area where soybean exports could grow, fueling Vietnam’s growing aquaculture and livestock production.

You can read and watch Rook’s in-depth reporting here .

Navigate the Winds of Change: Uncertainty and Opportunity in the Global Dairy Economy

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 15:19:31 GMT

In today’s rapidly evolving global economy, businesses and consumers are grappling with unprecedented uncertainty. At the 2025 Global Dairy Conference in Chicago, Ill., Cara Murphy, senior manager of market intelligence with High Ground Dairy, highlighted key issues shaping our dairy economic landscape.

Trade Volatility and Geopolitical Risks
The year 2025 kicked off with significant trade volatility, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions.

Murphy points out regions such as the U.S., Canada, Mexico and China have been hit the hardest. Trade-driven fragmentation and global uncertainty continue to drive down growth. The United Nations reported a decline in global foreign direct investment, predicting further decreases as geopolitical risks mount. Furthermore, the World Bank warned the 2020s could be the slowest decade for global economic growth since the 1960s.

Murphy shares the recent geopolitical events have further fueled economic uncertainty. The conflict involving the U.S. and Iran, particularly concerning the Strait of Hormuz — a critical pathway for 20% of the world’s oil supply — led to unexpected fluctuations in oil prices. Despite initial fears of price rises, markets shifted lower, illustrating the unpredictability of today’s economic climate.

Tariff Turmoil
The ongoing tariff wars remain a major source of instability. Talks between the U.S. and China have led to temporary truces, yet the threat of rising tariffs looms. For instance, tariffs on U.S. dairy exports to China have seen significant hikes, which could result in increased consumer prices down the line. Steel and aluminum tariffs have also risen sharply, sparking potential retaliatory actions from global trade partners.

Currencies around the world are reacting to these turbulent dynamics. The U.S. dollar is at a three-year low, affecting U.S. importers’ settlement preferences, while the Euro and Chinese Yuan are experiencing their own challenges. As transparency in economic reporting from China declines, businesses find it harder to navigate this opaque landscape.

Stephen Cain, senior director of economic research and analysis at the National Milk Producers Federation and U.S. Dairy Export Council shares detailed insights that span from global economic impacts down to the nuances of consumer behavior.

He says understanding the motivations behind these tariffs and their implications proves challenging. Different factions within this political administration hold conflicting views on trade, with strategies that seem to shift with time and circumstance. Particularly significant is the targeting of countries with trade deficits — a contentious issue marked by a series of inconsistent policies.

The rapidity with which tariffs are implemented and adjusted has lead to erratic market behavior. Cain highlights how these market fluctuations, driven by tariff announcements, create volatility in the futures market and affect dairy product prices. As tariffs on major trade partners like Canada and Mexico are applied, paused and reinstated, the industry struggles to adapt. This endless cycle of uncertainty demands a continual recalibration of market strategies.

Macro-Economic Implications
According to Cain, beyond industry-specific impacts, tariffs ripple through the broader economy. The stock market, particularly the S&P 500, has shown significant volatility in reaction to tariff announcements. Although some initial fears of economic downturn have been mitigated, uncertainty persists. Consumer sentiment — a critical barometer of economic health — has notably declined since mid-year. Though reminiscent of the COVID era, this decline is more psychological — driven by media coverage and anticipation rather than immediate financial hardship.

Tourism and Consumer Sentiment
Uncertainty extends into the tourism sector, which is a crucial component of the U.S. economy. The World Travel and Tourism Organization anticipates a 7% drop in international arrivals to the U.S., exacerbated by deflated consumer confidence. Consumer spending — a primary driver of the U.S. GDP — is vulnerable, with the wealthiest earners reining in their expenses due to fears about their future finances and job security.

“Something that’s really important when we look at currency, and specifically look at uncertainty in tariffs, is people are just losing trust in America and the USD on the side of the Euro,” Murphy says. “When think about these uncertainties, trade tensions — all of these things — long term, what does that mean? When people don’t really trust the U.S., they don’t tend to come to the U.S.”

Cain notes how media coverage on tariffs inundates consumers with narratives of economic doom and shapes their purchasing behaviors. While actual price increases from tariffs have yet to fully materialize in consumer goods, the perception of rising costs influences spending patterns significantly. This gap between current financial stability and future expectations highlights the pervasive anxiety trickling from macroeconomic discussions into personal economic outlooks.

The Silver Lining: Staying Informed and Seizing Opportunities
While this outlook may seem daunting, it is not without hope. Murphy emphasizes how staying informed will be critical. Even amid economic instability, opportunities abound for those who remain vigilant and adaptable to change. Businesses that keep abreast of shifting dynamics can capitalize on emerging trends and position themselves for success.

The current global economic landscape is marked by volatility and uncertainty. However, by understanding these challenges and remaining informed, individuals and organizations can find opportunities even in adversity. As we brace for the unknown, competition may force innovation and adaptation — ultimately resulting in long-term resilience and growth.

Your Next Read:
A Surge in U.S. Milk Production: Insights to What States Stood Out

Is Food Inflation Heating Up July 4th Grills?

Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:44:50 GMT

Two industry reports are shining a light on the cost of a July 4^th barbecue.

The economists at Wells Fargo calculate an at-home holiday party for 10 will cost $130. The menu includes chicken breasts, beef sliders, hot dogs, fresh fruit, a vegetable platter, potato salad, corn bread, cake, apple pie, ice cream, beer, wine and soda.

Dr. Michael Swanson, chief agricultural economist within Wells Fargo’s Agri-Food Institute, says year-over-year food inflation is 2.2%.

For notable food prices from the July 4^th report, he cites the following:

Ground beef: Up 7.4%
Boneless chicken breasts: Up 1%
Watermelon and strawberries: Down 0.6%
Potatoes: Up 1%
Egg prices: Up 40%
Ice cream (1.5 quart): Up less than 1%

Swanson says beef prices year over year have been running 6% to 8% higher.

“When you talk to somebody who’s a processor or a packer, there’s not a part of the cow that moves independent from the other parts of the cow so it’s all right in that category 6% to 8% on a year over year basis the last couple of months based on CPI,” he says.

He says for cost-savings, chicken offers the greatest opportunities in the protein category.

“When you look at the composite pricing from USDA, it’s right around $2.42 to $2.45 a pound — including everything from wings and breasts,” he says.

As for hot dogs, Swanson says the blend inside the casing will drive the price.

“If you go with the all-beef frankfurters, yes, they’re up substantially. If you look for a sausage or bratwurst that has a blend of pork and beef in it, you’re probably finding a much better bargain. Pork has been pretty flat year over year,” he says.

Swanson says the effects of highly pathogenic avian influenza are still being reflected in higher egg prices for menu items such as deviled eggs and salads.

As for ice cream, Swanson says the increase in cost is being attributed to additional labor expense in production.

“We’re seeing a little bit of inflation in that category, but just very modest. We have a good supply of cream and milk in the country right now. The dairymen are doing wel. So, what that reflects is kind of that cost of transformation,” he says.

Wells Fargo uses NeilsenIQ data for its analysis.

American Farm Bureau Market Basket Survey
Using its annual survey, The American Farm Bureau Federation says this year’s food prices are resulting in the second-highest cost for an at-home July 4^th barbecue since 2013 when the survey began.

“High prices don’t mean more money for farmers, however. Farmers are price takers, not price makers. Their share of the food retail dollar is just 15%. The cost of running their farm is up — from labor and transportation to taxes,” says AFBF associate economist Samantha Ayoub.

Per AFBF, this year’s cost for an Independence Day cookout will cost $70.92 for 10 people. Included in the calculations are cheeseburgers, chicken breasts, pork chops, potato salad, strawberries and ice cream.

Last year was the highest cost found by the survey at $7.39 per person.

Year-over-year retail price increases in 2025 include:

2 lb. of ground beef: Up 4.4% to $13.33
Pork and beans: Up 20¢ to $2.69
Potato salad: Up 6.6% to $3.54

Notable reductions, compared to 2024, in food prices per the survey were:

3 lb. package of pork chops: Down 8.8% to $14.13
Chips: Down 10¢ to $4.80 a bag
Hamburger buns: Down 2.6% to $2.35

Trump's Aggressive Trade Agenda Is Back On

Thu, 29 May 2025 20:40:20 GMT

The interruption to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda was short lived.

A federal appeals court has now granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause the Wednesday lower-court ruling that declared an emergency law does not provide President Trump with unilateral authority to impose tariffs on nearly every country — a decision that would have blocked reciprocal tariff announcements dating back to February.

The original ruling was issued by a three-judge panel at The U.S. Court of International Trade. The judges said the sweeping tariffs and other global levies imposed under the International Emergency Economic Power Act were unlawful, which invalidates President Trump’s April 2 reciprocal tariff order. That order included 30% tariffs on Chinese imports, 25% tariffs on select goods from Mexico and Canada, as well as a blanket 10% tariff on most imported goods.

The Trump administration then filed a notice of appeal, which was granted on Thursday by a federal appeals court. The pause gives the Trump administration some additional time to prepare to argue the law empowers the president to unilaterally launch a global tariff strategy.

Before the appeal was announced, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt slammed the U.S. Court of International Trade ruling on Trump’s tariffs. Leavitt said the judges were “overstepping their bounds.” You can listen to her comments below.

How could this ruling potentially impact trade? We asked Alan Brugler of Brugler Marketing that question before the appeals court weighed in. He says to answer that, you first need to ask two main questions.

“In the short run, not much. You have to assume the administration is going to appeal the ruling and the question is going to be ‘Will the appeals process result in a stay, either freezing the tariff implementation or allowing it to continue during the appeal process?’ That’s the first question,” Brugler says.

Brugler says his second question is how this could impact current trade negotiations. Just last week, treasury secretary Scott Bessent said he expects several large trade deals to be announced in the next couple of weeks.

“What does it do to the administration’s leverage on the deals that they said we were coming close to,” Brugler adds. “The EU is one example. For now, I think we have to take it with a grain of salt. We also need to remember that it does not affect some of the tariffs, such as the aluminum and steel. Those were implemented under a different section of law that had been used back in the 2017 and 2018 era. Those are still in place. So, it does offer some potential for a lot less aggressive tariff war. But again, this is probably just the first step in the overall process.”

Mike North of Ever.Ag doesn’t think this gives President Trump’s administration less leverage. Instead, he chalks up the ruling to the ongoing theme of federal courts trying to overturn any major action Trump tries to take.

“I think as you look at the landscape, he’s come into office very aggressively — trying to enact very quickly the promises he made in his campaign. Ultimately, as you look at the flow of things, we had to expect the court was going to weigh in on this tariff discussion at some point. There hasn’t been a thing he’s done that hasn’t resulted in some form of a lawsuit, court order, court filing, judgment or otherwise. This is just the natural next step in this discussion,” North says.

North points out there are ways to differentiate how President Trump can leverage this, specifically referencing the 1974 Trade Act.

“That ultimately has many parts and pieces to it, and to Alan’s point, allows him to take a lot of different angles here. So, I don’t think anything that’s come out over the last couple of days on this discussion is really going to change the course of much of anything — at least in the short run,” North says.

What is the U.S. Court of International Trade?
If you’ve never heard of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), you aren’t alone. CIT is based in New York, and its purpose is to resolve disputes between governments, manufacturers, trade associations and other parties that may be privy to trade dealings.

According to the Court’s website, “from the time of its establishment, the United States Court of International Trade and its predecessor bodies have been designed to provide a comprehensive system for judicial review of civil actions arising out of import transactions and federal transactions affecting international trade.”

Mark A. Barnett, chief judge at CIT, says, “As the impact of international trade on the U.S. economy has expanded, there has been a corresponding increase in international trade disputes — involving governments, foreign and domestic manufacturers, workers’ unions, trade associations and individuals — and a continued need to provide consistent, fair and impartial adjudication of these disputes. While the nature of these disputes shifts between classification and valuation, unfair trade practices and various types of enforcement measures, the United States Court of International Trade continues to strive for the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding brought before it.”

U.S. Cattle Industry Urges Mexico's Border to Remain Closed Over Spread of New World Screwworm

Tue, 13 May 2025 20:26:20 GMT

New World screwworm (NWS) has been detected in Mexico only 700 miles from the U.S. border. With the impending threat, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says it’s not a matter of if the U.S. gets the deadly pest — but when.

Mexican officials said Tuesday they won’t close the southern border to cattle from Central America, but the U.S. cattle industry strong supports USDA’s decision over the weekend to suspend cattle, horse and bison imports from Mexico , saying the 15-day suspension will likely be extended due to Mexico’s lack of action so far.

NWS Detected 700 Miles From the U.S.
It’s an issue that started in November. The detection of NWS in Chiapas, which is near the Guatemala border, caused USDA to close the border to cattle imports. While shipments resumed in February, USDA says Mexico isn’t doing enough to eradicate the invasive pest, causing an even greater threat to the U.S. cattle industry. And now NCBA wants the U.S. to ramp up efforts as well.

“When we discovered New World screwworm flies in the southern border of Mexico right before Thanksgiving back in November, at that point in time, USDA provided counsel, they provided some money to help the Mexican government try to stop the incursion of the fly,” Colin Woodall, CEO of NCBA, told AgriTalk’s Chip Flory.

“But unfortunately, because of the ineptitude of the Mexican government, quite frankly, the corruption of the Mexican government, the inability to actually allow the planes that are carrying the sterile males to land and to be able to do their job, they have now come further north,” Woodall says. “And right now we know that New World screwworm flies have been detected just 700 miles south of the U.S. Border.”

Woodall told AgriTalk’s Flory that the pest is now way too close for comfort.

Mexico Won’t Close Mexico/Central America Border
According to Reuters, Mexico’s agriculture minister said on Tuesday it will take a long time to eradicate the pest. While the officials said they won’t close Mexico’s southern border to cattle from Central America, Mexico will tighten the flow of cattle from the south of the country to limit the potential spread of the screwworm.

“We are going to be restricting cattle movement from the south of the country much more tightly,” Mexican Agriculture Minister Julio Berdegue said on Tuesday, adding that “closing the border is a complex issue that needs to be carefully analyzed, because it also impacts the national meat supply.”

MEXICO AGRICULTURE MINISTER:

WILL TAKE A LONG TIME TO ERADICATE SCREWWORM FROM MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA
— PiQ (@PiQSuite) May 13, 2025

Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, spoke with Drovers about the geography of southern Mexico and how the NWS has been able to move further north.

“Mexico has that narrow point down there at the bottom, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, then to the east of it is the Yucatan Peninsula. To the west is the rest of Mexico, and that narrow gap is, historically, where we established the boundary way back when,” Peel explains. “When we initially controlled screw worm in the U.S., we pushed it down through Mexico and got it past below that isthmus, and that was the boundary for years. Then we eventually got it down to Panama, but it got away from them. In Panama, it came back up through Central America, and now that’s the reason we closed the border. It’s actually jumped past that isthmus and is into a part of Mexico now where it’s going to be increasingly difficult to contain it, just physically. That’s the concern and the reason for this latest action.”

NCBA Blames Corruption in Mexico’s Government
Woodall told AgriTalk the country has poorly managed the situation so far and was pointed with his words, saying it’s because of the Mexican government’s failures that Rollins stepped up and closed the border on Sunday to “send a very clear signal that they have failed, and they’ve got to step up their approach.”

“We do know that the first meeting to review the ban is in about 15 days, and then it’ll be reviewed on a month-by-month basis,” Woodall said on AgriTalk. “That’s what the secretary has said. But unless they do something miraculous as far as changing the approach that they are taking in trying to address this in Mexico, I doubt that it’ll be lifted in 15 days just because of what we’ve already seen. They’ve had six months to step up here and try to address it, and they’ve fumbled the ball.”

“They’ve had six months to step up here and try to address it, and they’ve fumbled the ball.”

Colin Woodall, Chief Executive Officer, NCBA

The corruption claims are rooted in what the U.S. has experienced over the past several months. As the U.S. has tried to ramp up efforts to help stop the spread, Woodall told Flory that there have been instances where the government wouldn’t allow U.S. planes to fly over impacted areas, or not allow those planes to land.

“Will they allow that without additional hurdles or trying to extort money from these planes?” Woodall says. “Will they be true cooperators in helping us get those sterile flies delivered into the country? And can we show that there is a check in their northern approach? If we can look at some things like that, then we’ll be willing to go back to the table, because as I said, we know that this is an economic impact on us, but it’s also a pest that we do not want here domestically.”

The Risks of NWS If It Enters the U.S.
The risks are high. Not only is the U.S. beef cattle herd the smallest in more than 60 years, NWS can be lethal to other species.

“We have to be prepared, and that’s why I talked about it. We need to make sure producers understand what to look for because if you don’t catch it fast, you’re going to lose that animal,” Woodall says. “Also this is not just a cattle issue; we’re talking all warm-blooded animals. This can be on birds. This can be on hogs. It can be in pets like dogs. And it can be in people. So, this is going to be a significant issue that we have to deal with not just as a cattle industry, but us in agriculture because I think it also could look really bad from an optics standpoint if somebody’s dog gets screwworms and they want to blame us as agriculture for being responsible for it.”

“This is not just a cattle issue; we’re talking all warm-blooded animals. This can be on birds. This can be on hogs. It can be in pets like dogs. And it can be in people.”

Colin Woodall, CEO of NCBA

Woodall says NWS is a nasty parasite. It hasn’t been in the U.S. since the 1960s, but the reason it’s so difficult to manage is it lays larva, and the larva dig into the flesh of the animal, basically eating the flesh.

“That’s how it develops,” Woodall says. “And so, if it’s not treated, within four to seven days, you can lose an animal. This is a significant animal health issue.”

Currently, there’s a sterile fly production facility in Panama. Jointly funded by the U.S. government, the facility produces a little more than 100 million sterile flies a week, according to Woodall.

“Now, when we were dealing with this down in southern Mexico, 100 million were enough to be able to stop it,” he says. “But now that they have gone through that phytosanitary border and are coming north, that’s no longer going to be enough. We do not have enough sterile flies.”

NCBA Is Working with Congress and USDA to Ramp Up Sterile Fly Production Domestically
NCBA is talking to both USDA and Congress about building a sterile fly production facility in the U.S. When NWS was a problem in the U.S. more than 60 years ago, there was a production facility based in Texas.

There is legislation to do just that. The STOP Screwworms Act was introduced by Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). It would fund the opening of a new sterile fly facility in the United States, with the legislators saying the bill would help protect both livestock and human health from the New World screwworm.

“One of the things that we’re also talking to the secretary about and also with Congress is how do we have the funding to build a sterile fly production facility here in the United States because that is the only way we’re going to stop these flies, get them out of the United States, out of Mexico, and ultimately push back into South America,” he says.

“One of the things that we’re also talking to the secretary about and also with Congress is do we have the funding to build a sterile fly production facility here in the United States?”

Colin Woodall, CEO, NCBA

He says in the ‘60s, it took more than 400 million sterile flies a week to eradicate the issue.

“We are focused on getting the domestic production up and running as quickly as possible, so is Secretary Rollins,” Woodall says. “She’s doing a tremendous job in leading this effort. This is something that she has taken on personally. And so I have a lot of faith in her and her willingness to help us as an industry push back this pest, eradicate it as quickly as possible and try to get back to normal training.”

Groups like the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) also support a bill to protect the U.S. from NWS.

“The STOP Screwworms Act is a vital step in protecting the U.S. cattle herd from the growing threat of the New World screwworm. This legislation provides USDA the support needed to construct or retrofit domestic sterile fly production infrastructure which Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association believes is essential in preventing a widespread outbreak,” President Carl Ray Polk Jr. said in a statement. “We are grateful to both Sen. Cornyn and Rep. Gonzales who understand the importance of acting quickly to support cattle raisers and ensuring the threat of the New World screwworm is taken seriously at the highest levels in Washington.”

Read More: U.S. Suspends Mexican Cattle, Horse and Bison Imports Over Screwworm Pest

Strengthening Dairy Bonds: U.S. and Indonesia Chart a Cooperative Future

Mon, 05 May 2025 12:16:54 GMT

In a landmark move for the dairy industry, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) and KADIN, the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This pivotal agreement is poised to enhance the collaboration between U.S. and Indonesian dairy sectors, propelling trade, nutrition and cooperation to new heights.

A Framework for Enhanced Cooperation
The newly signed MOU outlines a robust framework aimed at amplifying dairy trade, fostering substantial commercial cooperation and enhancing public nutrition in Indonesia. Core aspects of this collaboration include:

Integration of dairy into Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meals program.
Streamline regulatory procedures, such as dairy facility registration.
Sharing data on market trends and exchanging information on best practices.
Enhancing technical expertise in dairy production.
Coordinated public communication efforts to highlight the nutritional benefits of dairy.

Additionally, the agreement emphasizes supporting school milk programs, aimed at boosting child health and educational success.

Voices Behind the Agreement
Krysta Harden, USDEC’s president and CEO, expresses enthusiasm over this new chapter of trade cooperation.

“This agreement marks an exciting next chapter in U.S.–Indonesia cooperation on trade and dairy,” she remarks. “It builds on strong momentum from the U.S.-Indonesia Dairy Partnership Program that USDEC launched in January. It charts a pathway for U.S. dairy suppliers to more fully complement local Indonesian milk supplies during a critical time for U.S.-Indonesia trade relations.”

Echoing this sentiment, Gregg Doud, NMPF’s president and CEO, highlights the mutual goal of the collaboration.

“The United States and Indonesia share a mission of promoting dairy as a valuable source of nutrition,” he says. “The agreement signed today commits our industries to join efforts to grow the Indonesian market and support producers in both countries.”

The Road Ahead
The MOU is a testament to the strengthening bonds between the U.S. and Indonesian dairy industries. This relationship, initiated by Harden’s participation in a 2023 industry trade mission to Indonesia, is built on mutual trust and shared goals.

As the seventh-largest export market for U.S. dairy, Indonesia purchased $245 million worth of dairy products in 2024. With President of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto’s introduction of a new national school meals program, which includes dairy, the demand for U.S. dairy in Indonesia is expected to grow substantially.

Over the past year, USDEC has led initiatives under the U.S.-Indonesia Dairy Partnership Program. In January, the program’s first farmer education and training session took place in Indonesia. Collaborating with New Mexico and Wisconsin Agriculture Departments, New Mexico State University, and Indonesian partners, the project focuses on the dissemination of innovative educational materials. These efforts aim to empower Indonesian small-scale dairy producers to enhance both the quality and quantity of their milk, allowing U.S. dairy supplies to support Indonesia’s escalating dairy demands.

This MOU signifies a forward-thinking alliance that promises to bolster the dairy industries of both nations. As Indonesia gears up for a future enriched with dairy nutrition, the partnership between the U.S. and Indonesia shines as a beacon of cooperative potential and shared prosperity. The dairy industries stand united in nurturing the nutritional landscape of tomorrow.

Your Next Read:
Protecting Common Food Names: A Battle Against Unfair Trade Practices

Economists Fear Trade War Will Push Agriculture Deeper Into a Recession

Fri, 02 May 2025 17:19:12 GMT

Agricultural economists are growing even more pessimistic as the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows the majority are concerned President Donald Trump’s tough stance on trade could push agriculture deeper into a recession while also giving Brazil more of a competitive edge. As one economist stated, the stakes are high, and the key is whether Trump’s policies push ag deeper into a recession, and if U.S. agriculture can survive without China.

The Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor is a survey of nearly 70 agriculture economists nationwide. This month, 72% of those surveyed say the row crop side of agriculture is in a recession, up from 62% last month. Eighty-two percent of economists also think this could force more consolidation in agriculture.

Despite Trump’s 90-day pause on tariffs for most countries except China, economists stress agriculture is in peak uncertainty.

Of the 72% who think agriculture is in a recession, their reasons are:

Compressed margins and concern about operating debt carried over from last year.
Prices for most crops have declined more than production expenses since 2022.
Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops.

Yet, the 28% who believe the crops side of agriculture isn’t in a recession say:

“Profit opportunities are there, but slim.”
“Economic performance and growth of U.S. ag is slowing and/or stable but not declining. It’s too early for the impacts of tariffs to change ag business decision-making.”
“Given the volatility in the crop session, a recession requires at least two bad return years, where returns include both private market and government payments. We do not know about 2025 yet, nor do we know the extent of government payments for 2024 crops yet and thus what will be the total return for 2024.”

Economic Drivers

In the survey, 42% of economists said the current state of the ag economy is “somewhat worse” than a month ago, while 26% said it’s unchanged. But when you compare outlooks to a year ago, 58% of economists responded the ag economy is somewhat worse.

Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Economists were asked to list the two most important factors driving agriculture’s economic health today, as well as in 12 months. Tariffs and trade war topped the list.
“Weather will always be one of the primary factors, but we can add President Trump’s efforts to restructure global trade to that list this year. We’re in worse shape if he fails and better shape if he succeeds. Big stakes,” one economist said.

In addition to tariffs and the trade war, economists also said:

Inflation
Interest rates
Political uncertainty
Consumer demand
Status of trade issues and the supply-side (crop size) of the balance sheets.
The inability of farmers to manage price volatility due to uncertainty around trade

High Stakes with Trade

Agriculture is an export dependent business. According to the Trump administration, when it comes to tariffs and the impact on the overall economy, long-term gain will be worth the short-term pain. However, when it comes to agriculture, the economists surveyed don’t agree.

When ag economists were asked if they think Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool will benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run:

76% responded no
24% responded yes

April Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Since the last trade war, Brazil has gained ground and displaced the U.S. as the top corn exporter in 2023. Economists believe it won’t be the U.S. benefiting from this trade turbulence, but instead these competitors:

Brazil (76% of responses)
China (12% of responses)
India (6% of responses)
Ukraine (6% of responses)

Will Farmers Be Compensated for Short-Term Pain?

As Web reported, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has stated since winter that if farmers suffer financial pain from the trade war, the Trump administration will look at compensating farmers at some point.

April Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Of the economists surveyed, 89% think USDA will compensate farmers with financial payments, similar to what the previous Trump administration did with the Market Facilitation Program Payments (MFP). However, 80% of economists say it’s too early for USDA to be considering compensating farmers for financial fallout.

Bottom line:

The risks are high. Unless the U.S. invests in domestic manufacturing over an extended period, the loss from exports could be a big hit to ag commodities. But if the Trump administration can gain more trade access to key countries, the rewards could be even bigger.

Your Next Read:

92% of Ag Economists Say the U.S. is Already in the Middle of Another Trade War

Promising Potential? Why India Poses the Biggest Opportunity for Trade, But Also the Biggest Challenge

Wed, 23 Apr 2025 15:45:47 GMT

As trade tensions continue to impact both commodity and financial markets, the White House says the Trump administration is making progress on additional trade deals. The news comes as Vice President JD Vance was in the middle of a four-day visit to India, with both countries saying they had made progress in negotiating a bilateral trade deal. Delhi hopes this deal will help it avoid higher tariffs.

Vance announced the U.S. and India have “officially finalized the terms of reference for the trade negotiation.” He called it a “vital step,” saying it sets a roadmap toward a final deal.

India is just one of several trade deals in the works, according to the Trump administration. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday the Trump administration now has “18 proposals on paper” for trade deals.

“You have Secretary Bessent, Secretary Lutnick, Ambassador Greer, NEC Director Hassett and Peter Navarro, the entire trade team meeting with 34 countries this week alone,” Leavitt said in the press briefing. “We are moving at Trump speed to ensure these deals are made on behalf of the American worker and the American people.”

Leavitt also announced “the president and the administration are setting the stage for a deal with China.”

The Wall Street Journal reported the White House is considering slashing tariffs in order to de-escalate the trade war. Currently, tariffs are at 145%, but the White House isn’t considering cutting those to zero. Instead, the Wall Street Journal reports those tariffs will likely fall anywhere between 50% to 65%.

However, Treasury Secretary Bessent declined to comment on that report, saying there’s no unilateral offer from President Trump to cut tariffs on China. He also said it could take two to three years to reach a full trade deal with China.

Progress With India
Before the White House’s 90-day pause on higher tariffs for other countries expires on July 9, India is one country rushing to negotiate a trade deal with the U.S.

Just this week, Vance and Prime Minister Modi announced the t erms of reference for a bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and India. The progress toward the agreement was a result of the meeting between the two this week.

“I am pleased to confirm that USTR and India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry have finalized the Terms of Reference to lay down a roadmap for the negotiations on reciprocal trade,” Greer said. “There is a serious lack of reciprocity in the trade relationship with India. These ongoing talks will help achieve balance and reciprocity by opening new markets for American goods and addressing unfair practices that harm American workers. India’s constructive engagement so far has been welcomed and I look forward to creating new opportunities for workers, farmers and entrepreneurs in both countries.”

During Vance’s speech in Jaipur prior to that, he said that the two countries had finalized the terms of reference for the negotiation.

“This is a vital step toward realizing President Trump and Prime Minister Modi’s vision because it sets a roadmap toward a final deal between our nations,” Vance said.

India’s Tariffs on U.S. Agriculture Products
India’s tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods are significant, which is a major point of contention in the U.S. and India trade relationship. Walnuts, for example, face a tariff of 100% into India. Vegetable oils have a tariff of up to 45%.

The United States has one of the lowest average applied tariff rates on agricultural products. But many of our trading partners maintain prohibitive tariff rates that constrain export opportunities for American farmers and ranchers.

Unfair and non-reciprocal practices have… pic.twitter.com/mmy5spBEzl
— United States Trade Representative (@USTradeRep) April 23, 2025

The U.S. argues these tariffs are unfair trade barriers, and Mark Knight of Farmer’s Keeper Financial told AgDay the U.S. relationship with India over the years has been complex and strange.

“Sometimes it’s friendly, for the most part. But that’s a giant population, and it would go a long way toward making a potential deal with China less important if we could strike some deals with some of these other countries — especially India. We haven’t had something in place with India for years.”

India Has the Most Potential, But Poses the Biggest Problem
If you want to understand just how problematic India has been for trade in the past, just talk to Gregg Doud. He’s the current CEO of National Milk Producers Federation (NMFP) but served as the chief ag trade negotiator during the first Trump administration.

During an episode of “Unscripted” earlier this year, he said India has the most potential, but is the biggest problem.

Doud says history shows you India has been a problem, as the U.S. essentially kicked India out of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the past. The U.S. did finally agree to allow India back into the WTO, but under certain terms.

“I don’t want what I’m about to say to be seen as being negative toward the discussion between Modi and President Trump earlier this year, but one of the wins we did get in agriculture — which is my understanding based on some conversations — is that India lowered the tariff on U.S. bourbon from 150% to 100%,” Doud says.

He says while that may not have been the only win, it serves as an example for how difficult it is to negotiate with India.

India is a big customer of one main U.S. ag product, though: almonds .

In the 2023/24 crop year, the U.S. exported over 400 million lb. of almonds to India, making it the largest export market for California almonds. This was a 21% increase compared to the previous year. India’s almond imports from the U.S. were valued at $932 million in FY 2023.

India is the United States’ top buyer of almonds.

(U.S. Almond Board )

Doud says India has high tariffs to protect their own farmers.

“Think of it as a half billion farmers in India whose electricity, water, fuel, fertilizer and seed is all subsidized. India wants to keep that out in the country, and if we do anything that drives rural Indian folks into the cities, it would overwhelm them. This is the mindset,” Doud says. “I remind people, it was 5 or 6 years ago that India made a modicum of reforms of their domestic agricultural markets. There was so much unrest over those changes that Modi agreed upon to make, that three years later, they had to repeal the law.”

India’s Tariffs Crushed Apple Exports
U.S. apples are one commodity that has suffered from India’s retaliation in 2018.

“In 2018, India was the No. 2 market for U.S. apples until their retaliatory tariffs crushed our exports to near zero. They are rebounding back, but it might take years to return to the previous levels,” says Jim Bair, president and CEO of the U.S. Apple Association, in an interview with Farm Journal’s The Packer. “If the White House can facilitate that in a trade agreement with India, U.S. Apple wishes them Godspeed, and not a moment too soon.”

U.S. Apple says in 2018, India was the number two market for U.S. apples until retaliatory tariffs crushed their exports to near zero.

(U.S. Apple Association )

Potential With India
As the world’s most populous country, India holds massive potential if a trade deal can be struck. It boasts one of the fastest growing economies in the world with households that are seeing a high levels of consumer spending. That means agricultural products would be more accessible to a larger number of people.

According to USDA , top agricultural prospects for U.S. exporters include:

Cotton
Dairy products
Ethanol
Fresh fruit
Forest products
Processed food and beverages
Pulses
Tree nuts

USDA says in FY 2023, India imported $37 billion of agricultural and related products from across the world, with imports up 51% over the past five years.

“Proportional to its population, India imports a relatively small value of products. Comparatively, China, a country with a similar population size, imported $262.7 billion during the same period. Currently, India ranks behind much lower population countries like Canada and South Korea in total agricultural and related imports. This relatively low level of imports suggests good opportunities for future growth,” the USDA report stated.

Much of the recent growth of imports in India is with vegetable oils, which is the country’s top imported ag product.

USDA says imports of vegetable oil increased by $9 billion, nearly doubling in 5 years, to a total of $18.4 billion in FY 2023.

The United States has occasionally been a supplier of soybean oil to India, but imports face stiff competition from other substitutable oils like palm and sunflower, and from imports from India’s traditional soybean oil suppliers: Argentina and Brazil.

United States Eases Port Fees On China-Built Ships After Industry Backlash

Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:04:09 GMT

The Trump administration shielded on Thursday domestic exporters and vessel owners servicing the Great Lakes, the Caribbean and U.S. territories from port fees to be levied on China-built vessels, aiming to revive U.S. shipbuilding .

The Federal Register notice posted by the U.S. Trade Representative was watered down from a February proposal for fees on China-built ship s of up to $1.5 million per port call that sent a chill through the global shipping industry.

Ocean shipping transports about 80% of global trade — from food and furniture to cement and coal. Industry executives feared virtually every cargo carrier could face steep, stacking fees that would make U.S. export prices unattractive and foist annual import costs of $30 billion on American consumers.

“Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “The Trump administration’s actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the U.S. supply chain, and send a demand signal for U.S.-built ships.”

Still, the fees on Chinese-built ships add another irritant to swiftly rising trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies as President Donald Trump seeks to draw China into talks on his new tariffs of 145% on many of its goods.

The revisions tackle major concerns voiced in a tsunami of opposition from the global maritime industry, including domestic port and vessel operators as well as U.S. shippers of everything from coal and corn to bananas and cement.

They grant some requested carve-outs, while phasing in fees that reflect the fact U.S. shipbuilders, which turn out about five vessels annually, will need years to compete with China’s output of more than 1,700 a year.

The USTR exempted ships that ferry goods between domestic ports as well as from those ports to Caribbean islands and U.S. territories. Both American and Canadian vessels that call at Great Lakes ports have also won a reprieve.

As a result, companies such as U.S.-based carriers Matson and Seaboard Marine would dodge the fees. Also exempt are empty ships arriving at U.S. ports to load up with exports such as wheat and soybeans.

Foreign roll-on/roll-off auto carriers, known as ro-ros, are eligible for refunds of fees if they order or take delivery of a U.S.-built vessel of equivalent capacity in the next three years.

The USTR set a long timeline for liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. They are required to move 1% of U.S. LNG exports on U.S.-built, operated and flagged vessels within four years. That percentage would rise to 4% by 2035 and to 15% by 2047.

The agency, which will implement the levies in 180 days, also declined to impose fees based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a fleet or on prospective orders of Chinese ships, as originally proposed.

The fees will be applied once each voyage on affected ships a maximum of six times a year.

Executives of global container ship operators, such as MSC and Maersk MAERSKb.CO, which visit multiple ports during each sailing to the United States, had warned the fees would quickly pile up.

Instead of a flat individual fee on large vessels, the USTR instead opted to levy fees based on net tonnage or each container unloaded, as was called for by operators of small ships and transporters of heavy commodities such as iron ore.

From October 14, Chinese-built and owned ships will be charged $50 a net ton, a rate that will increase by $30 a year over the next three years.

That will apply if the fee is higher than an alternative calculation method that charges $120 for each container discharged, rising to $250 after three years.

Chinese-built ships owned by non-Chinese firms will be charged $18 a net ton, with annual fee increases of $5 over the same period.

It was not immediately clear how high the maximum fees would run for large container vessels, but the new rules give non-Chinese shipping companies a clear edge over operators such as China’s COSCO 600428.SS.

The notice comes on the one-year anniversary of the launch of the USTR’s investigation into China’s maritime activities.

In January, the agency concluded that China uses unfair policies and practices to dominate global shipping.

The actions by both the Biden and Trump administrations reflect rare bipartisan consensus on the need to revive U.S. shipbuilding and strengthen naval readiness.

Leaders of the United Steelworkers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, two of five unions that called for the investigation that led to Thursday’s announcement, applauded the plan and said they were ready to work with the USTR and Congress to reinvigorate domestic shipbuilding and create high-quality jobs.

The American Apparel & Footwear Association reiterated its opposition, saying port fees and proposed tariffs equipment will reduce trade and lead to higher prices for shoppers.

At a May 19 hearing, the USTR will discuss proposed tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes, chassis that carry containers and chassis parts. China dominates the manufacture of port cranes, which the USTR plans to hit with a tariff of 100%.

The Federal Register did not say if the funds raised by the fees and proposed crane and container tariffs would be dedicated to fund a revival of U.S. shipbuilding.

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles, David Lawder and Andrea Shalal in Washington and Jonathan Saul in London; Editing by Jamie Freed, Clarence Fernandez and Gerry Doyle)

Status Update: What Do We Think We Know About World Trade?

Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:27:05 GMT

Since April 2, when President Dondald Trump revealed his plans for assessing tariffs as part of his trade policy, the initial numbers presented have been adjusted, updated, paused or, in the case of China, increased.

“We’re only 15 days into this. It feels like a year, right?” says Matt Clark senior rural economy analyst. “I catch myself feeling very overwhelmed by the news flow, a lot has happened in 15 days.”

Clark provides perspective by zooming out and answering the question: What do we think we know?

“We know a handful of things,” he says. Here are three takeaways Clark shares so far:

1. The 10% baseline tariff

This excludes some countries such as Mexico and Canada, and the USMCA agreement covers all of those goods included.

“Things that are not covered under USMCA and are not in the exempt list that the president issued on April 2, those have a different tariff — the 25% tariff on it,” Clark says. “There is a carve out for energy and potash which is on that 10%, so there’s a little carve out there.”

2. China is a whole other ballpark

While trade deals with other countries are still being considered and the tariff rates are discussed as negotiable, the exception so far appears to be China, where the tariffs continue to increase.

“It’s a big tariff number, and with China it seems that’s a place we’re drawing a line in the sand,” Clark says.

3. What could come after the 90-day pause

“The cyclical tariffs have been paused for 90 days while we’re going through negotiations,” Clark says. “We don’t know how serious all the negotiations are, or what stages they are. It sounds like some are reportedly going along very well.”

The unknown variables surrounding what the president’s team considers to be trade milestones during the pause bring uncertainty. Clark says it’s possible the pause could be extended. He also notes we don’t know how success with the trade deals is being measured, but Clark says the president seems focused on two things so far.

“Steel, aluminum and automobiles, are a sticking point, as is China. Those are really sticking — the rest seems to be a little bit more flexible,” Clark says.

So what individual country deals should agriculture watch?

Clark is keeping on eye on how the administration talks about India, Japan, South Korea and more. He also recently published a report on the BRICS countries, and what their demographic trends mean for the future of agricultural trade. You can hear more in this segment from “AgriTalk":

Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins Says New Deals May Be Struck Over Tariffs By End of Week

Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:23:18 GMT

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Tuesday that new deals could be struck with other countries over trade tariffs by the end of this week.

Rollins made the comments in an interview to Fox News host Bret Baier on the network’s “Special Report” show.

Why It’s Important

President Donald Trump said last week that he would impose a 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the U.S. and higher duties on dozens of other countries, including some of Washington’s biggest trading partners, rattling global markets and bewildering U.S. allies.

After China retaliated with its own tariffs, the United States said on Tuesday that 104% duties on imports from China would take effect shortly after midnight, even as the Trump administration moved to quickly start talks with other trading partners targeted by Trump’s sweeping tariff plan.

“I believe, sincerely, it will be sooner rather than later. I believe we’ll be hearing about new deals that are being struck, perhaps by the end of the week,”

Rollins said, adding 70 countries had reached out to the U.S. for talks.

U.S. stocks dropped on Tuesday for a fourth straight trading day since Trump’s tariffs announcement last week.

The administration has scheduled talks with South Korea and Japan, two close allies and major trading partners, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is due to visit next week.
Trump’s sweeping tariffs have raised fears of recession and upended a global trading order that has been in place for decades.

Your Next Read:

How Will Trump’s Tariffs Disrupt The Trajectory of U.S. Ag Exports?

U.S. Soybean Exports Now Face 60% Tariff to China, That Could Grow as Tariff Tit for Tat Plays Out

Mexico's President Says the Country Won't Retaliate with More Reciprocal Tariffs on U.S. Products

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 18:06:07 GMT

In what President Donald Trump is calling Liberation Day, the White House plans to officially roll out a plan to combat what he calls unfair trade policies in an effort to bring industrial jobs back to the U.S., the other major unknown is how other countries will retaliate. On Wednesday, the United States’ top trading partner announced it won’t go toe to toe with the president on trade.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says Mexico won’t retaliate with a long list of reciprocal tariffs. In her daily morning press conference, Sheinbaum says instead, Mexico will “announce a comprehensive program, not a tit for tat on tariffs” on Thursday. She adds Mexico’s leadership is still waiting to see what exactly Trump announces on Thursday, but added “we have a plan to strengthen the economy under any circumstance.”

Trump is slated to hold a press conference at 4 p.m. EST at the White House, saying “It’s going to make our country rich again .... We’re basically going to take back the money — a lot of the money that we’ve given away over many decades.”

President Trump has been calling attention to the disaster falsely marketed as "free trade" for decades.

In reality, foreign countries have gotten rich at the expense of the American worker.

Today, he finally levels the playing field. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/XS0ZAiZS6p
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 2, 2025

Can Mexico Afford to Retaliate?
As AgWeb reported in March , the question leading up to April 2 was not only what the president would ultimately decide to do, but also if countries like Mexico could even afford to retaliate.

Here’s why. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Mexico’s GDP grew only 0.9% year over year in fourth quarter 2024, after expanding 2% in 2023 and 4.6% in 2022. Economic growth slowed, mainly due to lower investment, slowing consumption and a contracting energy sector.

The other issue? Mexico is extremely reliant upon demand from the U.S., exporting $41.9 billion worth of agricultural products to the U.S.

In 2023, Mexico accounted for 16.3% of U.S. agricultural exports and 23.3% of U.S. agricultural imports.

By the numbers:

Mexico is the largest source of horticultural imports to the U.S., supplying 63% of vegetables and 47% of fruit and nuts in 2023.
The top agricultural exports from Mexico to the U.S. in 2024 included beer, tomatoes, tequila, avocados, strawberries, raspberries and peppers.

Another important piece is Mexico is now the top ag export destination for the U.S.

According to Krista Swanson, chief economist for National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), Mexico is a huge destination for U.S. corn. More than 40% of U.S. corn exported last year went to Mexico. Not only does that mean the U.S. relies on Mexico, but Mexico is also reliant upon the U.S. due to the strong demand.

“That’s the other key piece here when we think about a Mexico situation, you know, will they retaliate on corn because it’s so important to the consumers in their country,” Swanson told Farm Journal during Commodity Classic this week. “And it’s such a big part of their diets and consumption. It’s a commodity that they consume way more of than what they produce. So they’re going to have to get it from somewhere.”

According to USDA’s Economic Research Service , between 1993 (the year before NAFTA’s implementation) and 2023, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico expanded at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7%, while agricultural imports from Mexico grew at a rate of 9.7%.

“With the economic recovery in the United States and Mexico that followed the pandemic, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico increased at a CAGR of 15.7% between 2020 and 2023, and U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico grew at a CAGR of 11.3%,” according to the USDA report. “In 2023, however, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico decreased by 0.3% compared with the previous year, as the prices of major agricultural exports (such as corn and soybeans) declined.”

‘Farmers for Free Trade’ Speaks Out
Trump will announce his full plan at 4 p.m. EST on Wednesday, and Farm Journal will continue to follow this story as it evolves.

Ahead of Wednesday’s announcement on global tariffs, Farmers for Free Trade Executive Director, Brian Kuehl released a statement condoning the president’s use of tariffs.

“Farmers don’t want tariffs. In the midst of an already struggling farm economy, new tariffs threaten to raise input costs, close off key markets, increase uncertainty—and push more family farms to the brink of bankruptcy,” said Kuehl in a statement.

However, not all farmers agree with that. Iowa farmer Ben Riensche is hoping getting tough on trade will address the record ag trade deficit.

“We’re going to go through an adjustment period. We’re going make things a little less than comfortable for a while here while we make our trade partners be fair trading partners. It could be hard in the short term on farmers,” Riensche says.

You can read more about Rienche’s take on trade here.

Your Next Reads:
BREAKING: CNH Halts Farm Equipment Shipments From North America, Europe To Assess Tariff Situation

Farmers Who Stand Strong With Trump on Tariffs Say Long-Term Gain is Worth Short-Term Pain

Farmers Who Stand Strong With Trump on Tariffs Say Long-Term Gain is Worth Short-Term Pain

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 19:18:58 GMT

USDA is forecasting net farm income to jump nearly 30% this year, but talk to row crop farmers today, and they’ll tell you that’s not the case. From farmers and ag lenders to ag economists keeping a close eye on the fragile state of the farm economy, many fear this year could be worse than last as the possible impact of tariffs is throwing even more uncertainty into the mix.

Currently, U.S. farmers are focused on what they can control: putting a crop in the ground. The wheels are already in motion this spring for northwest Iowa farmer Ben Riencshe.

“We’re putting on fertilizer, we’re doing a little light tillage, ammonia, phosphorus and potash and getting fields ready. It will be a few weeks before we put seed in the ground,” says Riensche, owner and operator of Blue Diamond Farming Company, which is located in Jesup, Iowa.

Farmers’ Biggest Concern? Cash Flow
Dry conditions this winter are helping Riensche get in the field a little early. It’s a hopeful start to what could be another challenging year.

“Locally, it’s been dry, so we need to catch up with rain. But a dry spring is usually a blessing, just as long as we catch up later,” Riensche says. “I think more on the mind of farmers is finance. We’ve had a couple years of drawdown on farmers’ working capital. Prices are probably slightly below most farmers’ cash flow level of production. $4.50 corn, which we think is a gift compared to harvest time last year, still doesn’t quite reward unless you’ve got a tremendous amount of equity in your land or machinery.”

Two-Thirds of Ag Lenders Are More Worried about 2025 Compared to 2024
Creighton University releases a survey of ag bankers each month called the Rural Mainstreet Index (RMI) . The latest RMI shows two-thirds of ag bankers think 2025 will be worse than 2024, and Riensche agrees.

“If we stay on the current course, I think that’s exactly true,” he told U.S. Farm Report. “I think grain farmers will have another year of drawing down working capital.”

Input costs are still a pain point for farmers like Riensche, with some inputs elevated from even last year.

“They haven’t come down much. Fertilizer’s even made a little attempt to go up. I wish there was a little more competition in that space,” he says. “And machinery, oh my gosh, the inflation in machinery. A lot of analysts say we’re up one-third over the past five years, but it really feels like 50% by the time you look at repairs. The repairs on these newer diesel engines with the emission systems are just so costly it’s half of our engine repair costs now.”

Tim Homan is a relationship manager for Rabobank who works with larger operations across central and eastern Iowa. He says he’s not in the camp of ag bankers who think this year could be worse than last.

“I would say we’re set up similar to last year. Of course, there’s a lot to determine where we end up by this fall. The crop is not even in the ground yet,” Homan says. “Farmers have done a great job of holding together overall the last couple years. They have chewed through some working capital that was built up in ‘21 and ‘22. But through it all, when we run our analysis on our renewals of our operating lines. We’re finding that, for the most part, people have been able to keep it together and losses have been overall on the lower end compared to what we were thinking when we first put them in place.”

However, there are some warning signs of stress, and Homan says if farmers don’t have opportunities to market grain at profitable levels this year, it could spell trouble for 2026.

“Are you more concerned about this year or implications for next year,” U.S. Farm report asked Homan.

“Well, I think we always have to be worried about this year, just because there are a lot of unknowns yet. Most [farmers] have held together, but working capital has taken a hit. You’re a lot more confident in your balance sheet when you have good working capital with whatever comes along. It gets a little more nerve racking once that safety net on your balance sheet falls off,” Homan says.

Eroding balance sheets are a concern being echoed by ag lenders- and economists- across the U.S.

According to Farm Journal’s latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, 62% of ag economists think the row crop side of agriculture is already in a recession, and 85% of those surveyed think it will accelerate consolidation not only on farms, but also agribusinesses.

“The end of the year was rough, but looking at projected cash flows for ‘24/25, we see that looking even worse. Unrealized, of course, but definitely looks like it could be a challenge,” says Alex McCabe, agribusiness loan officer with CUSB Bank , which is located in northeast Iowa.

The Biggest Wild Card: Tariffs and Trade
With a third year of low corn and soybean prices penciled in for current projections, the one thing that saved some of the farmers in this area last year was the ability to out-yield the price.

“If things hold together this year yet, farmers take advantage of opportunities and yields are decent, things could still be okay this year. Next year’s a total unknown. You have the extra question this year of tariffs and their impact,” Homan says.

“Last month we were in Canada, and for every single farmer I talked to, their biggest concern right now is trade. But would you say that’s not your biggest concern,” U.S. Farm Report’s Tyne Morgan asked Reinsche.

“I think we’re in a good negotiation phase. For those of us who’ve dickered on a new tractor or wrestled with an input supplier to get the fertilizer at the right price, we’re just making offers right now,” Reinsche says. “So much of this, especially with our Canadian neighbors, is about making trade equal - countervailing so that our products equal theirs.”

“So, you’re in the camp that short-term pain is long-term gain,” Morgan asked as a follow-up.

“Absolutely,” Riensche says.

Not all farmers agree, though. Farm Journal conducted a recent poll of farmers and ranchers, asking the question, “Do you support president Donald Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiation strategy?” 54% responded “no” and 41% said “yes”.

The poll then followed-up by asking, “Do you believe USDA will compensate farmers for losses if agriculture is affected by a trade war?” Those responses were more mixed, with 36% saying “no” and 34% responding “yes”.

When ag economists were asked if they think President Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool will benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run, 92% said “no.”

“If you dig into some of the comments that were made, it’s hard to answer sometimes a “yes-no” question like that,” says Krista Swanson, chief economist for National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) , and one of the economists who responded to the survey. “ I noticed one that said, ‘You might win, but the risks are really huge.’ So there’s that possibility. Another comment was, ’It depends how the tariffs end up. What’s their end result? Do they end up reducing trade barriers or do they end adding to the trade barriers?’”

Swanson says as she thinks about long-term impacts, it ultimately hinges on if this trade war is short-lived and if the U.S. could see benefits long-term. But relational damage with trade partners, however, she says can be difficult to restore.

Preparing for Liberation Day on April 2
In what President Trump has touted for weeks as “Liberation Day,” the White House confirmed on Tuesday plans to follow-through with reciprocal tariffs on Wednesday, April 2.

The White House says it will impose new tariffs on Wednesday, though there have been no details regarding the exact size and scope. Trump has said he will target all countries, but he’s hinted at the fact some countries could take a larger hit.

.@PressSec details the unfair trade practices that are hurting American business:

- 50% tariff from the EU on American dairy
- 700% tariff from Japan on rice
- 100% tariff from India on agricultural products

"This makes it virtually impossible for American products to be… pic.twitter.com/PI9inicgdX
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 31, 2025

In front of the White House on Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt talked specifically about what she called “unfair trade practices” hurting U.S. farmers. That includes:

50% tariff from the E.U. on American dairy
700% tariff from Japan on rice
100% tariff from India on agricultural products

“This makes it virtually impossible for American products to be imported into these markets. It’s time for reciprocity,” Leavitt says.

Farmers Argue the Growing Ag Trade Deficit Needs to Be Addressed
Farmers like Riensche are hoping getting tough on trade will address the record ag trade deficit.

“We’re going to go through an adjustment period. We’re going make things a little less than comfortable for a while here while we make our trade partners be fair trading partners. It could be hard in the short term on farmers,” Riensche says.

Riensche not only met with agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins during Top Producer Summit this year, but he also got invited to USDA for a meeting with her staff.

“What I saw out of the USDA staff in the White House is they’re very cognizant of that. They need to have methods and ways to keep us whole for a very short period of time as we go through the adjustment period. The linkage won’t be perfect — it never will. There will be mistakes made, but I have great confidence if they keep farmers whole through the adjustments period, we’re going to have a wonderful food production system,” Riensche says.

Rollins Vows Aid to Farmers If They’re Caught in a Trade War
Rollins hasn’t been shy about acknowledging the potential disruptions of trade, but also vowing to help make agriculture whole with some type of assistance. As AgWeb first reported last month , Rollins spoke at Commodity Classic this year, saying improving the ag economy is USDA’s top priority.

Then during a tour of Iowa agricultural facilities this week, Rollins said USDA is prepared to support farmers while tariffs go into place.

“Hopefully our farmers and our ag community won’t be hurt — at least in the short term — by these decisions,” Rollins says. “But if they are, the president’s commitment is the same today as it was five or six years ago. And we at USDA and our partners across Congress and in Washington will work around the clock to ensure that we have the programs in place to do what we did the last time with the (Commodity Credit Corporation). We fully expect to do the same this time but it’s to be determined based on what happens in the next weeks and month.”

In an exclusive interview with Farm Journal in late February , Rollins described how USDA plans to get the ag economy back on track from a recession.

“There’s no doubt — a lot of our producers in the different lanes are really hurting. Listen, we’ve got to get the cost of inputs down. We have got to get our export markets opened up around the world. I mean, we’re facing this year a $45 billion trade deficit,” Rollins says.

She recalls how when President Trump left the White House in 2020, there wasn’t a trade deficit. It’s something she says he wants to address.

“Just think about the amount of ag production that we were once moving out across the world that was keeping our farmers whole and making sure they could make some kind of a profit,” Rollins says. “That’s not there anymore. Obviously, inflation and the cost of energy have absolutely decimated our producers. The input cost is up 30%. When you’ve got all of these different factors that are basically piling on at one time, it’s no surprise that sorghum, cotton and so many others are really hurting right now. We’ve got to do something about that.”

As input prices remain elevated, and commodity prices are below break-even for some, Rollins says she and President Trump are aligned in what needs to happen to bring relief to farmers.

“My perspective, and the President’s perspective, is how do we achieve this through broader access to markets, broader access to capital and making sure that the cost of inputs goes down? Hopefully, with our energy plan, we see that happening almost immediately. I think that will move into a different era for prosperity for ag, but there’s no doubt it is a dire, dire forecast right now without significant change,” she says.

Your Next Read:
New Warning Signs Agriculture Is In A Recession

5 Farmers Went to the West Wing of the White House to Save Glyphosate. Here’s What They Said and Learned

Water Woes, Labor Limitations and Regulatory Restrictions Put California's Dairy Industry At A Crossroads

Wed, 26 Mar 2025 16:51:19 GMT

The California dairy industry, renowned for its significant contributions to agriculture, is navigating a series of challenges that demand substantial adaptation to ensure future success. Water scarcity, stringent labor laws and complex permitting regulations top the list of challenges in the Golden State, the nation’s largest milk producer and home to 1.71 million milk cows.

Regulatory and Economic Pressures

Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, emphasizes the need to support the state’s farmers during these challenging times.

“What we would like to do is focus on smart incentives because, over the years, the cumulative effect of so many regulatory agencies is adding to the complexity … as well as the cost of compliance,” Ross said in a one-on-one interview with Farm Journal during the California Dairy Sustainability Summit. “We’re engaged in a very small pilot project with the state water board to see if it’s possible to cut through some of that [complexity], find ways to ease the burden [on producers] and educate agencies about how complex and costly regulations are.”

In addition to the regulatory challenges in California, Ross is concerned about market disruptions and stresses the importance of compensation strategies to ensure dairy operations can look to the future.

“Secretary Rollins has already made it clear they’ll offer help for farmers through these periods of disruption, and certainly [that was the case] in the first Trump administration,” she says. “What I’m most concerned about is the lost markets that still haven’t fully recovered and the opportunity costs lost. But [Rollins] has been very clear they want to make sure there’s compensation for growers to keep them in business.”

Water Woes

For Ryan Junio , owner of Four J Jerseys in Pixley, Calif., his primary concern is the states’ ongoing water crisis.

“As a dairy producer, this is an ever-growing challenge,” he says, reflecting the sentiments of his fellow producers in the state.

The California water issue is complex and long-standing. Geoff Vanden Heuvel, director of regulatory and economic affairs with the California Milk Producer Council, says some of the surface water that used to come into the Central Valley from northern California was diverted to the ocean to save fish in the early 1990s as part of the Endangered Species Act.

“California has overdrafted about 2-million-acre feet on average over the years,” he says. “We had a crisis in 2014 with a drought and the state decided to regulate groundwater, which they probably should have done 50 years ago.”

Labor Limitations

Layton, Calif., dairy producer Melvin Medeiros says the labor quality is tough and he doesn’t have a magic wand to fix it. In 2019, California began phasing in overtime for agricultural workers. In 2022, the state began requiring any agriculture employees working more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week receive overtime compensation.

“I do know when legislation gets involved, it turns into a mess,” Medeiros says. “We’re in that mess now and trying to figure out how to invest in this farm to make it more efficient and cut back on labor.”

David Lemstra’s story illustrates the transition faced by many. After searching for a decade, Lemstra and his family relocated from central California, where they had been established for more than 40 years, to South Dakota. Three pivotal factors — feed availability, easier permitting and processing capacity — led them to their new home where they now milk 4,000 cows and supply Agropur.

One benefit Lemstra has discovered in South Dakota is a more favorable labor market.

“Some locals say labor is very hard, but they don’t know how hard it can potentially get,” he says, appreciating the motivated workforce available in the region.

Regulatory Restrictions

Lemstra describes his family’s coordinated departure from the state as “death by 1,000 cuts,” citing the impact of long-standing political and resource management decisions. California’s overtime labor rule stands out as a considerable obstacle, especially when compared to South Dakota’s business-friendly environment.

As California continues to confront these pressing issues, the resilience and adaptability of its dairy producers are noteworthy. While some, such as Lemstra, found new horizons elsewhere, efforts are ongoing to streamline regulatory processes and stabilize one of the state’s most crucial agricultural sectors.

Mike Boudreaux, Tulare County Sheriff, who also spoke at the California Dairy Sustainability Conference in Visalia this week, expresses the need for the state and federal government to reduce the regulatory burden, thereby allowing greater industry control.

“Some of the issues many of you are facing, quite frankly, just explodes my mind when it comes to large sustainability, manure and different regulations,” he says. “The state of California and the federal government need to lift and reduce the amount of regulation the state can control for our dairy industry.”

Innovation and Sustainability Efforts

Despite the challenges producers continue to face, the dairy industry is making strides in sustainability. California boasts 238 dairy digester projects, capturing methane to create renewable energy sources and contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m very proud of the work we’ve been able to do on climate smart agriculture,” Ross says. “I love the fact that 24.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent reductions in greenhouse gasses are because of dairy digesters.”

When it comes to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), Ross is grateful for how the industry has handled the outbreak that started in September in California, six months after it was first reported in Texas and Kansas. As of late March, HPAI has impacted 755 herds in the state.

The path forward for California’s dairy industry relies on innovative strategies, supportive policies and the continuous perseverance of its producers. As the industry adapts, the focus remains steadfast on ensuring the vitality and sustainability of a sector pivotal to California’s heritage and economy.

Your Next Read — California Dreams: Transformation Through Innovation

Poll Results: More Than Half of Farmers Say They Don’t Support Trump’s Use of Tariffs

Mon, 24 Mar 2025 18:38:30 GMT

President Donald Trump has been clear since the campaign trail: Tariffs are a tool he would use aggressively during his presidency, and that’s exactly what the president is doing as tariffs have become a bit of a trademark during Trump 2.0 and the first 100 days.

As he prepares to impose more tariffs on April 2, Trump said Monday that he will impose tariffs of 25% on any nation that purchases oil from Venezuela.

“Venezuela has been very hostile to the United States and the freedoms which we espouse. Therefore, any country that purchases oil and/or gas from Venezuela will be forced to pay a tariff of 25% to the United States on any trade they do with our country,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

As both targeted and blanket tariffs are applied, retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture are also caught in the middle of the latest trade war. How do farmers feel about this? That’s exactly what we wanted to uncover during the latest AgWeb poll.

The latest AgWeb poll asked, “Do you support President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiation strategy?” And even though the majority of farmers say they don’t support Trump’s use of tariffs, according to the recent AgWeb poll, it wasn’t on overwhelming majority.

(AgWeb Poll)

Out of the nearly 3,000 farmers who responded,

54% responded “no”
41% responded “yes”

The poll then followed-up by asking, “Do you believe USDA will compensate farmers for losses if agriculture is affected by a trade war?”

The responses here were much more mixed.

36% responded “no”
34% said “yes”
30% responded they were “unsure”

What are farmers saying in the field? Michelle Jones, a fourth-generation farmer in south central Montana was asked the question about if she supports Trump’s use of tariffs on “AgriTalk” last week.

“No, definitely not,” Jones said. “I don’t think that tariffs are an effective negotiation strategy, and I also don’t think that we’re truly being surgical in how we are applying them.”

Jones says there are cases in history where tariffs are effective, but she says in the majority of those cases, the tariffs are extremely targeted and apply to a certain industry or specific country.

“They were also very short-term whereas now, we’re just using them as basically a blanket approach and then escalating when the president gets angry, and then he rolls them back, and it creates too much uncertainty. It’s just not wildly effective,” Jones also said on “AgriTalk.”

“I agree, they were used before the Phase One deal with China, and they were never dealt with under the Biden administration either,” added April Hemmes, an Iowa farmer, who was also on “AgriTalk” last week. “Now all we’ve done is piss off our neighbors with this, the Canadians, bringing Canada and Mexico into it. And now all consumers are going to have to pay up, not just the farmers.”

However, there are some farmers and those in agriculture who support the president’s heavy use of tariffs. One of those is Bubba Horwitz of Bubba Trading, who focuses on the commodity markets.

“I think it’s a great tool to use,” Horwitz said on “AgriTalk.” “I think you’ve seen it with Canada and Mexico to get things that he wanted to get done. And certainly, you can bargain with those tariffs, you can do whatever you want. I think it’s a great negotiating tool, and it certainly can put pressure because remember one thing, the United States of America could stand alone. We could be an island without anybody. We don’t need anybody else to survive, whereas other countries and nations do need us to survive. We could be totally an island and exist perfectly well without the help of any other country in the world.”

Secretary Rollins Defends Trump’s Use of Tariffs
During a recent interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the president’s use of tariffs, also saying he’s holding Canada accountable.

“This president’s vision of tariffs being such an important part of his toolkit, as he begins to realign the economy to put America first, to put our men and women, our families first. Everybody knows, and when they voted in November of 2024, they knew that’s what they were voting for. And so as we see the president begin to roll out, as we see him hold accountable Canada with their 250 % tariffs on our dairy products, as they see him hold accountable, Mexico, China, all these countries where we have a 5 % on our end when our products go out. They’ve got 15 %,so three times, this is on average on their end when their products come in. It’s not fair. And it’s got to be equalized as we move toward more free trade,” said Rollins.

Rollins pointed out the president has been very clear that there will be an interim period where the economy readjusts.

“Real transformation takes these harder decisions. And no one’s willing to do that, except now President Trump is,” Rollins said during the interview. “So obviously 100 % behind it, I am talking to farmers every single day. They know that the president has their back. They know and are prepared for potentially, you know, an interim period as we move toward what the president has said is the greatest age of prosperity not just for all Americans, But for our farmers in our ranchers as well.”

Ag Economists are Concerned About Tariffs and Impact Long Term
Farm Journal asked a similar question regarding using tariffs to negotiate in the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, and the survey found an overwhelming majority of economists are concerned about the impacts long term.

Ninety-two percent of economists think Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool won’t benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run.

“Lost trade and lost reliability in a key sector for aggregate ag demand will hurt agriculture more than any specific market gains made from negotiations or reciprocal trade battles,” one economist said.
“Tariffs not only have a negative impact the short run, they also have negative impacts in the long run,” said an economist in the anonymous survey.
“Lost market share is extremely difficult to regain, especially when the U.S. becomes known as an unreliable market partner,” another economist noted.
“I responded yes, although I believe there are scenarios where this is harmful and scenarios where it could be beneficial,” said another economist. “For it to be beneficial depends on it being short lived and resulting in trade initiatives with market access or purchase commitments. And in the meantime, action is taken quickly related to President Trump’s post to offset trade loss with increased domestic use such as removing dated rules that limit ethanol blends, renewing or creating biofuels production incentives, and adding SAF as a mandated fuel.”

Market Facilitation Program 2.0?
If agriculture is caught in the middle of another trade war, the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor wanted to know if economists think USDA will compensate farmers for their losses again, similar to what the previous Trump administration did with Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments.

Even though Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has promised to make farmers whole through another trade war, economists are concerned about available funding.

Seventy-seven percent of economists think USDA will compensate farmers, but 23% don’t think so.

Here’s what economists in the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor had to say.

“Congress might be the limiting factor,” one economist said.
“They will want to do so, but their ability to do so may be limited. The failure to include replenishment of the Commodity Credit Corporation’s borrowing authority in the continuing resolution limits available CCC funds, and other options may also be limited in potential scope,” another respondent shared.
“Yes, I expect more trade compensation because of the political sensitivity of ag and the administrative commitments already to doing so. I don’t know what and how much it might be, particularly if we are entering a new era of budget austerity or at least stated goals of budget restraint,” responded one economist.
“Depends on who is calling the shots Trump or Musk,” another economist noted. “Trump might want to because farmers voted for him. But will he spend the money? He probably would. But, who else are farmers going to vote for? Is Trump running again?”
“Tariffs are not good revenue creators — they are a poorly targeted tax on U.S. consumers. If the federal government believes it will raise revenue from these tariffs like it claims, it is hard for me to believe that they will turn around and give that limited revenue back to the people it impacted the most,” said an economist in the anonymous survey.

No matter what happens with the upcoming April 2 tariff deadline, economists agree that what happens with trade and tariffs will likely be the top factor that impacts agriculture over the next 12 months.

In a recent interview on “AgriTalk,” hear where Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, stands on fair trade versus free trade.

92% of Ag Economists Say the U.S. is Already in the Middle of Another Trade War

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:47:57 GMT

President Donald Trump hasn’t been shy about using tariffs as a negotiating tool. As he cracks down on fentanyl and illegal border crossings, he’s also pushing to restore what he calls fairness in U.S. trade relationships and countering non-reciprocal trading arrangements.

The reality for agriculture is the U.S. agricultural trade deficit hit a record in 2024 as imports soared, and Trump says he wants to reverse the trend.

According to the Trump administration, when it comes to tariffs and the impact on the overall economy, long-term gain will be worth the short-term pain. However, when it comes to agriculture, ag economists survyed in the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor don’t agree.

Ninety-two percent of economists think Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool won’t benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run.

Here are some of those economists’ comments from the most recent Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey.

“Food as a weapon doesn’t have a successful track record, see Jimmy Carter and the 1980s,” responded one economist in the anonymous survey. “It’s not a guarantee as it’s like playing Russian roulette; you might ‘win,’ but the risks are huge.”
“Farm Journal readers should learn about the long-term consequences of Smoot-Hawley. It wasn’t just about the economic costs — it was also about the relational damage between trading partners. I have a hard time believing we will rebuild these relationships any time in the foreseeable future,” another economist said.
“It depends on whether tariffs are used as a negotiating tool with the ultimate goal of reducing trade barriers, or whether they instead result in a world with higher barriers. The president’s emphasis on tariffs as a way to raise revenue suggests tariffs and their consequences may persist,” was another economist’s response in the Monthly Monitor.

However, one economist wasn’t as certain, saying, “For it to be beneficial depends on it being short lived and resulting in trade initiatives with market access or purchase commitments. And in the meantime, action is taken quickly related to Trump’s post to offset trade loss with increased domestic use such as removing dated rules that limit ethanol blends, renewing or creating biofuels production incentives, and adding SAF as a mandated fuel.”

Trade War or No Trade War?
What an overwhelming number of agricultural economists do agree on is that the U.S. is in the midst of another trade war. Ninety-two percent of economists say a trade war is already here, while only 8% responded no.

“I don’t think anyone is arguing with the notion that we are in another ‘trade war,’” one economist said. “This one is far bigger and far more consequential than the last one we were in.”

“It seems more like a trade cold war,” another economist responded. “The situation is ever-changing, and it is hard for buyers, markets and producers to anticipate reality and effect. The threat of tariffs is almost as effective as a tariff.”

As agriculture tries to navigate the turbulence and shocks of another trade war, the ultimate question is: Who wins in a trade war? According to Romel Mostafa, professor of business, economics and public policy for the Ivey Business School in London, Ontario, it’s neither the U.S. or Canada.

“If we think about U.S. and Canada, we both lose,” Mostafa says. “The way our markets are integrated, both from the input side as well as the product side, any tariff really increases cost of production for our farmers all the way to food on the table. What then happens, essentially, some of our products are going to be less competitive in major markets than where we compete. Who then benefits? Perhaps Brazil, Russia or other countries.”

Other agricultural economists agree: If you’re looking at the trade war between the U.S. and Canada or the U.S. and China, it’s not the U.S. who wins, it’s ultimately one of the United States’ biggest competitors: Brazil.

The Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “In the next 10 years, which country ultimately benefits the most from the current trade turbulence?” Seventy-three percent of economists think it’s Brazil, and 18% said China.

This Trade War Could Be Worse Than the Last time
Of the agricultural economists surveyed, 69% say they don’t think a trade war today would have the same impact it did 2018 through 2020. Instead, most think it will be worse.

“The trade war in 2018/19 also had the African swine fever in China. Because of ASF, they did not need the soybeans anyway. It will be hard to figure out what impacted the U.S. markets/prices more, but the market reaction should not be as great this time,” said one economist in the monthly survey.

Ag Econoimsts’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“It would be a bigger impact,” another economist said. “The first round of trade wars in agriculture were largely used as a wedge for negotiation or renegotiation of agreements that provided improved access and growth opportunities for ag trade. This round seems to be championed based on reshaping the entire trading system, a system that U.S. agriculture largely benefited from over time.”

“There appears to be less willingness by the U.S. taxpayer to provide financial assistance to agricultural producers. That is not to say that financial assistance is absent this go around, but I do believe it increases the uncomfortable situation for producers who largely support less government spending,” one of the respondents shared.

However, other economists think it could have a similar impact, saying the same commodities will be impacted.

Even talk of tariffs is enough to move the markets, as some analysts argue the commodity markets have been ignoring fundamentals, instead trading headlines recently.

The Potential Economic Hit to Ag
The American Farm Bureau (AFBF) economists recently took a deeper dive into the possible impact of reciprocal tariffs. AFBF economists say of the top 20 U.S. agricultural products currently being targeted by Canada, for a total of $5.8 billion, commodities such as juice, coffee and chocolate are hardest hit, along with wine, fresh fruit, dairy products, poultry and rice.

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs

(AFBF)

China’s retaliatory tariffs

(AFBF )

When it comes to China, Beijing has specifically targeted 15 products including beef, cotton, grain sorghum, pork, corn and dairy along with fresh fruit. Economists say while it’s too early to measure the full impact of the tariffs on U.S. agriculture, they believe it will certainly decrease demand for U.S. products in Canada and China.

Market Facilitation Program 2.0?
If agriculture is caught in the middle of another trade war, the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor wanted to know if economists think USDA will compensate farmers for their losses again, similar to what the previous Trump administration did with Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments.

March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Even though Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has promised to make farmers whole through another trade war, economists are concerned about available funding. Seventy-seven percent of economists think USDA will compensate farmers, but 23% don’t think so.

“Congress might be the limiting factor,” one economist said.

“They will want to do so, but their ability to do so may be limited. The failure to include replenishment of the Commodity Credit Corporation’s borrowing authority in the continuing resolution limits available CCC funds, and other options may also be limited in potential scope,” another respondent shared.

“The political dynamics appear to be similar,” said another economist. “Amounts are however likely to be less, maybe substantially less, due to the general policy initiative to reduce government spending.”

The Secretary of Agriculture has come out and said they will use these tools if it becomes necessary.