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.
“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.
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.
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.
