(Photo by Free Public Domain Illustration via Flickr/CC BY 2.0)
In his second term, Trump has relied heavily on tariffs as a tool in trade negotiations with other countries. By placing tariffs on key trade partners, the U.S. triggered economic retaliation, with several countries targeting major American exports. The U.S. imposed steep tariffs on goods like steel to pressure companies to produce domestically or agree to more favourable trade terms. In response, many countries have targeted U.S. agriculture as part of their retaliatory measures.
Agriculture is one of the U.S.’s largest export industries, supported by vast geography and investments in infrastructure like dams, aquifers, and energy systems. In addition, historically, the U.S. has relied on enslaved or poorly paid labour to grow and export crops cheaply. This type of labour has led to the United States having a significant agricultural advantage that will be affected by tariffs from other countries and the U.S. administration’s policy on foreign labour in agriculture.
The Historical Roots of American Agriculture
The United States agricultural industry has seen an evolution of production and consumption, but has historically been a major exporter since World War I. Growing from mostly wheat and corn, the United States now includes soybeans, cows, and nuts. The Dust Bowl and the Great Depression pushed the government to support farmers through aid programs and infrastructure projects like irrigation and dam building. These programs expanded federal influence in agriculture and increased the political power of large farming corporations, particularly in the West. As such, the U.S. farming industry is much less independent of international markets and government policies than it was at the beginning of the USA.
In addition, the United States agriculture industry has always relied on labour from marginalized groups such as African American slaves and sharecroppers, and labourers from Asia and Latin America, especially Mexico. These groups made early agricultural industries profitable in the United States, which allowed it to be an exporter.
While technology has reduced the labour necessary for agriculture, like the cotton gin, current reliance on immigrants from South America for many crops shows that the United States agriculture is still a human labour-intensive business model. With all this in mind, agriculture in the United States is more highly sensitive than people realize. With tariffs in place, business costs for agricultural businesses will increase, especially if inflation or recession becomes a reality.
Tariffs, Climate Strain, and the Future of Farmland
Another aspect of the new administration is climate change and changing water access for agriculture. With many agricultural products, the United States grows, especially alfalfa, which relies on much water. With tariffs and decreasing water supplies, the agriculture business may have to move to different products, such as more U.S.-consumed or less water-dependent ones. With alfalfa and meat exports from the United States, tariffs on these products will decrease demand and make them less profitable. Larger farms and ranches may lobby for subsidies to keep their products profitable.
Still, even then, large consumers of U.S. agriculture like Canada, China, and Mexico could move to their exporters if costs increase too much. Much like how climate change affects home insurance in high-risk areas for weather-related disasters, it may make agriculture unsustainable in some regions of the country, especially with tariffs eating into the profits.
The United States’ response to these tariff clashes has varied depending on the state and its reliance on agriculture as an economic industry. California, one of the largest agricultural producers in the country, may be especially vulnerable if the federal government does not step in with aid. As a Democratic state that did not vote for Trump, it could face political challenges in receiving support. In contrast, conservative states have supported Trump’s tariff policies but cautioned about the short-term losses tariffs would create. Iowa, which ranks second behind California in agricultural exports, has voiced concern over the long-term viability of tariffs, especially given the slow recovery from Trump’s previous trade conflicts.
Large commercial farms focusing on export-oriented crops are particularly strained, as retaliatory tariffs reduce profitability and disrupt local economies. This pressure may sometimes lead to federal bailouts to keep agricultural businesses afloat. As can be seen, the United States administration is using tariffs for international competition to restore manufacturing, but it is hurting the local agricultural industries linked to global trade.
What Comes Next: Shifting Toward Resilient Agriculture
The United States’ agriculture is uncertain, as even with potential tariff relief, there is still much uncertainty about the agricultural industry’s future. Tariffs, climate change, and changing labour availability in the industry mean many businesses might have to change products or adapt to the reality of the market they find themselves in.
Depending on how far this trade war goes, it may mean the industry’s evolution to survive tariff wars. It may mean fewer mono-crop farms and more sustainable production methods in the long run, which creates less dependence on good trade relations with other countries and a stable economy.
News about the Trump administration allowing farm labourers from other countries to stay in the U.S. could help ease the agriculture industry during these tariff disputes. Just as U.S. tariff tactics rapidly changed international trade rules, they may also reshape U.S. agricultural production by pushing it toward self-sufficient domestic consumption.
Edited by Atena Abbaspourbenis
