Comic Strips

Honestly, I'd kind of like to read some serious analysis on Trump on agricultural policy. I've pointed out that farmers are politically-important in red states, but many of Trump's policies look pretty bad for farmers to me.

• Tariffs don't benefit them -- the US is globally competitive agriculturally. The people who want tariffs are in labor-intensive manufacturing. Tariffs just bring up the prices farmers pay, and counter-tariffs hurt them by keeping them from competing in foreign markets. Trump did have some relief funds sent farmers impacted by Chinese tariffs in his first term to mitigate the hit they took, but I'm pretty sure that they'd rather not have their business mucked up.

• Trump may not actually do as much on illegal immigration as he tries to promote in his image, but he sure doesn't help, and US agriculture depends heavily on labor from illegal immigrants.

• Trump going after SNAP, subsidized food for the poor, doesn't help. My understanding was that for a long time, farmers benefited primarily from federal crop insurance subsidies, but that due to a decline in influence, they basically teamed up with advocates for the poor to get food stamp subsidies in place, and that's now the primary form of federal farm subsidy.

When I look at the NFU

the big farming industry association

website, it doesn't sound very happy with Trump:

https://nfu.org/2025/03/04/american-farmers-and-ranchers-bear-the-brunt-of-tariffs/

WASHINGTON – National Farmers Union President Rob Larew commented today on the President’s decision to implement tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China.

“The tariffs announced today, along with retaliatory measures from China and Canada, will have serious consequences for American agriculture. Our farmers are the backbone of this country, and they need strong, fair trade policies that ensure they can compete on a level playing field—not be caught in the middle of international disputes.

“We are already facing significant economic uncertainty, and these actions only add to the strain. Trade policies must come with real, tangible protections for the farmers directly affected. We’ve heard there’s a strategy in place—now we need to see it. Promises alone won’t pay the bills or keep farms afloat.

“Without a clear plan, family farmers will once again be left to bear the burden of decisions beyond their control, and eventually, so will consumers. We urge the administration to work with our trading partners to prevent further harm to rural communities.”

In the US political system, strongly-red or strongly-blue areas aren't as politically important, so you don't really need to worry about pissing them off -- they're gonna tend to vote for or against you regardless. That's especially true for the President, and true for a lesser degree for legislators.

But if I'm a legislator for an area, I do care about the industries in my area, and seeing the party that mostly represents rural areas producing a lot of what looks like disadvantageous-to-farmers policy going through kind of surprises me.

This is one of the big things that I don't really feel like I have a handle on regarding Trump administration policy.

EDIT: And I also see websites commenting on Trump policy not being good for farmers, so it's not just me making some kind of huge error in assessing this.

EDIT2: One issue for some farmers has been the EPA taking issue with farm runoff -- fertilizer causing algae blooms, like in the Great Lakes. If Trump weakens regulation on that, that might be popular with farmers. Farm runoff is a very big political issue in the Netherlands, and I know that that caused enormous political waves in the past few years.

kagis

Ah. Okay, apparently yes:

https://apnews.com/article/2386f9f4af34d81ae32629dead464af3

Trump rollback could leave waterways vulnerable to pollution

Since his first weeks in office, President Donald Trump has targeted environmental and public health regulations that he says imposed unnecessary burdens on business. Speaking to farmers in Texas on Sunday, Trump repeated his frequent charge that an Obama-era attempt in 2015 to more clearly define what water bodies qualify for federal pollution protection was “one of the most ridiculous regulations of all.""

Thursday’s changes to the clean water rule have long been sought by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others.

So I guess that might be one selling point he has for farmers.