Farmers, a solidly Republican constituency, are scratching their heads over what they see as a barrage of friendly fire. Agriculture stands out as acutely vulnerable to President Donald Trump’s avalanche of tariffs, mass deportations and potential new regulations.
Soybean and corn farmers are panicking about Trump’s trade wars, which expose them to retaliation from China, Canada and Mexico, their most important export markets. As American Soybean Association president Caleb Ragland put it: “Tariffs are not something to take lightly and ‘have fun’ with.” That’s a direct rebuke to Trump’s suggestion that farmers sell “INSIDE of the United States” and “have fun.”
Livestock farmers, as well as growers of fruits and vegetables, have been alarmed as they watch agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement descend en masse across fields to detain and deport agricultural workers. Roughly half of crop farmworkers are estimated to lack legal immigration status.
Produce growers report that up to 70 percent of their workforce will not show up in the days after an ICE raid, too scared to leave home. Smack in the middle of the harvest season for a range of crops, from berries and leafy greens to broccoli and cauliflower, farmers are worried they will miss the brief window, sometimes two to three days, for harvesting before crops go past their prime.
There are 34 million able-bodied adults in our Medicaid program. There are plenty of workers in America.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaking on who could replace undocumented farm workers
The recent statement by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that “34 million able-bodied adults in our Medicaid program” could replace undocumented immigrants across American farms landed like an insult in farming communities. “The men and women who harvest our crops are highly skilled,” said Dave Puglia, president of Western Growers, a lobby group for produce growers in the West. “To anybody who believes they can pick and pack in the field, go try it.”
On top of this, farmers are bracing for a hit from the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a report warning against the supposed dangers of key pesticides, glyphosate and atrazine. But these have been used for decades and are ubiquitous in a variety of crops grown in the United States and across the world.
“Our concern is that the solutions will be aimed at problems that don’t necessarily exist,” said Neil Caskey, chief executive of the National Corn Growers Association. He warned that, if government recommendations expected on Aug. 12 include bans on glyphosate or atrazine, there will be “disruption and pain across rural America.”
Such a frontal attack on agriculture is unusual in American politics. Farmers are accustomed to being supported and subsidized by the government — not least via multibillion dollar income supports that are perpetually extended each time the farm bill is renewed. Indeed, Trump’s tax bill, signed into law on Independence Day, included $66 billion in new spending for farm programs.
While the generous income support programs may keep many farmers from switching political allegiances, the hit from the Trump administration’s policies won’t be easy to fix. If ICE truly tried to deport most of the undocumented workers in the fields, growers of many commodities would simply lose their crops. Banning glyphosate would also throw many farmers out of business.
Trump seems to be aware of the peril. In June, he suggested that ICE agents would no longer pursue immigrant workers in agriculture or hospitality, as business leaders had been urging publicly and privately. But the decision also carried political risks, pushing against his image as the scourge of illegal immigration. So the raids on farms and hotels continued after the briefest of respites.
Yet to be seen are the full economic consequences of going after America’s food producers. Prices do not yet reflect the most dire scenarios. They are starting to rise. But if the administration pursues a maximalist approach to its agenda, especially on priorities that come at the expense of farmers, it is likely to do some real damage to the food supply. The better approach is to avert the damage, rather than wait to bail out farmers once they grow desperate.
