American farmers are paying the price for Trump’s economic policies

Since its beginning, US President Donald Trump’s second term has witnessed a series of unfulfilled promises, especially with regard to rural areas in the United States. The farmers category is one of the groups most negatively affected by these promises, as they find themselves facing increasing challenges without the promised support.

Over the past decade, family farms have suffered accumulated difficulties, with about 373 farms declaring bankruptcy annually since 2015.

This constant pressure for survival was not limited to the economic aspect only, but also extended to include a worsening psychological crisis in agricultural communities that already suffer from a lack of resources and services.

Although Trump received 62% of the votes in rural areas during the 2024 elections, making progress compared to the 2020 elections, this support was based on promises to achieve unprecedented prosperity, in addition to pledges to provide federal aid to save small farms from collapse. However, these promises were not translated into reality, as the suffering of farmers continued and even worsened.

In this context, suicide rates in rural areas have risen to 3.5 times the national average, with the upward trend continuing.

Financial pressure

Farmers face great financial pressure as a result of high customs duties, increased production costs, as well as the lack of direct political interest in their issues, which was clearly evident in the failure to address their situation in the recent State of the Union address.

As their living conditions deteriorated, voters in rural areas began to reevaluate their political options, especially with the approaching midterm elections scheduled for next November.

This shift raises an important question about the extent of the Democratic Party’s willingness to exploit this opportunity.

Customs duties

At the national level, Trump’s popularity witnessed a noticeable decline, affected by rising prices and the Iran war. Economic policies, especially customs duties on agricultural products, left clear negative effects, as global demand for American crops declined. One of the most prominent examples is the decline in China’s imports of American soybeans by about 80%.

This deterioration has prompted the American Soybean Association to take an unusual stance by publicly criticizing the Trump administration, accusing it of misleading farmers about the future of exports to China.

At the same time, the duties imposed on iron, rubber, and spare parts increased the costs of maintaining agricultural equipment, and sometimes even led to a shortage of some basic parts.

In addition, the prices of new equipment have increased significantly, with the average price of a tractor jumping from $190,000 in 2019 to about $330,000 currently.

Operating costs have also increased significantly, while sales in global markets have declined, increasing the financial burden on farmers struggling to make ends meet.

Geopolitical developments

Geopolitical developments, such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and turmoil in the natural gas market, contributed to the rise in fertilizer prices from about $795 to about $1,000 per ton. The prices of diesel fuel, on which agricultural equipment depends, have also increased by more than 50% since the beginning of the Iran war.

All these factors combined led many farmers into a spiral of accumulated debt. Data from the US Department of Agriculture indicate that the total debt of the agricultural sector may reach about 600 billion dollars by the end of this year.

Budget reduction

Despite this, this crisis was not met with an effective government response, as the administration proposed reducing the Ministry of Agriculture’s budget by 19% for the year 2027, in addition to canceling the “Food for Peace” program, which has a budget of $1.2 billion, and reducing funding for rural development and agricultural marketing programs.

On the other hand, Republicans point to the so-called “farmers rescue plan” worth $12 billion, which was proposed to mitigate the effects of tariff policies. However, the distribution of this aid revealed a clear imbalance, as more than half of the support went to major agricultural companies, which are among the most prominent funders of election campaigns.

As for small farmers, who were supposed to be the first beneficiaries of this plan, they received an average of less than $5,000 each, while large companies received an average support of about $180,000. In general, more than 60% of the total agricultural aid approved in 2025 went to large producers, which deepened the gap within the agricultural sector and increased the suffering of small farmers. About “The Hill”

. Total US agricultural sector debt may reach $600 billion by the end of 2026.

. Family farms have suffered accumulated difficulties, with 373 farms declaring bankruptcy annually since 2015.