USDA pledges $15 billion to farmers

The Department of Agriculture has promised $15 billion to U.S. agricultural producers in the final weeks before the midterm elections. These initiatives aim to offset the higher costs for diesel and fertilizer that farmers have faced due to tariffs and the war in Iran. The USDA said it will release more details about the payments this month, though it remains unclear exactly when the money will reach farmers who rely on diesel for trucks, tractors, and combines.

The largest portion of the package is an $8 billion one-time payment plan for farmers dealing with soaring diesel prices. Gregg Ibendahl, a farm management specialist at Kansas State University, estimates these payments will more than cover the increase in fuel costs. He noted the money could also help with high fertilizer prices. At least $5 billion in guaranteed loans will go to ranchers and fishermen.

The remaining funds are allocated to several other areas. An additional $1.8 billion in payments is designated for producers and landowners who participated in conservation programs. The agency will spend $573 million on fertilizer manufacturing projects and $57 million on expanding meat processors. Specialty crop producers will receive $86.6 million in grants for innovative projects. On Thursday, the agency also said it would purchase up to $472.5 million in agricultural commodities to support producers and charitable programs.

These new pledges sit on top of $13.8 billion in safety net program payments already planned for the 2025 crop year. Those existing payments offset shortfalls for farmers who grow key crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. The USDA is also expanding sales of a diesel normally used only for off-road use and strengthening wolf management policies to protect livestock.

The financial strain on farmers has been severe this year. Diesel averaged $6.32 per gallon on Friday, according to motor club AAA. That price is 70% higher than a year ago, even though it is down slightly from its peak in September. Filling up a 100-gallon tank now costs $260 more than it did in the same period last year. Tariffs drove up expenses for equipment, and a trade war with China resulted in a near boycott of U.S. agricultural goods.

Ibendahl said the ad hoc payments will be a big help for farmers who otherwise would not make a profit this year. However, he noted that they do not address the underlying issues driving up prices. He questioned how farmers can explain their improved finances to lenders next spring if the gains are solely due to temporary government payments. He said, “It’s hard to go to your lender in the next spring and say, ‘OK, well, we’re looking pretty good this year, but it’s all because of these extra temporary government payments, so how much can you make me a loan (for) next year for my crop?’”

Alexandra Middlewood, an associate professor of political science at Wichita State University, said she has heard mixed reactions from farmers. Many are happy their businesses will survive this year, but they view the programs as one-time bailouts rather than long-term solutions. Rural voters have been a key group for the president, but some policies have hurt the industry. Immigrant deportations have threatened the labor force, and cuts to foreign aid and SNAP food stamps have hurt the market for agricultural products.

Michael Smith, a political science professor at Emporia State University, said many rural voters admire the president personally. However, that does not mean they necessarily like his policies. He pointed out that Trump is not on the ballot this year, but his policies are. “Some people who admire Trump really just admire the person, the man,” Smith said. “But it doesn’t mean they necessarily like his policies. Well, Trump himself isn’t on the ballot this year. His policies are.”

Middlewood said cost of living and access to health care are top issues for rural voters. She added that there is a perception the administration has not done enough to address these problems, even as the president boasts about a booming economy at campaign rallies. She does not expect frustrated rural voters to shift to the Democratic Party, given how long the state has been a Republican stronghold.

Some voters may decide to sit out the election or vote independent, which would hurt Republican candidates. Middlewood noted that independent voters make or break elections. She said the outcome will come down to who those independent voters are breaking for this year.