Missouri rancher Skyler Holden has signed a $240,000 cost sharing agreement with the Agriculture Department to add fencing and improve the watering system for his property. But after the Trump administration suddenly freezes federal funds, Holden risks losing his farm, he suddenly goes out on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars, and tens of thousands of dollars in labor and materials costs. He said he did.
“Every time my farm is paid, I won't be able to pay it,” he said in an interview.
Holden's situation highlights the potentially unstable status of farmers across the country as a series of Trump administration directives suspended federal funds on various programs and grants. Despite the courts halting many orders, rural communities are upset by the effects, causing confusion and panic among one of President Trump's core constituencies.
It costs billions of dollars. One executive order covers the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes funds for farmers to conserve soil and water and complete energy projects. Other directives will address grants to states and producers. Another person who freezes US foreign aid spending temporarily left hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food and supplies sitting at the port, halting future purchases of grain and goods.
Farmers who voted overwhelmingly for Trump already have tough stretches. Over the past two years, net farm revenues have been reduced due to lower prices of corn, soy and wheat from high levels in 2022. That figure is projected to rise sharply this year due to government farm payments, but the administration's fast policymaking has put many farmers and some agribusinesses on alert.
“Farmers don't need more uncertainty than they already have,” said Nicklebendowsky, executive director of Kansas Farmers Union, representing around 4,000 farms in the state.
Direct payments to farmers are dangerous.
Shortly after taking office, Trump ordered an indeterminate moratorium on the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, the signed climate and domestic spending laws of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to remove funds, but it is unclear when that will follow.
When asked whether it would free the money, the Agriculture Department did not respond directly. He said it simply ordered a “comprehensive review” of contracts, labor and personnel. An agency employee who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation said no funds had been announced.
If funds remain frozen, it could affect more than 25,000 conservation contracts worth $1.8 billion funded by the Climate Change Act, potentially involving thousands of farmers across the country. It's there.
A contract is usually a cost sharing arrangement to reach with the agricultural sector, and is extremely popular, with demand exceeding the amount available. Under the contract, farmers, ranchers and landowners will be refunded for practices that will help protect and protect the soil, water and the environment. However, the funding has become a major target for the Trump administration as it focuses on his relationship with Biden and his climate.
“This isn't just a hippie dippie,” said Aaron Pape, who raises cows, pigs and poultry on 300 acres in Wisconsin. “This has impacted mainstream farmers.”
Pape, who owes $30,000 for fencing and water management contracts frozen under the directive, said he could be forced to undertake additional loans to cover his costs. He didn't vote for Trump, but Pape said the president said, “Farmers are the districts where you hold power, and the actions you're taking are serious and immediate impact for our livelihoods. “It's giving you the idea of ​​understanding.”
More than dozens of farmers and ranchers said the New York Times made planning more difficult for the year and influenced decisions on the purchase of seeds and equipment. Many people worried that the administration would suspend future payments with most warnings, target other programs such as disaster relief payments and crop insurance, or have immense consequences for food supplies. It has been announced.
The Climate Change Act also provided roughly $1.7 billion to strengthen the Agricultural Sector Program for Rural Energy Grants. Similar to conservation programs, grantees will receive a refund for the project. The suspension ordered under the directive entitled “Free American Energy” left potentially thousands of grantees withheld the bill or potentially thousands of grantees.
Adam Green, who raises sheep in remote areas in Washington, received two grants worth around $33,000 to install solar panels and heat pumps on farms with high fuel and unreliable supply. Greene took out the loan, intending to pay it back when he received the refund to cover the upfront costs. These plans, and his hopes to expand his business, are currently pending.
Like all the farmers who spoke to the times, Greene has not blamed the farming department's employees, but emphasized that he is hesitant to work with the federal government again.
“These are the commitments the federal government has made to farmers that we rely on,” he said. “If you want to change the policy, I will change it, but don't go and blow it up.”
Trump was also a pot of money his first administration used to pay financially struggling farmers from retaliatory tariffs, which the Biden administration used to encourage climate-friendly farming practices. We have suspended payments made by Commodity Credit Corporation, a pot of money. It is unclear how much the funds are frozen. The Iowa Soybean Association recently said its members owes a $101 million refund for the program alone.
In addition to the confusion, some farmers also reported that grants for purchasing equipment for the marketing or distribution of products have also been suspended, but these programs are not funded by the Inflation Reduction Act dollars. It was not immediately clear what orders were causing the problems.
Tom Sumad, who runs a seed treatment business in Pierce, Minnesota, learned that he has also recently suspended a $530,000 grant funded by the state through the US rescue plan.
Smurdo took away the bank loan to pay the down payment of equipment that could crush sunflower seeds more efficiently, and hoped the grant would cover three-quarters of the cost. But when the equipment arrives, he has no way of paying for it.
Smurdo said he shared Trump's belief in cutting government spending, but expressed confusion about the president's priorities.
“That's what he wants to do and continues to grow the industry and America,” he said. “I feel like I'm doing my part, and now you're a bit opposed to what you said.”
On his part, Holden will not denounce Trump or change his vote in the presidential election.
However, as the first grantee, Holden said he regretted promoting the conservation program on his popular Tiktok account and vowed to “never do anything with the government agency again.”
The suspension of international aid extends to product producers.
The move to effectively shut down the US International Development Agency and close the majority of its staff on vacation has resulted in $489 million in food aid suffering during transportation at the risk of docks, warehouses and corruption. I'm here. Last weekend, they scrambled to find other nonprofits to oversee logistics, including Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican.
However, future humanitarian purchases of grains and other foods grown in the United States are unknown. USAID purchases about $2 billion a year from farmers, and according to a 2021 report, 41% of food aid shipped overseas is grown domestically. The agency estimated that in 2023 it purchased 1.1 million tonnes of food from farmers and ranchers. The 430 large farmers who grow crops in almost every state met the order directly from the agency. .
According to USA Rice spokesman Michael Klein, the agency bought 161,000 tonnes of American rice for $126 million last year.
Similarly, according to U.S. Wheat Associates, a lobbyist organization for the wheat industry, the Agriculture Department's Pood for Progress program has recently purchased a million tonnes of wheat to distribute to people in need overseas.
While this is only a small part of the annual US wheat production, the program has the added benefit of promoting American wheat in foreign markets, says Steven Mercer, a fellow US wheat spokesman I said that.
Ending the multi-million-dollar grants from USAID could potentially shut down research programs at universities across the country. For example, the University of Nebraska had a five-year, $19 million grant to develop irrigation technology in developing countries. That funding and other grants have been fired or cut sharply, and investigations are at risk.
“We are a very large beneficiary of government contracts,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gold, president of the University of Nebraska, and the outcome of such a suspension in fundraising is farther than many believe. He said that it was. Elected officials should “understand that institutions granted to public lands like us are directly and significantly affected by these changes,” he added.
For now, some effects have been avoided. As they moved to shut down USAID, the Trump administration issued a halt order to some manufacturers of American food sent abroad, which subsequently retracted.
Mana, one nonprofit in Georgia, produces ready-to-use therapeutic foods to deal with pediatric malnutrition. According to Mark Moore, CEO of Mana, he purchases around £2 million in peanuts each month from American farmers.
About $12 million worth of mana products – each containing 300,000 boxes containing 150 bags to treat severe malnutrition for six weeks – waiting to leave Savannah Port. Moore didn't expect this particular shipment to be delayed, but it was unclear whether USAID would step into the bill or deliver future cargo.
“The real impact of the shutdown will occur in a month six weeks after the supply chain began to collapse, he asked.
Alan Rappyport Contributed report from Washington Eritan From San Francisco.
