Farmers Don’t Need Crutches

Originally published on Substack.

​Washington is breaking the legs of America’s farmers, handing them taxpayer-funded crutches, and calling it help.

The latest example is the political paradox highlighted by The Economist: President Trump’s tariffs and trade wars are hitting farmers with higher input costs and weaker export markets, yet many farmers still back him.

But the deeper story is not one politician or one party. It is the failure of government central planning—whether it comes dressed as “industrial policy,” “fair trade,” “emergency aid,” or “affordability relief.”

Farmers do not need more political micromanagement. They need open markets, sound money, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a government that stops making production more expensive.

Tariffs Are Taxes on Farmers

Tariffs are not paid by foreign governments. They are taxes paid by Americans through higher prices, disrupted supply chains, and fewer choices.

That matters for agriculture because farmers are not just sellers. They are buyers of fuel, fertilizer, seed, machinery, chemicals, parts, irrigation systems, trucks, steel, aluminum, and borrowed capital. When Washington taxes imports, it raises the cost of farming.

A recent Farm Progress analysis found that agriculture-related tariffs collected hundreds of millions of dollars from farm machinery, agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, and seeds. That may look like “revenue” to Washington, but to producers it is just another cost layered on top of already tight margins.

This is the first government punch: Washington raises costs.

Then comes the second punch: foreign retaliation against American exports. China, the European Union, and other trade partners do not sit still when the U.S. imposes tariffs. They respond. And when they do, American farmers lose access, lose market share, or take lower prices.

That is not a trade strategy. It is political gambling with other people’s livelihoods.

Lost Markets Don’t Snap Back

The most dangerous myth in trade policy is that export markets can be turned off and on like a light switch.

They cannot.

Once a buyer in China, Europe, or elsewhere shifts supply chains to Brazil, Argentina, Canada, or another competitor, that business does not automatically return when politicians announce a deal. Relationships matter. Logistics matter. Contracts matter. Reliability matters.

Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture noted that even China’s reported soybean purchase commitments would still leave U.S. soybean exports to China below recent levels. Its later export review also showed how quickly markets can restructure, with China’s share of U.S. soybean exports falling sharply while other markets picked up some of the slack—but not enough to erase the damage from policy-driven uncertainty.

This is exactly what Friedrich Hayek warned about in the knowledge problem. No president, trade adviser, or federal agency can know the millions of localized decisions made by farmers, suppliers, processors, shippers, lenders, and foreign customers.

The people closest to the risk have the most knowledge. Washington has the most power. That mismatch creates disaster.

Subsidies Hide the Damage

After Washington raises costs and disrupts export markets, it offers aid.

The USDA announced a $12 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance package in December 2025, including up to $11 billion for row crop producers. USDA said the money was intended to help farmers facing market disruptions, elevated input costs, persistent inflation, and market losses.

That admission is revealing. Washington is acknowledging the problem while refusing to stop causing it.
The USDA now forecasts direct government farm payments of $44.3 billion in 2026, up 45.2% from 2025. The American Farm Bureau Federation similarly noted that rising government payments are shoring up farm income as weakness persists into 2026.

That is not a healthy farm economy. That is a politically managed farm economy.

And politically managed economies create dependency. Once the government damages the market, people understandably ask the government for relief. Then the relief becomes part of the business model. Then lawmakers call that “support.” But it is not support. It is dependency created by bad policy.
Farmers should not have to lobby Washington for compensation after Washington makes it harder to farm.

The Fed Is Part of the Affordability Crisis

Tariffs are the visible tax. Inflation is the invisible tax. Farmers and families are paying both.

The Federal Reserve is widely expected to hold the federal funds rate steady at its April 29–30 meeting, with the current target range at 3.5% to 3.75%. But inflation is still well above the Fed’s 2% target. The latest CPI report shows prices up 3.3% over the year in March, while core PCE inflation was 3.0% in February. That is not price stability.

The Fed’s balance sheet also remains bloated, with assets near $6.7 trillion, far above its pre-2008 footprint relative to the economy. That excess matters because easy money and excessive federal spending helped create the inflationary environment now crushing families and producers.

I know higher interest rates are not painless. Farmers borrow to finance land, equipment, operating costs, and seasonal production. Higher rates raise financing costs in the short run.

But persistent inflation is worse.

Inflation raises the cost of fertilizer, fuel, diesel, machinery, insurance, labor, land, repairs, and groceries. It erodes savings. It distorts investment. It punishes working families. It makes long-term planning harder for the very producers Washington claims to support.

The Fed should not be cutting rates or pretending inflation is beaten. It should follow a clear rule: get inflation back to 2% quickly, keep rates high enough to restore purchasing power, and shrink the balance sheet toward its pre-2008 norm as a share of GDP. Sound money is not optional. It is the foundation of affordability.

The Populist Trap

Many farmers support Trump because they believe he is fighting for them. I understand that instinct. Rural America has been ignored, lectured, and regulated by people who often know little about agriculture and even less about markets.

But feeling seen is not the same as being helped.

Tariffs may sound tough. Bailouts may feel supportive. Easy money may feel like relief. But together they create a toxic mix: higher production costs, weaker export markets, inflationary pressure, more subsidies, and more dependency.

That is not free enterprise. It is central planning with patriotic branding.

And it is not limited government. It is government creating a problem, expanding itself to manage the problem, and then demanding credit for the partial relief.

Real Support Means Less Government

The best farm policy is not a bigger check from Washington. It is a smaller burden from Washington.

That means ending tariffs and retaliatory trade wars. It means removing barriers on fertilizer, machinery, chemicals, energy, transportation, and capital investment. It means cutting excessive regulations. It means restraining federal spending. It means shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet. It means restoring sound money. It means letting farmers sell to willing buyers around the world without turning them into pawns in political negotiations.

The North Star should be simple: free farmers to produce, trade, invest, and compete.

American farmers are some of the most productive people on earth. They feed families here and abroad. They take risks most politicians would never understand. They do not need Washington to “save” them from markets.

They need Washington to stop sabotaging markets.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Tariffs are taxes. They raise costs for farmers, families, and businesses while inviting retaliation against American exports.
2. Subsidies do not fix bad policy. They often hide the damage long enough for dependency to deepen.
3. Affordability requires sound money. The Fed should stop pretending inflation is beaten, shrink its balance sheet, and follow rules-based policy to restore purchasing power.