Election

30 Minutes With Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins In Her First Week On the Job

Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:14:00 GMT

Since Saturday, Nov. 23, 2024 , Brooke Rollins has been focused on how to build the teams and the plans that impact the trajectory of agriculture and rural America. On that day, while en route with her husband and four teenagers in their motor home to Auburn, Ala., for the Texas A&M football game, she got a call from now President Donald Trump. The purpose of his call: She was his top choice to fill his final significant cabinet position, Secretary of Agriculture.

Obviously, she had to wait for confirmation, which came last week on Feb.13 when the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed her as the 33^rd Secretary of Agriculture , but since that Saturday before Thanksgiving, she’s been on the go with an accelerated enthusiasm to understand the significant challenges facing rural communities that lost 147,000 family farms between 2017 and 2022 and why the cost of inputs are up 30% as exports are down $37 billion this year and likely to fall further in the months to come.

“This is a crisis, and this is something that I understand inherently,” Rollins said to kick off Top Producer Summit in Kansas City on Tuesday. “My promise to you is this, and my commitment will never waver, that every minute of every day for the next four years I will do everything within my power, with hopefully God’s hand on all of us and our work, to ensure we are not just entering the golden age for America, as my boss, President Trump, likes to say, but we are entering the golden age for agriculture.”

What Has Rollins Been Up to the Past Four Years?
Secretary Rollins and President Trump have worked together for almost eight years. She was in the West Wing with him for years two, three and four of his first term running his domestic policy agenda.

“This real estate guy from New York City brought that vision to life, and then in the last term, was able to really do some remarkable things,” Rollins said in regard to President Trump returning power to the people who just want a chance at the American dream. “I call it the great pause, the four years in between term one and term two. But I think the great pause allowed very intentional planning. It allowed a courageous and bold leader in President Trump to become a fearless leader and to do everything he can to bring America back to greatness.”

In the “dark days of January 2021,” as she described, Secretary Rollins helped launch the America First Policy Institute, a think tank established by former Trump officials to promote conservative policies. The idea was that those policies that made America great in Trump’s first term would continue indefinitely, not just for a second term, but for four years, eight years or 36 years, Rollins described.

First Week On the Job
Since being confirmed last week, Secretary Rollins has been in the Washington, D.C., USDA office for a few hours, but most of her time has been spent in Kentucky at National Farm Machinery Show in Louisville and Gallrein Farms and in Kansas visiting Finney’s County Feeder, High Plains Ponderosa Dairy and the National Beef Packing Plant .

Describing herself as “a reader and a studier,” Rollins seems adamant to hear firsthand from farmers and ranchers. She referenced her visits to the dairy farm and National Beef facility as inspiring, in a good way but also in a way that helps her understand the real challenges at hand.

Speaking to the crowd at Top Producer Summit, she shared her appreciation for the “entrepreneurial American game changers” who are doing their part to feed the world.

“It is so inspiring and a reminder of the very beginning of our country.” Rollins said. “Our revolution was fought by farmers, our Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. The backbone of the great American experiment is this community.”

Thank you @topproducermag for hosting @RogerMarshallMD and me in Kansas City, Missouri, with 1,000 of the Top Producers from across the US to talk about issues like expanding trade access and cutting regulatory red tape for farmers.

Biden’s ZERO trade deals and inflationary… pic.twitter.com/ejMxKxkRMG
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) February 19, 2025

Farmer Q&A
Watch and listen to what Secretary Rollins, as well as Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas, had to say on stage at Top Producer Summit about these 7 topics:

Trade and tariffs — “ Let’s go barnstorm the world , and let’s go find some more trade partners and access [to market opportunities],” Rollins said.
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts and modernizing USDA — “DOGE is a very valid and important effort across all government. The stories of waste and abuse were really just, not USDA specific but across government, beginning,” Rollins said.
Federal programs, such as CSP and EQIP — “Our commitment is that if there have been commitments made, those will be honored. Getting our arms around all of that right now is really, really, important. Again, going back to the President’s heart and commitment to our farmers, I feel confident we will be able to solve any issues that are in front of our ag community, that are potentially being compromised by the DOGE effort, while at the same time recognizing how very, very important it is,” Rollins said.
Future of USDA — “There’s no question USDA needs some modernization. I’m just beginning to lean into that as well,” Rollins said. USDA has 106,000 employees and 29 departments. “The Secretary is taking over a department where only 6% of the [D.C.] people work in the office,” Marshall added.
Renewable fuels — Prior to President Trump’s first term, he was “the first major candidate to support biofuels, and I think that carried him through Iowa in many ways. … We’ve got E15 year-round. I think that gives us some certainty as well. … The President is supporting that. I think we’re trying to figure out how to save 45Z, but we can’t let China benefit from it. Right now, China is benefiting more from [45Z] than my farmers and ranchers are, so we’ve got to fix that,” Marshall says.
Immigration policies and availability of long-term labor — “I have a full-bodied understanding of the challenges within the labor market, and I believe the President does too. … I believe that we will very soon be talking about it again. Clearly, the H-2A program needs significant reform, and Lori Chavez-DeRemer, she’s going through the [confirmation] process right now. … Hopefully she’ll get her vote very soon. We’ve got a lot of work to do,” Rollins said.
Trump’s cabinet members — “Our cabinet is comprised of people that have been working together and have been friends and colleagues for years, with a few exceptions. Bobby Kennedy is a new friend, but Lee Zeldin and I worked together in America First Works and America First Policy Institute for the last almost four years, Linda McMahon in education and John Brooks — these are our people,” Rollins said.

Do Tariffs Work? Leading Ag Economists Weigh In

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 17:00:00 GMT

Tariffs are a tool used by President Donald Trump during both his terms. But do they work? Not even ag economists are in alignment, as the answer seems to be: It depends.

This past weekend, Trump signed three executive orders for tariffs , the first time a president has used powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The orders also include retaliation clauses that would ramp up tariffs if the countries respond in kind. Trump cut the levy on imports of Canadian energy to 10%.

By Monday morning, Trump had agreed to delay tariffs on goods from Mexico for one month to allow more time for negotiations. The agreement happened just hours before the tariffs were set to take effect.

President Claudia Sheinbaum said U.S. tariffs against Mexico will be delayed for one month after a conversation with Trump on Monday. Trump then confirmed the news on Truth Social.

Which Input Could Be Impacted Most by Tariffs?

Tariffs on the U.S.'s top three trading partners could have a major impact on agriculture. The January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists which input is most at risk. The top answer was fertilizer.

Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“From a headline standpoint, it’s probably potash,” says Samuel Taylor, farm inputs analyst, Rabobank. “We get 85% to 90% of our potash from imports from the Canadian market. The residual is made up by Russia and Israel, in principle, with some other markets coming in.”

One day after Trump announced he would move ahead with planned tariffs, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated tariffs targeting $30 billion in American products, such as alcohol, produce, household goods and industrial materials, will roll out in two phases starting Feb. 4, the same day the U.S. tariffs are set to begin.

The tariffs on the other $125 billion worth of goods will come in 21 days to allow impacted Canadian companies to adjust their supply chains. Trudeau emphasized Canada’s response would be “strong but appropriate,” while also considering non-tariff measures such as restrictions on critical minerals.

Do Tariffs Work?

With tariffs and a potential trade war brewing that begs the question: Do tariffs work?

It’s something Farm Journal asked the nearly 70 ag economists part of the Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor. The survey asked economists: “Do tariffs work in trade policy?” Economists views were mixed:

“Tariffs can work in trade policy — that’s why nations continue to use them. The complex part that extends beyond the tariff action is potential long-term repercussions that can result from trade flow changes.”
“In limited cases, typically only if they result in a policy response in the targeted country. Much of the time, tariffs are like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
“Tariffs provide short-term gains but have always failed relative to free trade in the long term.”
“Absolutely, when properly applied.”
“Not over the long term. They tend to affect who gets to supply different markets around the world.”

The Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor also asked: “When tariffs are used as a ‘tool’ in trade, who pays the tariff?” Not all economists were aligned on that answer either, saying sometimes it’s farmers and consumers, but it can also be the exporting countries.

“When the U.S. imposes tariffs on imports, importers in the U.S. pay taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from abroad. When another nation imposes tariffs, importers in that nation pay import taxes to their government on their purchases from abroad. Often, when a tariff is implemented, another nation retaliates, and you end up with importers in both nations paying the price on whatever products the tariffs apply toward.”
“If an importing country places a tariff on the exporting country, producers in the exporting country and consumers in the importing country both lose (i.e., receive lower and higher prices, respectively). Conversely, producers in the importing country and consumers in the exporting country win (i.e., receive higher and lower prices, respectively).”
“In the short run, consumers who purchase goods with a tariff might see higher prices if the tariff is not absorbed elsewhere. In the long run, the tariff might result in changes to the supply chain that result in higher prices but also create other economic opportunities in America (e.g. reshoring of domestic manufacturing).”
“The correct economist answer is: It depends. Tariffs drive a wedge between prices in the exporting country and in the importing country. It depends on the circumstances of particular markets and how much is reflected in higher prices in the importing country and reduced prices in the exporting country.”
“Both the exporting nation and the importing consumer pay some portion of the tariff depending on who has more flexibility to adjust to trade barrier. If exporting countries can easily switch to supplying other markets, they won’t have to ‘pay.’ If consumers can easily find cheap substitute goods, they won’t have to pay.”

Reports Now Say Trump to Tap Texas Native Brooke Rollins For Agriculture Secretary

Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:31:03 GMT

Brooke Rollins, president of the America First Policy Institute, has officially been selected to serve as USDA Secretary. President-elect Donald Trump made the announcement Saturday, saying her “commitment to support the American farmer, the defense of American food self-sufficiency and the restoration of agriculture-dependent American small towns is second to none.”

Rollins is the president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a think tank established by former Trump officials to promote conservative policies. AFPI has advocated for curbing foreign ownership — particularly from China — of U.S. farmland, an issue with bipartisan support in Congress. She served as the president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) from 2003 to 2018, where she significantly expanded the organization and positioned it as a leading state-based think tank.

During Trump’s first term, she served as the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives. In these roles, she was instrumental in shaping key domestic policies across various sectors.

Rollins has strong ties to key figures in Trump first administration, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Her relationships within this network might facilitate collaboration on agricultural policies and initiatives.

Educational Background
Rollins holds a degree in agricultural development from Texas A&M University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Texas School of Law. She graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Development from Texas A&M University in 1994, where she also became the first female student body president.

Her educational credentials are complemented by her practical experience, having grown up on a farm in Texas.

Rollins thanked Trump on X (formerly Twitter) Saturday following the announcement, saying: “It will be the honor of my life to fight for America’s farmers and our Nation’s agricultural communities. This is big stuff for a small-town ag girl from Glen Rose, TX — truly the American Dream at its greatest,” Rollins said in her X post.

Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to serve as the next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. It will be the honor of my life to fight for America’s farmers and our Nation’s agricultural communities. This is big stuff for a small-town ag girl from Glen Rose, TX — truly the… https://t.co/h91Zx3eEgl pic.twitter.com/DLgxrmZhH6
— Brooke Rollins (@BrookeLRollins) November 23, 2024

Given her educational background and professional focus, Rollins has developed insights into agricultural policies, trade issues and rural development, which are critical for USDA’s mission.

3 Key Focus Areas
In her new role, Rollins is expected to focus on several key areas, including:

Support for American farmers. Rollins has expressed a strong commitment to advocating for American farmers, emphasizing food self-sufficiency and the revitalization of agriculture-dependent small towns.
Trade policies. A significant challenge will be managing Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports, which aim to boost domestic production but could disrupt critical export markets for U.S. farmers. Rollins will need to navigate these complex trade dynamics while supporting agricultural interests.
Rural development. Her background and personal connection to rural America position her well to address issues affecting rural communities, including economic development and food assistance programs.

Of all the incredible notes and well wishes and good lucks I have received over the last 24 hours, the one that perhaps means the most came from Gary Rosenbusch, my ag teacher at Glen Rose High School who changed my life forever.

When people ask about my upbringing in a tiny… pic.twitter.com/VTQXPTtVMd
— Brooke Rollins (@BrookeLRollins) November 24, 2024

Bottomline:

Rollins is going to be an impact player in the Trump administration. And will be highly effective on issues impacting ag and food that are in the purview of other Federal Departments and agencies.

Her nomination reflects Trump’s broader strategy of appointing loyalists with deep ties to his administration as he seeks to advance his economic agenda in a potential second term. Her leadership at AFPI has prepared her for this role, aligning with Trump’s vision of prioritizing American interests in agriculture and beyond.

As she steps into this pivotal position, Rollins will be tasked with not only implementing agricultural policies, but also addressing the challenges posed by current trade practices and supporting the livelihoods of American farmers amidst changing economic conditions.

Last-Minute Change?

Trump also had considered nominating former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, whom he has already tapped to co-chair his inaugural committee, to serve as Agriculture Secretary, CNN reported Friday. CNN initially said Trump was poised to offer the post to Loeffler, who reportedly met with the president-elect at Mar-a-Lago on Friday afternoon.

CNN said there had been several discussions between Loeffler and the transition team regarding the position. “But Trump held off from announcing his Agriculture pick as he issued a slew of others Friday night, raising questions about whether Loeffler was ultimately offered the post.”

Trump’s Cabinet Nominees Now Up Odds for Expanding U.S. Trade/Economic War with China

Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:07:14 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, as Commerce Secretary highlights plans to leverage tariffs in trade negotiations, with Lutnick emphasizing their use as both a revenue source and bargaining tool.

Lutnick has called the tariffs a negotiating tool that could be used to convince other countries to bring down their own levies or to force companies to move production to the U.S. He has said Trump would avoid taxes on products U.S. companies don’t make.

Commerce oversees the International Trade Administration, an agency in charge of enforcing trade laws and investigating unfair trade practices.

The appointment raises questions about the role of Robert Lighthizer, a prominent China hawk and decoupling advocate, who might still secure a key position such as National Economic Council leader or ambassador to China. The nomination marks Lutnick’s transition from co-chair of Trump’s transition team to a pivotal role in shaping U.S. economic policy.

Of note: Trump said that the Commerce Secretary would have “additional direct responsibility for the Office of the United States Trade Representative.” The phrase means that Trump may try to fold the latter position within the Commerce Department, a move that has been tried before to combine government trade work.

Trump’s trade agenda is heavily focused on imposing substantial tariffs, particularly targeting China. He has proposed a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and 10-20% tariffs on imports from other countries. Lutnick has been a vocal supporter of these tariffs, suggesting they could replace income tax revenue over time. He believes that by making American businesses more competitive through tariffs, it could lead to lower overall tax rates.

Lutnick’s vision aligns with Trump’s historical approach to trade, which emphasizes protectionism to bolster U.S. manufacturing and reduce reliance on imports. During a recent rally, Lutnick remarked that America’s economic prosperity in the early 1900s was due to tariffs rather than income taxes, indicating his belief in a return to such policies. Lutnick has said the incoming administration would use tariffs as a bargaining chip with other countries. “We’ll make a bunch of money on the tariffs, but mostly everybody else is going to negotiate with us,” he said on CNBC.

Lutnick’s appointment signals an aggressive stance on trade that could lead to increased tensions with trading partners. The Commerce Department plays a crucial role in enforcing tariffs and negotiating trade agreements, which may become contentious under Lutnick’s leadership. Economists have expressed concerns that such high tariffs could lead to retaliatory measures from other nations, potentially resulting in higher prices for consumers and disruptions in global supply chains.

On China, Lutnick has accused the country of being the source of fentanyl in the US, saying that “China is attacking America from its guts.” Kevin Chen, associate research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, told the South China Morning Post, “There is little question that he will push forward with tariffs That being said, he has also suggested that the tariffs could be used to negotiate trade deals with other countries,” he said. Chen suggested that the choice of Lutnick —alongside other China hawks joining Trump’s team including Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Mike Waltz as national security adviser — could be “very dangerous for U.S./China relations” given the Commerce Department’s oversight of export controls.

“Lutnick is likely to focus tariffs on China’s manufacturing sector, especially for goods that the U.S. already produces. The likelihood of this leading to another U.S./China trade war is too high to ignore,” he said. “Lutnick fits in well with the trend of Trump’s cabinet picks … [as] he’s a China hawk who shares Trump’s strong views on the threat posed by China and how to address it.”

Asked about Lutnick’s nomination, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said he would not comment on U.S. internal affairs but added that a trade war “will not produce any winner and is in no one’s interest.”

Treasury Secretary Possibilities

Trump is taking a closer look at Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) to potentially serve as Treasury Secretary, Axios reports. Hagerty, a former private-equity investor who was Trump’s ambassador to Japan, is one of three apparent finalists, along with former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and Apollo CEO Marc Rowan. The Treasury position is key as the Cabinet member will play in a key role in major issues, including:

Rising federal debt
Enacting Trump’s tax cut plan
Helping implement Trump’s tariff plans
Coming up with pay-for plans
Keeping inflation low
Implementing 45Z and other biofuel tax incentive programs (IRS)

U.S. businesses brace for potential Trump tariffs.

American companies are accelerating inventory orders ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration, fearing the implementation of his proposed tariffs on imports. Trump has suggested levies of 10-20% on all imports and up to 60% on Chinese goods. Firms are also strategizing for potential impacts, including price adjustments and diversifying away from Chinese manufacturers, the Wall Street Journal reports ( link ).

Tariffs and Pricing Impacts

Walmart acknowledged the retailer would probably raise prices on some goods if Donald Trump moves forward with plans to enact sweeping tariffs. Walmart’s CFO John David Rainey stated that prices on some items may increase but it is uncertain which products might see price hikes due to the tariffs. A Walmart spokesperson indicated that any price changes are speculative, but future tariff-induced costs could burden sensitive shoppers.

Lowe’s words were more circumspect, with the home-improvement retailer’s executives noting tariffs would lift costs but also saying they were waiting to see what happens when the new administration takes office in January.

Walmart said shoppers are resilient but are still spending more on food than they have historically.

Lowe’s said homeowners are still waiting for lower interest rates to embark on big home-improvement projects.

Your Next Read: Could Trump Actually Be Good for U.S. Ag Trade?

Ag Groups Say Stabenow’s Lame-Duck Farm Bill is Lame; Gets Lambasted for Timing, Details

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 21:05:00 GMT

Most farm bill observers wonder why Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) even bothered to release text of her long-awaited farm bill at this late date , especially after seeing its contents. Even always optimistic House Ag Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) signaled it’s time to focus on a 2018 Farm Bill extension by year’s end.

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) characterized Stabenow’s dead-before-arrival measure as “insulting.” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) released more extensive and biting remarks, saying:

“This morning, Chairwoman Stabenow released her Farm Bill text — a 1,400-page document that no Republican committee member has reviewed or had the opportunity to collaborate on. This is not a sincere or transparent effort to address the urgent needs of Rural America. Instead, it is a last-minute power play in the final hours- manipulating her majority power in the Senate Ag Committee before losing the gavel. Today’s move shows that Senate Democrats have walked away from meaningful bipartisan negotiations that are a tradition in this committee and have opted to play politics with the livelihoods of hard-working farmers and ranchers at a time when Rural America needs real solutions… With farmers facing record decreases in net farm income, we must put FARM back in the Farm Bill by increasing crop insurance coverage and reference prices for the American farmer.”

Stabenow offered the Republicans very little other than agreeing to language regarding Commodity Credit Corporation funding restrictions, thereby boosting the farm bill baseline. But she gave nothing on her must-not-change items dealing with food and nutrition and conservation funding. Stabenow previously chided the GOP House plan on CCC as using “magic math and wishful thinking” but now she is willing to use that same math for CCC and put it toward some additional funding.

More on Stabenow’s CCC Flip-Flop

The bill would provide $39 billion in increased funding by restricting USDA’s use of the CCC from 2025 through 2030 unless the department has congressional authority. The bill says the CCC “is authorized to use its general powers only to carry out operations as Congress may specifically authorize or provide for.”

The Congressional Budget Office would be directed to estimate the savings of the provision at $6.7 billion per year. As we previously noted, the provision could potentially restrict the ability of the Trump administration to provide aid offset the impact of retaliatory tariffs.

She told reporters her bill “embraces” the Republicans’ method of paying for increased commodity program funding, referring to the CCC restriction. She said the bill also would provide $2 billion in payments to farmers faster than they get them now under the 2018 Farm Bill.

Now What?

The death knell has sounded on the latest attempt to get a farm bill this calendar year, a fate most thought would be the case after Stabenow didn’t release text of her bill after the House Ag Committee, with the help of some Democrats, cleared its version in May.

It took Stabenow over five months to release the anemic farm bill version filed on Monday. Efforts are now gaining momentum to get a market price relief measure as part of some must-pass legislation yet this year.

The hope is that farmer payments under that legislation (similar to but likely different from a measure by GOP Rep. Trent Kelly of Mississippi) will be built into a new farm bill baseline, providing more funding whenever farm-state lawmakers pick up the Stabenow pieces and actually get serious about writing a farm bill in 2025, or even 2026.

With Thompson remaining as House Ag Chairman in the new Congress, and Boozman taking the top Ag gavel in the Senate, a more serious attempt at an omnibus farm bill is very likely, especially dealing with likely new Senate Ag ranking member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) who has a track record of working across the aisle. She is also less fixated on specialty crops than Stabenow is, and instead will focus on corn, soybeans and wheat, key crops in Minnesota. Klobuchar said on the Senate floor Monday that lawmakers should do “anything we can” to finish a new farm bill by the end of the year.

Disaster Aid More a December Timeline Than November

Despite the Biden administration asking Congress to provide $24 billion in aid to the U.S. ag sector, as part of a $98.4 billion disaster aid package, Congress will likely modify key provisions when they return after a one-week Thanksgiving break. Look for farm-state lawmakers to include specific language on the operation of the coming ag disaster funding to avoid how USDA implemented the last aid to farmers.

Of note: Of the $24 billion for agriculture $21 billion would allow USDA to compensate farmers and ranchers for crop and livestock losses. This is significantly above the around $14 billion in disaster aid recently cited by a USDA official.

More on timing:House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Monday that lawmakers will now “go to work” evaluating the disaster aid request, noting that estimating recovery costs is “a deliberate process.”

With many Republicans campaigning on reducing federal spending, there could be some debate about portions of Biden’s request. Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to hear Wednesday from the heads of several of the government agencies that would receive funding through Biden’s request.

It’s possible that emergency aid could be attached to any spending bill designed to keep federal agencies operating after current funding expires Dec. 20. But disaster aid will probably be packaged with a stopgap at the end of the calendar year, senior appropriator Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told reporters.

“There’ll be some back and forth, and I’d imagine it probably would all ride on the end,” Capito said.

Could Trump Actually Be Good for U.S. Ag Trade?

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 20:52:49 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has released a slew of key cabinet and advisory picks at a historic pace the past two weeks, but the agriculture industry is waiting on two key selections — Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative.

The Financial Times previously reported Robert Lighthizer could make an encore performance as the U.S. Trade Representative under Trump , but nothing official has been announced.

“Trump and Bob Lighthizer are two peas in a pod when it comes to using tariffs to get what they want in amongst our trading allies,” says Jim Wiesemeyer, Pro Farmer Washington correspondent.

If it’s a repeat of the last time, Lighthizer held that seat, there will be an increased focus on trade and using tariffs, which comes as no surprise since that was a major point on the campaign trail

“President-elect Trump was so strong on doing tariffs before that, it’s very likely that he’ll follow through now,” Mary Kay Thatcher, who’s the senior lead for federal government relations at Syngenta, told “AgDay’s” Michelle Rook. “I mean, he’s talked about at a minimum 20% tariffs on everybody. He’s talked about 60% on China, who will likely fall to two or three, but still a very important market. And he’s talked about putting them on Mexico. If Mexico doesn’t stop as many people coming across the border.”

Tariffs were the talk of the campaign trail, not just on commodities, but even ag equipment that’s imported on.

Ag groups want a focus back on trade, but they are also concerned it could come at a cost.

“Mexico, Canada, China are always our No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 three ag markets,” Thatcher says. “And so, a lot of concern in agricultural circles about the fact that most likely that’s where the retaliation starts first.”

Reality of a Growing Ag Trade Deficit

As tariff talk heats up, there are still tariffs in place today, and a growing ag trade deficit that’s glaring for U.S. agriculture. The ag trade deficit is expected to balloon to $42 billion in 2025, under the current administration. And Indiana farmer Kip Tom, who served as the ambassador to the United Nations in the first Trump administration, argues the focus back on trade could bode well for ag.

“When Trump was president, we did nearly 50 trade deals around the world,” Tom told “AgDay’s” Clinton Griffiths in an interview. “He did the Phase One deal with China. And granted, we didn’t get to Phase Two or Phase Three, but the reality is he got to put together and he got started following the trade war that we had with him for a little bit. So, I think trade is going to be No. 1.”

Tom says Trump’s next four years will be looking at new trade deals, but today, groups like U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) also want any trade negotiations to do no harm, especially considering some meat exports have actually grown this year, in spite of the widening U.S. ag trade deficit.

“I think if you look at 2024 pork exports, we’re pulling our weight. We’re going to have record volume and record value this year, approaching $8.5 billion or so on the pork side,” says Dan Halstrom, CEO of USMEF.

Mexico Becomes U.S. Top Buyer

Halstrom says record demand from pork is broad based, but the No. 1 buyer is Mexico.

“Mexico is being driven by everything,” Halstrom says. “I mean, food service, retail, convenience stores. The buying power of the Mexican trade has been record breaking but also a little bit amazing.”

Earlier this year, Mexico bumped out China as the top trading partner for the U.S. But in the final days of Trump’s presidential campaign, he threated to impose 25% tariffs on all Mexican imports if Mexico didn’t tighten the border. And Mexico’s economy minister said it’s considering retaliatory tariffs of its own.

“I think as long as we don’t have any disruption, then yes, I think the strong export pace is very well positioned to continue,” Halstrom says. “Of course, you have new administrations coming in with a lot of talk about the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). But as long as we stay within the confines of the USMCA agreement and follow that, I think we’re well positioned to continue this momentum in Mexico.”

Dairy and the Importance of USCMA

Another protein seeing positive demand from Mexico through the USMCA is dairy.

“When the administration first negotiated USMCA, which was do no harm to what’s working well, and for us, dairy continues to be overall a really positive relationship. So, working to help preserve that,” says Shawna Morris, executive vice president of trade policy and global affairs at National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council.

The relationship with Mexico within USMCA has been a positive for dairy, but it’s the Canadian side of the agreement that needs work, according to Morris.

“I mean, they’re flat out not doing what they promised to do. And I just don’t see any way around calling them on the carpet for that,” Morris says. “Yes, they eked out a win in the last dispute settlement case the U.S. brought against them, but if one judge had changed their mind, though, we would have been on the winning side. It’s just a three-person panel. This isn’t gospel here; we’re talking about what Canada’s doing is shady. It needs fixed.”

She says between the way Canada administers the dairy tariff rate quota quantities to U.S. competitors, to their excessive exports of dairy protein, dairy is a piece of USMCA that needs to be addressed.

“The last administration tried to deal with that in USMCA,” Morris says. “We had some disciplines to try to tackle it in the agreement. And Canada has found some workarounds that both of those issues are going to need to be on the table. I think just in terms of UCMCA, it’s clean-up and follow through.”

The Biggest Wild Card: China

Even with southeast Asia, Latin America and Mexico carrying the weight for dairy exports, China is still the biggest wild card. We asked Morris if China does retaliate against Trump’s threatened 60% tariffs, if it would have the same impact as it did during the last trade war.

“China, even though it has pulled back on its global dairy imports, it’s still our third-largest export market,” Morris says. “So, it’s a pretty sizable market and difficult to place out into other markets the volume of that production, but I think what we also saw the first time around, in addition to the pain and disruption caused by the retaliatory tariffs that were imposed, was at the end of the process progress having been made.

Phase One Trade Deal with China

Progress in the form of the U.S. China Phase One agreement, which as Tom noted, was negotiated under Trump’s first term. Morris describes that deal as useful for dairy.

“We had a number of different non-tariff barriers, issues that were a drag on our ability to be able to reliably export to that market. And the phase one agreement included progress and dealt with a whole handful of those,” Morris says. “So, I’d say, yes, there’s upheaval. We’ve also seen from the first time around that that can yield significant progress in certain respects, and we’re hopeful that that’s more of what we’ll see this time around.”

China has also scaled back on their buys of U.S. pork, with exports down 11% so far this year, but Halstrom points out even with increased tariffs now entering the picture again, tariffs the past four years never went away.

“The thing to remember on these tariffs is, we’ve had a tariff now for quite a few years on China, on both beef and pork, and it’s not the ideal situation, but it doesn’t it doesn’t eliminate trade,” Halstrom says. “We ended up doing $2 billion in sales on beef with a tariff in 2022, I believe was the year. A lot of that came as a result of the phase one agreement in 2020, but people sometimes forget that there was a tariff involved, and we still had a pretty good outcome.”

Two weeks after the election, and Trump’s playbook seems to be unfolding quickly with all his cabinet picks. But some argue those tariffs might just be threats at first.

“Here’s what the Republicans tell me,” Wiesemeyer says. “Trump isn’t going to invoke these across-the-board tariffs right away. He’s going to use that as leverage to countries looking at their trade relationship with the U.S., and his key word is ‘reciprocity.’ If you don’t treat us like we treat you, then I’m going to invoke tariffs.”

Those close to Trump seem to be in alignment: the U.S. needs fair trade.

“When we’re spending $500 billion in China, and they’re only spending $350 billion with us, we need to level that out a little bit. And maybe it means more agriculture trade going into China to balance that trade out,” Tom says. “I’m very optimistic on trade with Trump. I have no doubts that we’ll get things put together. He knows farmers don’t like to get their money from the government; they like to get it from the market. And so, I’m really excited about that when we talk about trade. But yet, I know everybody’s pretty edgy about it at this point in time.”

Your Next Read: Do Tariffs Work? The Answer Isn’t As Straightforward As You May Think

Why John Thune's Election as Senate Majority Leader is Considered Beneficial for U.S. Agriculture

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:50:43 GMT

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) wins Majority Leader race. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was eliminated on the first ballot. And Thune beat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) 29-24 on the second ballot.

The Thune selection is good for the U.S. ag sector. He has one of the best staff in Congress.

The leadership race unfolded in two rounds of voting: 

In the first ballot, Scott was eliminated. 
In the second and final ballot, Thune secured 29 votes, defeating Cornyn, who received 24 votes.

Donald Trump stayed out of the contest but did make public demands that the incoming majority leader allow him to make recess appointments to his Cabinet. All three men quickly agreed.

Thune’s election as Majority Leader is considered beneficial for the U.S. ag sector for several reasons: 

Agricultural background: Thune has a deep background in ag policy and is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
Farm bill experience: He has been involved in writing several farm bills, demonstrating his expertise in agricultural legislation. 
Conservation programs: Thune is an avid supporter of conservation title programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program and Conservation Reserve Program.
Bipartisan approach: He is a skilled negotiator, working for the benefit of all.
Constituency focus: Coming from South Dakota, an agriculture-based state, Thune is likely to keep agricultural interests at the forefront of his agenda.  • Experienced staff: Thune has one of the best staffs in Congress, which can be crucial for effective policymaking and implementation.

Of note: This leadership change marks the end of Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) 18-year tenure as the Senate’s Republican leader. Thune will assume the role of Majority Leader for the next two years, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump’s second term. While Thune has had differences with Trump in the past, he has recently worked to improve their relationship and has pledged to advance Trump’s legislative agenda.

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:36:34 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has selected former New York congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in his upcoming administration. This appointment signals a potential shift in environmental policy and regulatory approach. Here are the key points about this nomination:

• Zeldin is a former Republican congressman who represented New York’s 1st congressional district from 2015 to 2023.
• He lacks extensive experience in environmental policy, having not served on committees with direct oversight of environmental issues during his time in Congress.
• Zeldin has a lifetime score of only 14% from the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a record of frequently voting against environmental legislation.

Trump stated that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.” The administration aims to maintain “the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet” while pursuing deregulation.

Zeldin is expected to focus on restoring “U.S. energy dominance” and revitalizing the auto industry.

He may be tasked with rolling back several Biden administration environmental regulations, particularly those targeting power plant pollution and vehicle emissions. There are plans to end the pause on constructing new natural gas export terminals and potentially withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Zeldin joined Trump and Sen.-elect Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania for a roundtable on agriculture during Trump’s campaign in September. Zeldin praised Trump for addressing the “threat” of foreign entities buying U.S. agricultural land and highlighted Trump’s trade policies, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which prioritized American farmers and strengthened supply chain resiliency.

Of note to the biofuels sector, In November 2015, Zeldin and several other members of Congress sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns about the proposed 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The lawmakers worried that the proposed 2016 RVOs would require blending more ethanol than could be absorbed by the E10 gasoline market, effectively “breaking through” the blend wall. There were concerns that exceeding the blend wall could drive up the price of E10 gasoline for consumers. Ultimately, the EPA did finalize 2016 RVOs that were lower than originally proposed in the RFS statute, but still represented an increase over previous years. The agency attempted to balance the competing interests and technical constraints in the fuel market.

Meanwhile, discussions are underway about possibly relocating the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C.

Environmental advocates criticized the nomination, viewing it as a potential regression in environmental policy. Zeldin’s record includes opposition to several climate-related bills and support for increased fossil fuel production.

Zeldin’s appointment as EPA Administrator will require Senate confirmation.

Who Will Be the Next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture?

Thu, 07 Nov 2024 18:44:23 GMT

Donald Trump won all battleground states in a virtual red wall. Trump is the first candidate in over a century to reclaim the White House after losing it. Trump, who won election in 2016 as the 45th president, now will be the 47th and just the second candidate in U.S. history to win nonconsecutive White House terms.

Now that the results are in, it begs the question: Who will be the new USDA Secretary? That parlor game has returned with a host of possibilities which include:

Abel Maldonado, said to be at or near the top of possibilities, was former California Lt. Gov. from April 27, 2010, to Jan. 10, 2011. He is the oldest son of immigrant field workers and grew up working alongside his father picking strawberries to help support the family. He ran unsuccessfully for California’s 24th congressional district in 2012 and briefly ran for governor in the 2014 election. He was considered for USDA Secretary by Donald Trump in 2017, but was not ultimately nominated. He is currently the owner of Runway Vineyards in Santa Maria, California.
Zippy Duval, American Farm Bureau President, serving in that role since January 2016. He is a third-generation farmer from Georgia with deep roots in agriculture. He operates a dairy farm on land in Georgia, currently raising beef cattle and broiler chickens. He produces over 750,000 broilers per year with his wife, Jennifer. Prior to his role as AFBF President, Duvall served as the President of the Georgia Farm Bureau for nine years.
Kip Tom, Indiana farmer who transformed his family’s farm, Tom Farms, into one of the largest farming operations in Indiana. From April 2019 to January 2021, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, based in Rome, Italy.
Former House Ag Chairman Mike Conaway, now a private consultant. He is the only person out there, not in office, who’s negotiated a farm bill; led an investigation resulting in debunking the Russia hoax; auditor who would turn USDA upside down investigating where all the debt relief and climate money has gone; knows rural America; aligned with Trump on needed SNAP reforms.
Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller, serving in this role since January 2015. Miller was born in 1955 in De Leon, Texas and has deep roots in the state’s agriculture industry. He is a cattle rancher, farmer, and owner of a commercial nursery business. He served six terms as a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 2001 to 2013. He was first elected as Texas Agriculture Commissioner in 2014 and re-elected in 2018 and 2022. He granted “amnesty to cupcakes” as his first official action, drawing attention to the repeal of a ban on junk food in schools. Recently issued an executive order allowing Texas farmers to use water from the Rio Grande for irrigation, addressing water shortage concerns. Miller has faced criticism. He awarded significant bonuses to staffers and created high-paying positions for political allies early in his tenure. Miller has recently been sounding the alarm about water shortages in Texas, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley.
Rep Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). He is a rebel House conservative that most consider a long shot choice.
Ray Starling: A prominent figure in American agriculture policy and law with extensive experience in both the public and private sectors. Currently serves as the general counsel of the N.C. Chamber and president of the N.C. Chamber Legal Institute. In these roles, he sets litigation strategy and leads public policy development, focusing on issues affecting businesses in North Carolina. Previously, Starling held several high-profile positions in the federal government: Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue; Principal agriculture advisor to the President of the United States at the White House; Special Assistant to the President for Agriculture, Trade and Food Assistance on the White House National Economic Council. He also worked as Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel for U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis. He grew up on a Century Family Farm in southeastern North Carolina.
Ted McKinney, CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Before that he was Undersecretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs (2017-2021); Director of the Indiana State Department of Agriculture (2014-2017): He served in this capacity before his appointment to the federal government. McKinney worked for 19 years with Dow AgroSciences and 14 years with Elanco, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, where he was Director of Global Corporate Affairs.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who ran briefly for the Republican presidential nomination against Trump before campaigning for him. His term expires in December. Burgum is also being considered for other Cabinet positions. Of note: Every agriculture secretary since Mike Johanns in 2005 was a former governor.

— Potential candidates for U.S. Trade Representative in a second Trump administration include:

Robert Lighthizer is seen as a top contender to reprise his role as U.S. Trade Representative. However, reports signal Lighthizer wants to be either Commerce Secretary or Treasury Secretary. As Trump’s USTR during his first term, Lighthizer was a key figure in implementing Trump’s trade policies, including leading negotiations for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to replace NAFTA; Overseeing trade negotiations and disputes with China; Advocating for and implementing tariffs on various imports. Lighthizer remains close with Trump and is widely viewed as a leading candidate for USTR or another top economic post, especially given Trump’s promises to pursue even more aggressive trade policies in a second term.
Bill Hagerty. The Tennessee senator and former ambassador to Japan under Trump is considered a contender for multiple Cabinet posts, including USTR.
Jamieson Greer. Served as chief of staff to Lighthizer at USTR during Trump’s first term and is reportedly a top choice to lead the office.
Robert O’Brien. Trump’s former national security advisor is seen as a candidate for Secretary of State or other foreign policy roles, which could potentially include USTR.

Of note: Trump has expressed a desire to pursue even more aggressive trade policies, including broader tariffs, in a potential second term. This suggests he may favor someone like Lighthizer who has a track record of implementing such policies. However, the final selection will likely depend on various factors as Trump assembles his full economic and foreign policy teams.

— Who will be Donald Trump’s chief of staff? This is one of the most important personnel decisions Trump faces. There are several prominent contenders being considered for the position:

Brooke Rollins: A trusted Trump associate and CEO of the America First Policy Institute, Rollins is seen as a top contender for the Chief of Staff role. She previously served as an advisor on domestic policy during Trump’s first term and is perceived as a more moderate Trump ally.
Susie Wiles: Having led Trump’s successful 2024 campaign, Wiles is also being considered for the Chief of Staff position. Her pivotal role in Trump’s electoral success, particularly after joining his campaign following her work on Ron DeSantis’ campaign in Florida, has put her in a strong position for this role.
Kevin McCarthy: The former House Speaker, who had an unceremonious exit from Washington in October 2023, is widely seen as a top contender for the Chief of Staff position. McCarthy’s intimate knowledge of how Washington works is considered a significant asset for this role. Some people, however, say he likes the money he is making currently.
Robert Lighthizer: While primarily known for his role as a trade representative, Lighthizer is also mentioned as a potential candidate for Chief of Staff. However, he is also being considered for other positions such as Treasury Secretary or Commerce Secretary.

Bottom line: The final selection will likely depend on various factors, including their relationship with Trump, their ability to navigate Washington politics, and their alignment with Trump’s vision for his second term.

Your Next Read: Washington Insiders Weigh in on What the Election Means for Agriculture

Trump Return Likely to Slow, Not Stop, U.S. Clean-energy Boom

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 21:40:48 GMT

Donald Trump’s return to the White House will refocus the nation’s energy policy onto maximizing oil and gas production and away from fighting climate change, but the Republican win in Tuesday’s presidential election is unlikely to dramatically slow the U.S. renewable energy boom.

Investor fears of a reversal under Trump sent clean-energy stocks down sharply on Wednesday. The MAC Global Solar Energy index was down 10% in midday trade, while shares of top renewable project developer and owner NextEra Energy slid 6.2%.

A Biden-era law providing a decade of lucrative subsidies for new solar, wind and other clean-energy projects would be near-impossible to repeal, however, thanks to support from Republican states, while other levers available to the next president would only have marginal impact, analysts say.

“I don’t think a Trump president can slow the transition,” said Ed Hirs, energy fellow at the University of Houston. “This is well under way.”

Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are the fastest-growing segments on the power grid, according to the Department of Energy, driven by federal tax credits, state renewable-energy mandates, and technology advancements that have lowered their costs.

President Joe Biden in 2022 signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act guaranteeing billions of dollars of solar and wind subsidies for another decade as part of his broader effort to decarbonize the power sector by 2035 to fight climate change.

Before the election, Trump slammed the IRA as being too expensive and promised to rescind all unspent funds allocated by the law - a threat that, if accomplished, could pour cold water over the U.S. clean energy boom. But dismantling the IRA would require lawmakers, including those whose states have benefited from IRA-related investments such as solar-panel factories, wind farms and other projects, to vote to repeal it.

“The jobs and the economic benefits have been so heavy in red states, it’s hard to see an administration come in that says, ‘we don’t like this,’” said Carl Fleming, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery, who advised the Biden White House on renewable energy policy.

Many of Trump’s allies also benefit from the IRA through their investments in clean-energy technologies, Reuters has previously reported.

Fleming said Trump could, however, slow things down around the margins by hindering federal agencies that deliver IRA grants and loans, or by reducing federal leasing for things such as offshore wind.

“You could see a new administration come in and they can very quickly begin to cut budgets or restrict budgets or restrict the freedom of agencies to do certain things that are tied to funding,” he said. “But I think that’s a smaller subset of the larger renewables market that’s really relying on those, so I don’t think it would have a shocking effect.”

The Biden administration has rushed to ensure it spends the majority of available grant funding under the IRA before a new president arrives, Reuters has previously reported.

One way Trump could slow the transition is through executive action by changing public lands leasing, analysts said. The Biden administration had sought to expand lease auctions for offshore wind in federal waters, along with solar and wind on land.

“I think you would see more preference given to fossil-fuel extraction on public lands and waters,” said Tony Dutzik, associate director and senior policy analyst at Frontier Group, a non-profit sustainability think-tank.

That could have an outsized impact on the offshore-wind industry, which aims to site projects in federal waters. Most onshore solar and wind projects are located on private property, as is the vast majority of oil and gas drilling. Trump has said he intends to end the offshore-wind industry “on day one,” arguing it is too expensive and poses a threat to whales and seabirds, a dramatic policy reversal after his first administration supported offshore-wind development.

Bernstein Research said Trump is likely to enact a moratorium on new offshore-wind lease sales. Meanwhile, U.S. fossil-fuel production is likely to look much the same under Trump, experts said. The U.S. has already become the world’s largest oil and gas producer, under the watch of Biden, thanks to a drilling boom in fields such as the Permian Basin under Texas and New Mexico.

The production boom started under former President Barack Obama and has continued through the Trump and Biden presidencies. Even so, Trump’s campaign has sought to claim credit, saying his efforts to slash regulatory red tape during his 2017-2021 term paved the way, and arguing he could further expand U.S. fossil-fuel production in a second term by rolling back Biden’s climate initiatives.

“Presidents can make a lot of noise about plans for U.S. oil and gas, but ultimately it’s individuals and companies responding to prices of a global commodity that make the decisions on when to drill,” said Jesse Jones, head of North American upstream at Energy Aspects.

Dan Eberhart, Trump donor and CEO of oilfield-services company Canary, LLC, said he supports Trump’s encouragement of increased oil-and-gas drilling, saying it could further lower energy prices for businesses and consumers.

He added he would also welcome a move by Trump to once again withdraw the United States from international climate cooperation, like he did in his first term, arguing other big greenhouse-gas emitters were not doing enough.

“The Paris accord was aspirational and meaningless if China and India don’t participate,” he said, referring to a landmark U.N. deal in 2015 to limit global warming.

Buoyed by Stronger Support from Rural America than 2016, Trump Wins Second Term as President

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 13:58:29 GMT

Donald Trump won all battleground states in a virtual red wall while the blue wall (Pa., Wis., Mich.) cratered for Democratic challenger Kamala Harris as she faced the greatest political comeback in U.S. history.

Trump also won battleground states of North Carolina and Georgia and was close in Nevada and Arizona, two states not yet officially called. It looks like Trump will eventually garner over 300 electoral votes. Trump is the first candidate in over a century to reclaim the White House after losing it. Trump, who won election in 2016 as the 45th president, now will be the 47th and just the second candidate in U.S. history to win nonconsecutive White House terms.

The Republican Party was on track to win the popular vote for the first time since 2004.

“America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate,” Trump told supporters as he declared victory.

Trump garnered even stronger support in rural America versus his still robust rural vote in this first administration. That is likely a backlash against the ag policy moves of the Biden/Harris administration that focused on underserved and minority rural citizens.

Trump also won strong support among working-class voters. The AP VoteCast survey, which included more than 120,000 registered voters nationally, showed he won 55% of voters without a college degree. That was up from 51% in 2020 in his race against Biden. Harris, meanwhile, struggled to pull together the diverse coalition that elected Biden in 2020, and she was weighed down by negative views of the economy under the Biden administration.

— It’s Trump’s GOP and his party has changed in a massive realignment. It now focuses on the working class, younger Americans, including young Black men, and Hispanics. It already focused on rural Americans; Trump gained even more rural votes in this election.

—“A new star is born,” Trump said in his acceptance speech: Elon Musk, who helped Trump and the GOP in campaign funding and messaging. It is unclear what role Musk will play in the next Trump administration, but the president-elect previously said he wants Musk to lead an effort to make the government more efficient. Of note: Musk vowed to keep his political action committee going beyond the presidential election, a sign the world’s richest person is building a political machine to support Trump.

— Republicans did much better than most expected in Senate races, with a likely pickup of four seats, to 53 (perhaps more), up from their 49 total in the current Congress. They include:

• West Va.: Open seat (Joe Manchin). Jim Justice (R) beat Glenn Elliott (D)

• Mont.: Incumbent Jon Tester (D) lost to Tim Sheehy (R)

• Ohio: Incumbent Sherrod Brown (D) lost to Bernie Moreno (R)

• Pa.: Incumbent Bob Casey Jr. (D) lost to Dave McCormick (R)

• Mich.: Open seat (Stabenow). Elissa Slotkin (D) is clinging to a 4,600 vote lead over former GOP Rep. Mike Rogers.

• Wis.: Incumbent Tammy Baldwin (D) is slightly ahead of Eric Hovde (R)… after late results from Milwaukee and Racine put her in the lead.

• Nev.: Incumbent Jacky Rosen (D) leads Republican Sam Brown in both Washoe and in Clark County, where the outstanding vote likely benefits her. With many absentee ballots, this race may not be called for a while, much like the 2022 Senate contest.

• Ariz.: Open (Kirsten Sinema). Ruben Gallego (D) beat Kari Lake (R)

• Neb.: Incumbent Deb Fischer (R) squeaked by Dan Osborn (Independent)

• Texas: Incumbent Ted Cruz (R) beat Colin Allred (D)

• Current GOP Sens. Deb Fischer (Neb.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) both won their races that Democrats thought they had a chance of winning.

— What the GOP Senate tally means: This will mute to some degree GOP Senate moderates in the new Congress, including Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), newly elected John Curtis (Utah) and Bill Cassidy (La.). The Senate GOP count gives Republicans powerful leverage in tax and spending battles.

— Several House races are still too close to call, but it appears Republicans will hold on to its narrow majority in the chamber. But Democrats were leading in some close races and several California races could still tip the House chamber to the Democrats. If the GOP keeps control of the chamber, that means another contentious House Speaker vote perhaps changes in its rules.

— Election winners include:
• Trump and his campaign strategy. Also, Trump’s victory coattails helped Republicans win a few Senate contests previously mentioned and helped keep the House in GOP control.
• GOP issues, including the border, tax/economic/inflation policy, energy, reduced regulations and a push for a reciprocity trade policy.
• Sen. Steve Daines from Montana played a significant role in the 2024 Senate races as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). In this position, he was responsible for leading the Republican efforts to flip control of the Senate from Democratic to Republican majority.

— Losers include:
• Kamala Harris who mostly refused to answer questions and make clear the policies she wanted. Her strategy of focusing on abortion and women voters was not enough to beat Trump.
• Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who led the maneuvers to get President Joe Biden to relinquish his re-election run for president and pushed Harris to pick Tim Walz of Minnesota as her vice president when election experts thought she should have picked Pa. Gov. Josh Shapiro.
• Harris’ campaign strategy that at the end relied on elite musical entertainers, a failed strategy that Hillary Clinton also tried. Nearly $16 billion were spent this election season, with Democrats spending a lot more than Republicans. The GOP saw the benefit of podcasts, which were a free way of getting their message across to voters.
• Pollsters who underestimated Trump voters for the third consecutive presidential election. Another loser: Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, who on Saturday predicted Harris over Trump in Iowa by 3 points; Trump won the state by double digits. Her poll turned out to be an outlier.
• President Biden’s family who helped push him to run for re-election only to wait until it was very late to see him pushed aside and forced to drop out.
• Most of the mainstream (legacy) media who clearly favored Harris and did several things that showed their bias.

— Now what?
• Trump should have learned from mistakes during his first term and will not likely make poor choices of some Cabinet and other personnel who ended up writing negative books about him.
• Trump’s Cabinet: The new GOP Senate next year will be able to provide the votes for Trump to get the Cabinet he wants. Unclear is what role RFK Jr. will play in Trump 2.0. He would not likely be confirmed by the Senate for any Cabinet position.
• High odds that a Trump favorite, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, will come into Trump 2.0 administration, perhaps as Energy Secretary, Burgum will bring ag-related interests relative to the RFS and tax incentive programs like 45Z/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). On global climate policy, Carbon Brief said Trump’s return to the White House would likely result in the U.S. missing its climate pledges “by a wide margin,” though it noted that some Biden administration policies such as a mammoth clean-tech spending program may “prove hard to unpick.”
• The lame-duck session of Congress may be encouraged to complete lingering business, including fiscal year (FY) 2025 funding, disaster aid, and perhaps a new farm bill and an ag economic aid measure.
• Foreign policy: Trump will take a more aggressive role in foreign policy rather than the near pacificist approach taken by Biden/Harris.
• Supreme Court: In the next few years, one to several existing SCOTUS members could likely depart.
• Republicans are now in position to reshape the federal judiciary.

— Budget reconciliation: With Republicans capturing the White House and Senate, and perhaps keeping control of the House, that means several budget reconciliation measures until 2026 elections could alter that situation. That means higher odds that Trump will get a lot of what he wants relative to 2017 Tax Act policies which mostly expire at the end of 2025.

— During the first days of his second term, Trump will issue executive orders dealing with border issues and energy-related matters, topics which Biden altered in recent years. Trump will also put into play that for every new regulation, up to ten regulations must be swept away.

— The ag sector will focus on Trump 2.0’s trade policy. Trump has said “tariffs” is his favorite word in the dictionary and has consistently said he would use them against China. He has also said he would put 10% to 20% tariffs on imports from other countries, but that is seen as leverage in discussions with countries for a key goal of his new term: reciprocal trade agreements. Key will be if former U.S. Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer comes into the new Trump administration as most expect and if so, under what role. It may be as Commerce or Treasury Secretary. Trump recently said he would slap on tariffs against Mexico if their new president doesn’t comply with holding illegal immigrants into her country.

— International reactions to Donald Trump’s return to political prominence:
• Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu referred to the outcome as “history’s greatest comeback,” signaling strong approval and a continued bond between the two leaders.
• Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to Trump as a “friend,” reflecting close ties and potentially anticipating cooperative efforts.
• Cautious optimism from Western leaders: France, Britain, and Italy’s leaders expressed a diplomatic hope for future collaboration, signaling their willingness to maintain stable relations with Trump while hedging their tone.
• Far-right leaders in Europe cheered, indicating ideological alignment or a belief that Trump’s policies resonate with their political goals.
• Measured Response from Ukraine: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave restrained praise by highlighting appreciation for a “peace through strength” approach. This suggests caution from Zelensky, likely stemming from Trump’s past relationship with Russia and potential implications for Ukraine’s security situation.

— Market reactions:
• Bitcoin is bullish on the news as Trump and Musk are supporters. Bitcoin jumped to a record high above $75,000.
• U.S. equities will likely show a continuation of higher levels as Trump’s wins will mean better tax/investment opportunities than if Harris had won.
• Banks, brokers: Robust stock markets and an end to the Biden administration antitrust crackdown should mean more profits for banks and brokers… and less regulation. Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Charles Schwab and Goldman Sachs are all up 6% or more in premarket trading.
• Treasury yields jumped, and the dollar surged on the election results (While Trump has advocated for a weaker dollar, many investors say his policies will achieve the opposite). Treasury yields are soaring on the view that Trump’s agenda — more spending, low taxes, tariffs, restricted immigration — will fuel inflation. The 10-year US Treasury note edged towards 4.5%, a level not seen in about six months, before pulling back a bit. Bitcoin spiked to a record and the Mexican peso lost as much as 3.5%.
• Oil, gold: A stronger greenback makes dollar-denominated commodities more expensive for international buyers, so crude and precious metals are falling.
• The yuan weakened the most in two years and Chinese stocks fell on the specter of Washington slapping tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese goods. The move could further weaken the world’s second-largest economy and disrupt global supply chains.
• Ag markets will be cautious over Trump’s aggressive trade policies. Soybeans dropped given concerns about trade tensions with China, the biggest buyer.
• Federal Reserve policymakers will watch to see if Trump’s policies via across-the-board tariffs and aggressive tax cuts are inflationary.

— A key state ballot issue in South Dakota is poised to have gone against carbon pipelines. This referendum let voters decide whether to uphold a pipeline bill that was passed by legislators. With 82% of votes in, 60% have voted no and 40% voted yes. A no vote would mean the state law in question would be rejected and that raises fresh questions about the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline and similar projects.

Which Presidential Candidate Is More Likely to Tame Inflation or Support Farm Policies and Biofuels?

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:29:26 GMT

The presidential race is a close one , according to election analysts. And when it comes to agriculture, there’s an immense focus on the potential impact on trade, inflation, farm policy and biofuels.

Ahead of the election, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists which presidential candidate will be better for agriculture on taming inflation, providing more certainty on farm policy, as well as more likely to support biofuels policies. The Monthly Monitor is an anonymous survey of 70 ag economists from across the U.S.

On the question of which candidate would be more effective at taming inflation, 53 percent said Donald Trump.
When it comes to providing more certainty on farm policy and crop insurance, 61 percent of economists said Trump will provide more certainty.
However, when looking at policies that benefit biofuels, 53 percent of economists said Kamala Harris.

45Z and Biofuels Tax Credit in Question

Today, there is no clarity on 45Z that’s causing soybean processors like Cargill and Bunge to possibly slow or even idle production by the end of the year.

“We have industry looking to shut down production of biofuel. If we don’t get the 45Z requirements here released soon, and that doesn’t look likely, unfortunately, that’s going to hurt demand for soybean crushing for soybeans per se,” Suderman said.

“The fact that we don’t have those today, I think, is impeding investment in the sector. And people are asking for that before they spend millions of dollars to do that. And I think that has been a hiccup,” said Brown.

Role of the Federal Government

Heading into a crucial election with not just the presidential race, but also the House and Senate, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “What is the most important role of the federal government?”

Forty-six percent of economists ranked financial aid as the top priority. Nearly 43 percent said it’s passing a farm bill.

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“There’s all this discussion that the safety net is inadequate relative to commodity programs, and there’s the potential for some rather large ARC and PLC payments to come,” said Brown. “But are they too late? That’s the question. Is it too late in the cycle? Does any type of ad hoc support through a farm financial package bridge that gap?”

The October survey of economists also asked them to weigh in on the fate of the farm bill. The majority of economists think Congress will pass a new farm bill in 2025, but 21 percent think it could be 2026 before it crosses the finish line.

Farm Bill Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Your Next Reads:

Presidential Poll Results: How Farmers and Economists View Candidates’ Impact on Agriculture

Will USDA Fumble The 45Z Football?

Which Presidential Candidate Would Have the Biggest Impact on Ag?

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

Hours Until the Election, 2024 Presidential Race is a 'Pure Toss-up’

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 16:54:31 GMT

Election analyst Nate Silver described the 2024 presidential race as a “pure toss-up,” giving former President Donald Trump a slight advantage over Vice President Kamala Harris. Silver’s latest forecast indicates Trump has a 51.5% chance of winning the Electoral College, compared to Harris’ 48.1%, as reported on Substack. He noted that while New York Times swing state polls favor Harris and Morning Consult polls lean toward Trump, neither has a decisive lead.

David Wasserman on presidential contest. “As you know, a week ago I considered Trump a 60%-40% favorite. But Trump has had a terrible past week between “floating garbage,” “taking care of women whether they like it or not,” water fluoridation, etc. Might still give him a tiny edge but outlook has tightened considerably the more off-message he’s been.”

Trump said yesterday that if elected, he would consider taking action against vaccines and fluoride in the country’s water supply, two public health issues championed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Wasserman is election analyst for the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

Of note:

The race tightened over the weekend as the Des Moines Register’s final presidential poll shockingly had Harris up three points in the state, underscoring that the election will be closer than current market expectations. The Iowa/Selzer poll has roiled the political betting markets. Following its publication, Trump’s odds of victory fell on platforms including Polymarket, after they had climbed in recent weeks, in tandem with crypto and other elements of the Trump trade. Trump’s odds on Polymarket were at nearly 58% this morning, down from 67% on Wednesday. (Polls measure how voters intend to cast their ballots, while prediction markets track the odds of a candidate’s victory implied by bets on a platform.)

— Tom Essaye from the Sevens Report notes some key points about the 2024 presidential election:
• The 2024 presidential race is shaping up to be extremely tight, despite markets having priced in a Trump victory. While stocks have rallied and Treasury yields have risen on expectations of a Republican win, the reality, he says, is that either candidate could still emerge victorious.
• As Essaye notes, “The Real Clear Politics national average has Trump ahead by just 0.3 points (48.4 to 48.1). That’s razor thin.”
• He emphasizes that in the seven key swing states that will decide the presidency, three have polling differences of less than 1%, while the remaining four are within 3%. The election will likely come down to seven “toss-up” states: Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada. Trump currently leads in all seven according to RCP averages, but by narrow margins.
• Essaye advises watching North Carolina and Georgia early on election night as potential barometers — if Trump wins these decisively it could signal overperformance versus polls, while close races or Harris victories would suggest the opposite.
• Importantly, Essaye points out that winning just the Sun Belt swing states is not enough for either candidate. They must win at least one Rust Belt state (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan) to reach 270 electoral votes. He notes that if Trump wins Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada, but Harris sweeps the Rust Belt, Harris would win 272-268.
• Given the tight race, Essaye warns that we may not have a clear winner on election night or even Wednesday morning. However, markets will likely begin pricing in the probable outcome based on early results and projections. Overall, his analysis underscores that despite market expectations of a Trump win, the election remains very much up for grabs heading into voting day.

— Overseas Americans seen as key factor in tight 2024 presidential race. Americans living abroad — numbering at least 4.4 million with 2.8 million eligible to vote — are becoming a focus for both parties in the tight presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, Time reports ( link ). Historically low overseas voter turnout, only 7.8% in 2020, prompts efforts by Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas to mobilize voters, emphasizing digital outreach and local campaigns. Key issues include foreign policy and “double taxation,” a rare bipartisan concern. Trump pledged to end overseas tax filing requirements, highlighting the expat vote’s potential. However, GOP lawsuits challenging overseas ballots in swing states were rejected by courts, with critics calling such actions voter suppression.

— In the final days leading up to the presidential election, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were actively campaigning across key swing states. Trump, in Pennsylvania, used fiery rhetoric, joking about extreme measures against media and making baseless claims that Democrats were attempting to steal the election. He also expressed lingering resentment over his 2020 loss, suggesting he “shouldn’t have left” office.

Kamala Harris adopted a hopeful and unifying tone during her campaign stop in Michigan. She aimed to appeal to voters by promising a break from fear-driven politics and pledged to work toward ending the conflict in Gaza. Her focus on Michigan reflects its strategic importance in securing a pathway to victory through the rust belt states, which are crucial for Democratic success.

Today’s agenda: Harris will spend her final day of campaigning in Pennsylvania, with rallies in Allentown, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Trump will be in three battleground states, holding events in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

— NBC aired a short video message from Donald Trump after coming under fire for allowing Harris to appear on Saturday Night Live, a sketch-comedy show, on Saturday. On the program, Harris told her mirror-image to “keep calm-ala and carry on-ala” and poked fun at her opponent. A member of the Federal Communications Commission suggested that the appearance violated the “equal time” rules that govern political programming.

— D.C. gears up with heightened security measures ahead of presidential election. Washington, D.C., is ramping up security as authorities and businesses brace for potential unrest following Tuesday’s presidential election, the Washington Post reports ( link ). New security fencing has been set up around the White House, Capitol, and Vice President Kamala Harris’s residence. The city, still marked by 2020’s protests and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, has prepared for possible disruption by deploying all 3,300 police officers on 12-hour shifts. Business owners have reinforced properties with private security and boarded windows as a precaution, despite officials saying there is no credible threat. The Secret Service emphasized that the measures are part of broad public safety preparations.

— The dollar index falls the most in more than a month as polling data signaled the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris might be edging ahead in some swing states. Bonds and stock futures rose. Cash trade in U.S. Treasuries trade was closed in Asian trading hours as markets in Japan were closed for a public holiday. In stocks, traders are betting on volatility with the closely watched “fear index” signaling rising market stress.

— U.S. interest rate cuts are returning, with the Fed expected to announce a 25-basis-point cut on Thursday. Traders are anticipating this move, and there remains one more opportunity for a cut in December. However, JPMorgan’s strategy chief noted that a potential Trump election win could make the Fed reconsider further rate reductions.

— Harris vs. Trump: How their policies would affect U.S. consumers. The policies of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump present stark differences with significant implications for U.S. consumers:
• Investing: Trump aims to lower the corporate tax rate from 21%, potentially boosting corporate earnings, while Harris plans to raise it, which could have the opposite effect.
• Cost of Goods: Both propose tariff policies, but Trump’s more aggressive 10%-20% tariffs on imports may increase consumer prices. Harris seeks a federal ban on price gouging during emergencies.
• Housing: Harris aims to build 3 million housing units to increase supply, while Trump focuses on reducing demand through immigration measures, including deportations and restricting mortgages for undocumented immigrants.
• Taxes: Trump plans to extend tax cuts, fueling investments by companies and individuals, while Harris’ tax plans focus on aiding lower-income Americans while pledging to not raise taxes for those earning under $400,000 and to institute a minimum tax on billionaires.
• Childcare: Both propose expanding the child tax credit, but Harris wants to cap childcare costs at 7% of family income. Neither has addressed funding childcare facilities or workforce hiring.

— Control of the Senate is at stake in Tuesday’s election, with Republicans favored to win the majority, but Democrats still have a chance. Despite challenges, including the retirement of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin making the map tougher for them, Democrats’ well-funded candidates have often outperformed expectations in key races. Additionally, potential Democratic gains have emerged in states like Texas and Nebraska, providing opportunities to counterbalance Republican advances.

The Cook Political Report sees the GOP gaining control of the Senate with 51-54 seats.

Most see control of the House, like the White House, a jump ball.

— China’s legislature begins crucial session on economic stimulus amid investor concerns over potential Trump tariffs. The Standing Committee of China’s legislature has begun an important five-day session in Beijing, where economic stimulus measures are set to be discussed. The measures approved during this meeting are expected to signal the leadership’s approach to handling the country’s economic challenges. Key elements of the anticipated package include potential bank recapitalization, refinancing of local government debt, and possible support for households. This package will be closely watched by investors looking for signs that Chinese policymakers understand the gravity of the economic situation and are prepared to allocate sufficient resources to address it.

Another significant concern for investors is how China will respond if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election. Trump has threatened severe tariffs of 60% on Chinese imports, which, according to UBS, could reduce China’s GDP growth by 2.5 percentage points over the following year. If such tariffs are implemented, China might need to adopt a more aggressive economic stimulus to counteract the impact.

Your Next Read: Which Presidential Candidate Would Have the Biggest Impact on Ag?

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:21:38 GMT

In September, 75 percent of ag economists warned of an impending agricultural recession. October brought slight optimism to the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, attributed to rising U.S. corn export demand and forecasts about cattle herd rebuilding. Yet, economists remain cautious about the potential impact of the upcoming election.

Harvest is winding down across the Midwest, and some farmers saw a record harvest pace in 2024. Harvest is typically the time of year the market sets harvest lows, but this year, commodities, like corn and wheat, came to life.

“I think over the last month, we’ve seen a little bit of a rebound or stabilization of prices, if you will. Some of that’s simply been fund short covering that is supported, some of it is a little better long-term picture for wheat and for corn, although for soybeans, it’s still looking somewhat bleak long-term,” said Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist with StoneX Group.

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, which is a survey of nearly 70 ag economists and conducted by Farm Jounal each month, reflected that with short-term sentiments among economists seeing a slight improvement, but a bigger jump when asked to compare them to last year.

“We could have told you two to three years ago that, after a period of high prices, eventually we were going to have a recovery in production and that was going to suppress prices probably more than input costs. We knew that. I think when you take into account expectations heading into the year, has it deteriorated more than expectations? Probably not. We just know that we’re worse off today than where we were,” said Ben Brown, an agricultural economist with the University of Missouri.

Each month, the Monthly Monitor asks economists to list the factors that could impact crop prices over the next six months. In the latest survey, economists said:

South American weather
U.S.-China trade relations
Election outcomes
Global geopolitical risks
Biofuel demand

The Biggest Wildcard: South America

“The biggest thing that will l impact the markets is going to be South American weather. What happens in Brazil and Argentina and what’s the size of the soybean crop they’re going to get? Right now, it is raining. The crop is being planted late. Our people on the ground in Brazil are expecting a big crop if these rains continue,” Suderman said.

While the soybean crop could see suppressed prices if Brazil grows a big crop this year, the later-planted crop could eat into the supplies of corn.

“Even where we’re at today could have an impact on that second-crop corn, given that I anticipate that we’re going to see a very robust corn export picture even without a shrinkage in that second-crop Brazilian corn. I still think there’s an upside potential for the corn market, and it’s going to be based on the size of that second-crop corn in Brazil,” said Brown.

A Recent Surge in Corn Sales

The corn export demand picture has been strong, which is thanks to a surge in sales to Mexico. T hat’s one significant factor currently fueling corn prices .

“If we didn’t have it, corn prices would be a lot lower today than where they are,” said Brown.

“When we look at the export pace that we’re on right now, it’s stronger than what we normally have at this time of year, and it’s largely been because of Mexico. Mexico has been a very aggressive buyer of U.S. corn here, at what they perceive to be the harvest lows,” Suderman said.

Outlook for Livestock and Dairy

The October Monthly Monitor asked economists to list the factors that could impact livestock and dairy prices over the next six months. Economists said:

Herd size and tight cattle supplies
Outcome of the election
Health of general economy in the U.S. and consumer demand changes
Disease issues (H5N1, etc.)
Developments in China and other major importers
Consumer demand given high meat and dairy prices
Weather in the Corn Belt and Great Plains

When Will Beef Producers Start to Rebuild Their Herds?

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

The October survey also asked economists when they think producers will start to rebuild their cow herds:

50 percent said in the first half of 2026
30 percent think it’ll happen the second half of 2025
20 percent said in the first half of next year.

“We’ve seen a slowdown of cow slaughter. That’s step one, but that’s not rebuilding,” said Suderman. “It really comes down to when do we turn this weather pattern around and start getting the pasture, the feed necessary in the West in order to incentivize rebuilding the cowherd? That is the problem right now.”

Other than weather, what else is preventing producers from starting to rebuild? Economists say it’s the average age of producers, replacement costs and heifer prices.

“I also think there is this economic pull on producers of ‘how can I justify retaining these heifers when they’re bringing the prices that they are?’” said Brown.

The Inflation Factor

When you look at what could impact both livestock and row crop producers over the next six months, a major wild card is interest rates. The October survey asked economists how much farm interest rates need to fall to find economic stability for farmers, and 46% said 2%.

Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

But even with the Fed cutting the benchmark interest rate last month, interest rates have actually gone up, not down.

“The two-year break-even inflation rate is what the market trades. It’s expectations of what inflation’s going to average over the next two years. And over the last six weeks or so, we have seen it jump a full percentage point. That is a significant short-term jump, saying that reinflation fears are coming back in a hurry,” Suderman said.

Suderman points out the Fed can influence mid- and longer-term rates, but the agency can’t control them. And it’s concerns about inflation that are pushing those rates back up again.

“That could all change over the next couple of weeks, or it could be reinvigorated. I think longer term, what I’m looking for is a return to the interest rates that we saw in the ‘90s and early 2000. But I think there’s going to be a lot of volatility in getting there,” Suderman said.

Election Impact on Ag

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Ahead of the election, the Monthly Monitor asked economists which presidential candidate will be more effective at taming inflation. Fifty-three percent said Donald Trump.

When it comes to providing more certainty on farm policy and crop insurance, 61 percent of economists said Trump will provide more certainty.

However, when looking at policies that benefit biofuels, 53 percent of economists said Kamala Harris.

Today, there is no clarity on 45Z that’s causing soybean processors like Cargill and Bunge to possibly slow or even idle production by the end of the year.

“We have industry looking to shut down production of biofuel. If we don’t get the 45Z requirements here released soon, and that doesn’t look likely, unfortunately, that’s going to hurt demand for soybean crushing for soybeans per se,” Suderman said.

“The fact that we don’t have those today, I think, is impeding investment in the sector. And people are asking for that before they spend millions of dollars to do that. And I think that has been a hiccup,” said Brown.

Role of the Federal Government

Heading into a crucial election with not just the presidential race, but also the House and Senate, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “What is the most important role of the federal government?”

Forty-six percent of economists ranked financial aid as the top priority. Nearly 43 percent said it’s passing a farm bill.

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Farm Bill Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Conclusion

The October Monthly Monitor reflects cautious optimism in certain areas of agriculture, marked by export strengths and potential price recoveries. But the optimism is shadowed by long-term rebuilding challenges, weather dependencies and the impact of the upcoming election.

Which Presidential Candidate Would Have the Biggest Impact on Ag?

Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:02:37 GMT

With early voting well underway in the presidential election, agriculture producers must decide which candidate will better serve their needs and what they want the next president to do. On the latest episode of Farm Journal’s Unscripted podcast , long-time Washington insider Jim Wiesemeyer shares what he’s hearing about who that next president could be. He tells hosts Tyne Morgan and Clinton Griffiths that early voting among Republicans could make a big impact.

With polls showing razor-thin margins between the candidates, it’s still too close to call, particularly in the swing states, Wiesemeyer says. At a recent event in Colorado Springs, CO, he heard David Wasserman from the Cook Political Report give Donald Trump a 60 percent chance of winning. “Republicans historically vote far more than Democrats on election day,” he says. “This year, more Republicans have voted early. They could gain some key votes in key states simply by voting earlier.”

On the podcast, Clinton offers, “It feels like there’s so much pressure at the polls to get it right. Everybody’s kind of on edge, which I’m okay with. I want it to be right.” When the counting is done, however, which candidate will be better for agriculture? Tyne reveals that surveys in this month’s Ag Economist’s Monthly Monitor and a Farm Journal survey of more than 4,000 ag producers tell different stories.

Key issues for the industry include the 45Z program for biofuels, farm policy, tariffs, crop insurance and inflation. Jim says, “When I talk to top producers, one thing is clear on differentiating the candidates — tax policy. Farmers like that 20 percent pass-through. They like less estate taxes, less capital gains taxes. When you talk to farm country, production agriculture, those are the things I’m told.”

They agree that the delay in clarification on the 45Z biofuels tax credit is, as Tyne says, “a complete disaster.” Is it going to happen next year? Soybean processing plants are slowing purchases because they’re not sure about receiving the credit. “As for why it’s taking so long, it’s up to the treasury department and the IRS, because it’s tax incentives,” Jim explains. “They just don’t know agriculture. Companies are starting to pull back their investment plans because they don’t know the rules. We have to know if corn-based ethanol is going to comply.”

It’s a spirited, illuminating discussion on a range of issues that farmers, ranchers and other ag professionals need to consider seriously as they cast their votes.

Watch the full episode of Unscripted.

Your Next Read:

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface
As the Wizard of Yield, Ken Ferrie Reveals His Secrets on Unscripted

The Recent Boom in Livestock Profitability is Masking a Harsh Reality of the Overall Farm Economy in 2024

Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:27:48 GMT

USDA’s revised Net Farm Income projections released in early September showed net farm income will fall $6.5 billion or 4.4%, which is a major improvement from projections released in February suggesting it would fall 26%. However, economists argue those revised figures come with some misconceptions about the health of the ag economy today, and the the recent boom in livestock profitability is hiding the reality what’s really happening on row crop farms across the U.S. right now.

The lates t Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor from Farm Journal showed a slight rise in optimism compared to the previous month, but economists remain worried about the current state of the agricultural economy when compared to last year.

It’s clear the ag economy is dominated by two very different stories this year. The livestock sector is better than what USDA forecasted in February, but the crop sector is worse.

“The margins that farmers are facing on average are really a tough place to be in for 2022 to 2024,” says Krista Swanson, lead economist for the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). “According to USDA, the cost to produce corn dropped 5%, but the price was down 37%. And when we look at those average numbers from USDA, looking at cost of production for corn prices and yield, that comes out to average losses of $125 per acre.”

Revised Projections on Net Farm Income for 2024

USDA’s revised Net Farm Income projections were released in early September, and the updated figures were surprising to many economists. The new numbers show net cash farm income for the 2024 calendar year will fall $12 billion, which is down about 7% from 2023, and net farm income will fall $6.5 billion or 4.4%. This is compared to projections released in February of this year which suggested net farm income would fall 26%.

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey, which is an anonymous survey of nearly 70 economists, asked those economists, “What was the most interesting thing you noticed in USDA’s September Farm Income update?” Economists weren’t surprised the livestock picture improved from the February report, but they pointed out the following:

“Increase in farm asset value and equity.”
“The ‘dog that didn’t bark.’ Many people expected a more dire picture in 2024, but the drop in crop prices was only a little more severe than earlier expected, and the necessary downward correction in estimates of 2024 feed costs (the earlier estimate was unreasonably high, given what was known about feed prices at the time) helped moderate overall 2024 costs. There were also adjustments upward in receipts for crops other than grains and oilseeds that boosted the receipt and income figures.”
“The simultaneous downward revision in the net farm income estimate for 2023 paired with the upward net farm income forecast for 2024, causing the year-over year 2023-2024 decline to shrink substantially.”

Potential Recession in the Agricultural Sector

The survey also asked if agriculture is on the brink of a recession, and there was no clear consensus as economists argue the livestock sector and the row crop sector are two very different stories. Seventy-five percent said yes, agriculture is on the brink of a recession, which is up from the 56% who responded that way in the previous month’s survey. However, 54% of economists argue agriculture is already in a recession, with some economists pointing to only the crop sector seeing recession concerns.

“I think yes, and it depends on how you define a recession. I define a recession as this is one of the worst years we’ve seen in the last 20. So my short answer to the question is yes. Just looking at where the price is currently at, this is about the worst year since 2007, which was the start of the ethanol boom,” Langemeier said.

It’s clear not all economists are in agreement, but when asked to expand on why, economists said:

“Financial health is weaker but still pretty strong.”
“For select crops and regions of the country farmers are facing significant financial pressure.”
“The cost-price squeeze facing the crop sector is severe and will have larger implications if it persists. Many crop producers were profitable in 2021 and especially 2022, so they had some ability to absorb a more challenging environment over the last two years. But that ability is running out, especially for producers who rent much of the land they operate or who are heavily indebted.”
“Over-production globally and exports are soft, while biofuel policy does not support consumption of surplus.”
“The farm structures across all farms does not suggest a recession. A higher portion of farms have off-farm income to support cyclical changes. Most farms have healthy balance sheets (thanks to increased land values), and there are positive returns in certain sectors of the industry supporting those that are diversified. Areas of the ag economy that will struggle are those that are highly or fully concentrated in row crops, are full-time commercial operations between 1,000 and 2,000 acres, and have a high proportion of cash-rented acres.”
“Highly-leveraged producers are feeling economic pain already. If supplies continue to remain large, lower prices may last for a longer period of time and could result in highly-leveraged producers leaving the industry.”
“The livestock sector, specifically cattle and dairy, is performing well relative to hogs and the crop sector.”

September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound/Farm Journal)

The economists were even more divided when it came to answering whether the ag economy is already in a recession. Economists said:

“The challenges faced by the crop sector are at least partially offset by a more positive story for cattle producers, in particular. For other animal sector producers, the drop in feed costs has made 2024 a little better than 2023.”
“Farmers are already feeling the pinch, and they are looking for ways to slash expenses.”
“Lenders in our state are very concerned about the outcomes for this year and the outlook for next year.”

Poor Margins for Pork Producers

Beef and dairy producers may be looking at better margins for 2024, but even with improved feed costs, pork producers are still faced with potential losses this year.

Iowa State University estimates U.S. pork producers will see an average of $13 per head loss during 2023-2025, which would be the worst three-year period for profitability in hog production in history, even worse than 1997-1999 ($12 per head loss).

The 1997-1999 time period had a dramatic impact on the hog industry and caused mass consolidation and more vertical integration.

The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists: “What is the potential impact to the industry? And how is it different than what we saw in the 1990s?”

Some economists responded by saying they expect even more consolidation to take place today, but other economists say with so much consolidation already shaping the pork industry, this time period will be different.

“In the short run: not much - minimal increase in consolidation long run: some supply adjustment - depends on who has the deepest pockets.”
“Fewer hog producers.”
“The industry is already much more concentrated than it was in the late 1990s.”
“2023 was particularly difficult for the industry. The situation remains challenging, but lower feed costs have at least reduced losses. Unless demand strengthens, there will eventually need to be a contraction in supplies to generate a more “normal” rate of profitability.”
Leads to more concentration. A similar effect occurred in the 1990s

Livestock and Dairy Prices Outlook for the Next Six Months

Cattle and dairy prices are stronger than crops. The survey asked economists, “What factor(s) are you watching that you expect will impact livestock and dairy prices in the next six months?” Economists said:

The outcome of the 2024 election
Drought
Health of the ag economy
Meat demand at restaurants
Feed costs
High beef prices and the impact on beef and pork demand
If milk supplies remain weak, it will continue to lead to strong milk prices

Key Factors Affecting Crop Prices

The survey then asked economists to list the factors they’re watching that could impact crop prices over the next six months. Economists responded by saying:

Final 2024 U.S. crop production numbers
South American weather
Fall planting in South America (timing and acreage)
China’s economy/geopolitical tensions
Policy changes after the election (tariffs, impact on trade and biofuel policies)

Tariffs and Trade: A Continued Debate

The September Ag Economists Monthly Monitor, a Farm Journal survey of nearly 70 ag economists, revealed a mixed view of the presidential candidates’ impact on trade.

(Lindsey Pound)

Another area is exploring new export demand. Ag economists pointed out the outcome of the election could impact both crop and livestock prices. The September Monthly Monitor asked economists if the two presidential candidates would help or hurt trade.

55% said a Harris administration would hurt trade.
86% percent of economists said a Trump administration would hurt U.S. trade.

“Farmers are definitely concerned about trade,” says Langemeir, who helps author the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer and is one of the economists surveyed by Farm Journal each month. “We don’t ask specific questions related to tariffs in the Ag Economy Barometer, but one question we do ask is if they expect exports to increase, decrease or stay the same? Really, this is the most pessimistic they’ve been for about five years with regard to trade.”

Tariffs are a tool both the former Trump administration and the current Biden/Harris administration have used.

During the first presidential debate, Trump didn’t waver from his staunch stance on tariffs and trade, reiterating his plan to use tariffs to protect U.S. industries and increase revenues. Trump reinforced his plan to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China.

During the debate, Harris stated tariffs are essentially a “sales tax” on American households. The Biden/Harris administration recently extended the Trump-era tariffs, while also imposing its own set of tariffs in May. Biden directed the U.S. Trade Representative to “increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China to protect American workers and businesses.”

“That’s why I get really worried when both candidates start talking about tariffs. It’s really uncharted waters, if you will. There’s already the perception we’re struggling a little bit with trade. As we enter these uncertain waters, we’re going to struggle more,” Langemeier explained.

Do Tariffs Work?

The controversy over tariffs and whether they’re a good trade policy tool is long-standing. The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists: “Do tariffs work in trade policy?” Economists views were mixed:

“Tariffs can work in trade policy — that’s why nations continue to use them. The complex part that extends beyond the tariff action is potential long-term repercussions that can result from trade-flow changes.”
“In limited cases, typically only if they result in a policy response in the targeted country. Much of the time, tariffs are like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
“Tariffs provide short-term gains but have always failed relative to free trade in the long-term.”
“Absolutely, when properly applied.”
“Not over the long-term. They tend to affect who gets to supply different markets around the world.”

The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor also asked: “When tariffs are used as a ‘tool’ in trade, who pays the tariff?” Not all economists were aligned on that answer either, saying sometimes it’s farmers and consumers, but it can also be the exporting countries.

“When the U.S. imposes tariffs on imports, importers in the U.S. pay taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from abroad. When another nation imposes tariffs, importers in that nation pay import taxes to their government on their purchases from abroad. Often, when a tariff is implemented, another nation retaliates, and you end up with importers in both nations paying the price on whatever products the tariffs apply toward.”
“If an importing country places a tariff on the exporting country, producers in the exporting country and consumers in the importing country both lose (i.e., receive lower and higher prices, respectively). Conversely, producers in the importing country and consumers in the exporting country win (i.e., receive higher and lower prices, respectively).”
“In the short run, consumers who purchase goods with a tariff might see higher prices if the tariff is not absorbed elsewhere. In the long run, the tariff might result in changes to the supply chain that result in higher prices but also create other economic opportunities in America (e.g. reshoring of domestic manufacturing).”
“The correct economist answer is ‘it depends.’ Tariffs drive a wedge between prices in the exporting country and in the importing country. It depends on the circumstances of particular markets and how much is reflected in higher prices in the importing country and reduced prices in the exporting country.”
“Both the exporting nation and the importing consumer pay some portion of the tariff depending on who has more flexibility to adjust to a trade barrier. If exporting countries can easily switch to supplying other markets, they won’t have to ‘pay.’ If consumers can easily find cheap substitute goods, they won’t have to pay.

Conclusion: A Complex Road Ahead for U.S. Agriculture

As U.S. agriculture faces multiple challenges, from high input costs to volatile prices and geopolitical concerns, farmers are forced to find new ways to adapt. Economists emphasize the need for new demand sources, particularly in exports, to help stabilize prices and support the sector moving forward. With the outcome of the 2024 election and global market dynamics set to play pivotal roles, the agricultural sector will need to remain flexible to navigate these uncertain times.

Your Next Read: Presidential Poll Results: How Farmers and Economists View Candidates’ Impact on Agriculture

Presidential Poll Results: How Farmers and Economists View Candidates' Impact on Agriculture

Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:42:27 GMT

Nov. 5 — election day — is fast approaching. A few weeks ago, we asked which candidate do you believe will have a more positive impact on farming policy programs, trade, biofuels policies and inflation.

Based on 4,776 respondents, here are the results:

We also asked about the candidate’s impact on agriculture overall. Here’s that breakdown by state. Make note of the seven swing states, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, outlined in black.

Farmer Rationale On Harris Vs. Trump

While various polls suggest Trump has a clear edge among rural voters and there’s significant support for Trump among farmers, Jim Wiesemeyer, Farm Journal Washington correspondent, is quick to remind the community is not uniform in its voting intentions, with policy preferences and personal values driving individual decisions.

In general terms, Wiesemeyer says farmers support Trump because they:

Believe Trump better understands rural America and agricultural issues
Are concerned about his trade policies and confrontation with China
Have concerns about border security and illegal immigration under the current Biden/Harris administration
Are of the opinion Trump will lower costs for farmers, especially related to energy
Oppose what they view as socialist or anti-American policies from Democrats

Farmers support Harris because they:

Back environmental policies and renewable energy
Approve of the Biden/Harris administration’s efforts to strengthen farm workers’ rights
Believe in Harris’ food and nutrition policies
Support Harris’ economic policies aimed at working-class Americans

Economists’ Views On Harris Vs. Trump

The September Ag Economists Monthly Monitor, a Farm Journal survey of nearly 70 ag economists, revealed a more mixed view of the presidential candidates’ impact on trade.

When asked if a Harris or Trump administration would help or hurt trade, the survey found the following:

“Farmers are definitely concerned about trade,” says Michael Langemeir, an agricultural economist from Purdue University who helps author the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer and is one of the economists surveyed by Farm Journal each month. “We don’t ask specific questions related to tariffs in the Ag Economy Barometer, but one question we do ask is if they expect exports to increase, decrease or stay the same? Really, this is the most pessimistic they’ve been for about five years with regard to trade.”

Tariffs are a tool both the former Trump administration and the current Biden/Harris administration have used.

During the first presidential debate, Trump didn’t waver from his staunch stance on tariffs and trade, reiterating his plan to use tariffs to protect U.S. industries and increase revenues. Trump reinforced his plan to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China.

During the debate, Harris stated tariffs are essentially a “sales tax” on American households. The Biden/Harris administration recently extended the Trump-era tariffs, while also imposing its own set of tariffs in May. Biden directed the U.S. Trade Representative to “increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China to protect American workers and businesses.”

“That’s why I get really worried when both candidates start talking about tariffs. It’s really uncharted waters, if you will. There’s already the perception we’re struggling a little bit with trade. As we enter these uncertain waters, we’re going to struggle more,” Langemeier explains.

Do Tariffs Work?

The controversy over tariffs and if they’re a good trade policy tool is long standing. The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists: “Do tariffs work in trade policy?” Economists views were mixed:

“Tariffs can work in trade policy — that’s why nations continue to use them. The complex part that extends beyond the tariff action is potential long-term repercussions that can result from trade flow changes.”
“In limited cases, typically only if they result in a policy response in the targeted country. Much of the time, tariffs are like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
“Tariffs provide short-term gains but have always failed relative to free trade in the long term.”
“Absolutely, when properly applied.”
“Not over the long term. They tend to affect who gets to supply different markets around the world.”

“When the U.S. imposes tariffs on imports, importers in the U.S. pay taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from abroad. When another nation imposes tariffs, importers in that nation pay import taxes to their government on their purchases from abroad. Often when a tariff is implemented, another nation retaliates, and you end up with importers in both nations paying the price on whatever products the tariffs apply toward.”
“If an importing country places a tariff on the exporting country, producers in the exporting country and consumers in the importing country both lose (i.e., receive lower and higher prices, respectively). Conversely, producers in the importing country and consumers in the exporting country win (i.e., receive higher and lower prices, respectively).”
“In the short run, consumers who purchase goods with a tariff might see higher prices if the tariff is not absorbed elsewhere. In the long run, the tariff might result in changes to the supply chain that result in higher prices but also create other economic opportunities in America (e.g. reshoring of domestic manufacturing).”
“The correct economist answer is ‘it depends.’ Tariffs drive a wedge between prices in the exporting country and in the importing country. It depends on the circumstances of particular markets and how much is reflected in higher prices in the importing country and reduced prices in the exporting country.”
“Both the exporting nation and the importing consumer pay some portion of the tariff depending on who has more flexibility to adjust to trade barrier. If exporting countries can easily switch to supplying other markets, they won’t have to ‘pay.’ If consumers can easily find cheap substitute goods, they won’t have to pay.

Trump Threatens Tariffs on Deere

During a policy roundtable in Smithton, Penn., organized by the Protecting America Initiative last month, Trump made significant statements regarding John Deere and its plans to move some production to Mexico. Trump threatened to impose a 200% tariff on John Deere products if the company proceeds with its plan to relocate some of its manufacturing operations to Mexico.

Farm Journal asked economists the likely outcome if Trump did follow through with tariffs. Here’s what they said:

Your Next Read: U.S. Agriculture Faces Growing Trade Deficit, USDA Projects a Record Ag Trade Deficit in 2024

Take Our Poll: 5 Questions Ahead of the Presidential Election

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:14:22 GMT

⁦Election day — Nov. 5 — is fewer than 60 days out.

Based on the presidential candidate’s responses to the American Farm Bureau Federation questionnaire , Jim Wiesemeyer, Farm Journal Washington correspondent, says Republican Donald Trump supports increasing commodity price supports, improving crop insurance and focusing on innovation to stay ahead of China. Trump also pledges to lower energy bills and end Biden’s net-zero emissions policies.

Democrat Kamala Harris highlights the Biden administration’s initiatives to protect small farmers from unfair competition, citing Trump’s previous proposals for deep cuts to critical farming programs.

We’d like to know which candidate you believe will have a more positive impact on the following:

farm policy programs
trade
biofuels policies
inflation
agriculture overall

If you have a moment, would you answer five quick questions? You can take the poll here.

There’s a lot of chatter about the presidential election. Let’s see what farm country has to say.

Your Next Read: Where Do Harris And Trump Stand On Ag Policy Issues?

Where Do Harris and Trump Stand On Ag Policy Issues?

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 19:19:35 GMT

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) released the unedited responses from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump to its questionnaire on federal agricultural policy. This initiative allows Farm Bureau members to directly compare each candidate’s platform.

AFBF has been collecting and sharing responses from presidential candidates across parties for over 40 years to provide transparency on key agricultural issues.

Overview
Trump supports increasing commodity price supports, improving crop insurance, and focusing on innovation to keep ahead of China. He also pledged to lower energy bills and end Biden’s net-zero emissions policies.

Harris highlights the Biden administration’s initiatives to protect small farmers from unfair competition, citing Trump’s previous proposals for deep cuts to critical farming programs.

Farm policy and programs

Trump emphasized strengthening crop insurance and risk management programs, as well as supporting beginning farmers and ranchers. He highlighted his previous administration’s efforts, including signing a “massive Farm Bill” that improved agriculture programs and increased borrowing limits for farmers.
Harris focused on defending programs that allow farmers and ranchers to prosper, criticizing Trump’s proposed cuts to essential farming programs. She emphasized the importance of crop insurance and risk management tools.

Regulatory issues

Trump pledged to slash regulations that he believes stifle American agriculture and increase costs. He cited his previous administration’s efforts to cut regulations, claiming it saved farmers and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Harris committed to reducing excessive red tape while maintaining necessary protections.

On labor, both were vague.

Trump said he supports merit-based immigration.
Harris advocates for immigration reform to benefit the economy and farmers.

Environmental issues

Trump emphasized increasing ethanol production and reducing EPA regulations. Trump promised to end Biden’s net-zero emissions policies.
Harris underscored the importance of clean water and conservation efforts.

Trade policy

Trump promised to fight barriers to agricultural exports and highlighted his previous administration’s trade deals, including the Phase 1 agreement with China.
Harris vowed to stand firm against unfair trade practices, especially from China. She criticized Trump’s previous trade war, citing the costs to farmers and taxpayers.

Endangered Species Act

Trump suggested focusing on incentive-based programs for species recovery, criticizing the current law’s effectiveness.
Harris emphasized the need for cooperative initiatives that consider all Americans, including farmers and ranch owners, in conservation efforts.

Trump Picks JD Vance as Running Mate, Here's Where He Stands on Policy Issues and Agriculture

Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:14:01 GMT

— Former President Donald Trump selected Ohio Senator JD Vance as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2024 election. This decision marks a significant transformation in Vance’s political career, as he has evolved from being a vocal critic of Trump during the 2016 election to becoming a staunch ally and supporter of the former president.

At 39 years old (he turns 40 on Aug. 2), Vance would be one of the youngest vice-presidential nominees in recent history, potentially becoming the third-youngest vice president if elected. His selection brings a youthful energy to the ticket, contrasting with Trump’s 78 years and President Biden’s 81. Vance’s attractions to Trump more likely lie in his appeal to white working-class voters across a wider geographical area — particularly in genuine battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Key aspects of Vance’s background that likely influenced Trump’s decision include:

• Military service: Vance is a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq, adding a military dimension to the ticket.
• Legislative career: Vance was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022 and sworn into office on Jan. 3, 2023, representing Ohio. As one of the youngest members of the Senate, Vance quickly made a name for himself, particularly in culture war issues. In his first year in office, Vance:
— Frequently repeated MAGA talking points on social media and right-wing podcasts.
— Co-sponsored bipartisan bills on issues such as accountability for CEOs of failed banks.
— Clashed with fellow Republicans, including Senator Mitt Romney and GOP minority leader Mitch McConnell, particularly on the issue of U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Vance has introduced legislation on various issues, including:
— A bill to make English the official language of the United States.
— A proposal to make gender-affirming care for minors a federal felony and block taxpayer funds from being used for it.

He has taken strong stances on immigration, proposing to spend $3 billion to finish Trump’s border wall.

• Rust Belt appeal: His roots in Ohio and his bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” could resonate with voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Vance’s childhood was tumultuous. Not only did his father leave the family, but his mother struggled with an addiction to drugs and alcohol, which Vance documented in his book.

• Populist alignment: Vance has embraced Trump’s populist policies and become a prominent defender of the MAGA agenda. Vance has become a close friend of Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr, who made the case for him to be the running mate on the grounds that he shared his father’s political vision.

• Cultural warrior: He has established a reputation as a culture warrior while also fostering bipartisan relationships to advance his populist agenda.

• Parent: He and his wife, Usha Chilukuri Vance, 38, have three children aged 7, 4 and 2 years. His wife is the daughter of Indian immigrants who grew up in the San Francisco area. Until this week, Usha worked as a litigator for Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, a national law firm based in San Francisco. She specializes in complex civil litigation and appeals in sectors like education, government, entertainment, and technology. She has worked as a law clerk for both the Supreme Court of the United States (under Chief Justice John Roberts) and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (under Judge Brett Kavanaugh). She met JD at Yale Law School in the early 2010s and they were married in 2014, a year after graduating from Yale Law.

• Good debater. His intellect and communication skills will prove handy when it comes to a forthcoming debate before Nov. 5 elections… and on the campaign trail.

Trump announced his VP choice on social media just before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, praising Vance’s academic achievements, military service, and representation of American workers. The former president emphasized Vance’s potential to appeal to voters beyond Ohio and his commitment to supporting American workers and farmers. Trump said his new running mate would “be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American Workers and Farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond.”

This selection is seen as a departure from suggestions within the Republican Party to choose a candidate who could diversify the ticket racially or adopt a more moderate tone. Instead, Trump has opted for a running mate who mirrors his combative approach and enjoys popularity among the MAGA base.

Vance’s journey from Trump critic to vice-presidential nominee highlights the evolving dynamics within the Republican Party. His selection positions him as a potential torchbearer for the MAGA movement.

— JD Vance’s positions on other key issues:

• Vance has been a leading opponent of U.S. aid to Ukraine, saying defense against China should be a much bigger priority, a position that aligns him with Trump. In an interview on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast earlier this year, he said: “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”
• Abortion: Vance opposes the practice even in case of rape or incest, although he has stopped short of saying there should be a national ban and has said exceptions should be allowed when the mother’s life is at risk. Nevertheless, when he ran for Senate in 2022, his website carried a headline on the subject that read: Ban Abortion.
• Tariffs and immigration: Vance, like Trump, has argued for “broad-based tariffs,” a position in line with Trump, who is promising a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports, despite warnings from economists that it will fuel inflation. He also echoes Trump on immigration, advocating the completion of the border wall on the southern frontier with Mexico and opposing an amnesty for illegal immigrants. As one of the most protectionist Republicans in Congress, Vance has supported raising tariffs and blocking imports. This stance could potentially impact agricultural trade and protect domestic farmers from international competition.
• Agriculture: Vance was named a “Friend of Agriculture” by the Ohio Farm Bureau, indicating that his views on agricultural policy align with the organization’s membership. The Ohio Farm Bureau stated that Vance has been “very attentive to Ohio Farm Bureau members, making himself accessible to them to discuss their concerns when it comes to issues that could have an impact on agriculture in Ohio or across the country.” Vance appears to support government subsidies for farmers, aligning with his party’s base on this issue.
• Energy: Vance is a vocal advocate for the oil and gas industry, particularly emphasizing Ohio’s role as a major producer of natural gas and oil. He opposes solar power and electric vehicles, showing skepticism towards clean energy initiatives. Vance has expressed doubt about human-caused climate change, arguing that climate variations have been occurring for thousands of years. He advocates for policies that support domestic energy production, aiming to reduce reliance on foreign oil and achieve energy independence for the United States. Vance has blamed Democratic leadership for high energy prices and advocates for “common-sense energy policies that put the American consumer first.” Vance’s stance aligns closely with former President Trump’s energy policies, including a focus on bolstering U.S. energy production and maintaining a protectionist, anti-China economic policy in the energy sector. He supports reducing regulations on fossil fuel industries while being critical of clean energy initiatives.

Biofuels: We can infer some alignment between Vance and Trump’s policies on biofuels based on the following points:

• Vance has become a strong supporter of Trump’s policies since aligning himself with the former president. He has shifted his views on various issues to match Trump’s positions.

• Trump has been supportive of ethanol and biofuels, particularly in relation to the agricultural sector. In 2018, Trump ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to expand sales of corn ethanol, which was seen as a gift to farm states and corn producers.

• Trump’s directive aimed to increase the availability of E15 gasoline (containing 15% ethanol) year-round, which was a significant move to support corn growers and the ethanol industry.

• Vance has positioned himself as pro-Trump and supportive of policies that benefit domestic industries. As a senator from Ohio, an agricultural state, he is likely to be attentive to policies that support farmers.

• Vance has been critical of Biden administration policies related to energy, including the Inflation Reduction Act, which he claims has made the economy less energy independent. This suggests he may favor policies that support domestic energy production, potentially including biofuels.

• While we can find no explicit statements from Vance on ethanol and biodiesel, his alignment with Trump’s policies and his representation of an agricultural state suggest he may support similar pro-biofuel stances. However, it’s important to note that Vance has also been supportive of the oil and gas industry, which could potentially conflict with strong support for biofuels.

• Tax policy: Unlike traditional Republican tax policies, Vance has shown willingness to consider tax hikes, particularly on high earners and universities. He supports raising taxes on corporate mergers, which diverges from typical GOP pro-business stances. Vance advocates for increasing taxes on university endowments, potentially impacting higher education institutions. His tax policy positions generally align with a populist conservative agenda, focusing on working-class voters and challenging established corporate interests. Vance has been critical of Democratic leadership’s economic policies, which likely extends to their approach to taxation.
• Anti-monopoly stance: Vance has advocated for breaking up tech giants and criticizing companies like Google. This anti-monopoly position could potentially extend to large agricultural corporations or agribusiness conglomerates, which have been criticized for their market dominance in the farming sector. His tough stance on large banks and willingness to collaborate with senators like Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on penalizing failed bank executives suggests he might support stricter regulations on large agribusiness corporations as well.
• Criticism of big tech influence: Vance’s concerns about biased AI models and calls for reforms to Section 230 could relate to agriculture in terms of how technology companies influence or control agricultural data, precision farming technologies, or digital marketplaces for farm products.
• Broadband access initiatives: Vance’s support for expanding broadband access could benefit rural farming communities by improving their connectivity and access to digital agricultural technologies.

— Ohio’s political landscape if Trump and Vance win in 2024. If Donald Trump defeats President Joe Biden and JD Vance becomes vice president, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, would appoint a replacement senator, who would serve until a special election in 2026. The winner would complete Vance’s term, with a regular election in 2028.

Ohio Republicans, who dominate state government, have several potential candidates for the Senate seat. DeWine previously endorsed state Sen. Matt Dolan in a primary, where Dolan was runner-up to Trump-backed Bernie Moreno. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and Rep. Warren Davidson were also notable contenders.

Other potential candidates include Lt. Gov. Jon Husted and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, though DeWine will likely choose someone with strong electability.

DeWine emphasized the importance of a candidate who can win and raise funds. He will face pressure to select a candidate reflecting Ohio’s increasingly populist lean.

Ohio, a former presidential bellwether, has shifted Republican, with Trump winning by 8 points in both 2016 and 2020. Vance was elected to the Senate in 2022 by a 6-point margin over Tim Ryan, bolstered by Trump’s endorsement.

The 2026 midterms, with Trump potentially in the White House, could be competitive, especially if Ohio’s Senate race is closely contested. Vance will appear with Trump on Ohio ballots this fall, alongside Moreno, who aims to unseat Sen. Sherrod Brown, and Republicans are targeting swing-district Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Emilia Sykes.

If Trump Wins in November, There Are 2 Front-Runners For Ag Secretary, And There Were Both at Saturday's Rally

Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:18:54 GMT

Two potential candidates in the running for Ag Secretary if former President Donald Trump wins in November were also at the rally in Butler, Pa., when Trump was shot in the ear on Saturday. Sid Miller, Texas Ag Commissioner, and Kip Tom, an Indiana farmer who served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration, were both in attendance Saturday.

Both men recounted their first-hand experience, while also saying the silver lining after the event is how Americans — especially those at the rally — came together to help one another. And what’s followed since, has been a sense of unity and patriotism that is changing the tone of the Republican National Convention taking place in Wisconsin this week.

“It almost feels a little bit like what 911 did,” Tom told “AgriTalk’s” Chip Flory Monday morning during an exclusive interview. “People seem more unified. When I watched the people leave where the rally was being held there in Butler, Pa., you saw people that didn’t know at the other ones, they’re helping the elderly get out, they helped them with their children. Everybody put their arms around each other and worked as one as they left in a very calm situation. I can think of other things that could have happened, it could have been people stampeding out the place, but the reality is people remain calm, they reunify, they’re talking to each other. And I’m telling you, today I’m up here at the RNC convention in Milwaukee, and you just feel the vibes of what it’s like to see a unified party and how people are trying to make sure we make America great again.”

Tom joined “AgriTalk” Monday morning to explain what he saw and heard during the assassination attempt on Saturday as he had a front-row seat.

“I want to start out by saying, you know, my heart and condolences go out to the family that lost a husband and a father, a neighbor, a firefighter who was sitting about 50' behind me with his family when bullets that were coming into the theater area where the President was speaking. So I also want to say thank you to all of the Armed Service guards who were there from the Secret Service through the local sheriffs and counties that were there to make sure that we had a safe environment,” Tom said. “Unfortunately, I feel that there was probably a failure at the very top of the Secret Service, providing adequate resources in terms of human talent, and the technical knowledge to get things done at that event to protect us all.”

Tom says there were tens of thousands of people in attendance on Saturday, which started when the gates opened at 8 a.m. He describes it as a hot and humid day, with temperatures reaching 95°F.

“These people were here to hear Donald Trump speak and talk about his plan for America,” he says. “I had a front row seat, but I think everybody in that audience actually had a front row seat, just see what happened on July 13 in Butler, Pa. So once the shooting started, people took notice to it.”

Tom says as soon as he heard the gunfire and saw Trump immediately go down, the first thing that flashed in his mind was the JFK assassination.

“Just all that transpired after the JFK assassination, and how our nation actually changed course, when we went under Lyndon B. Johnson, and just how the administration at that time dealt with plenty of issues that our country was facing at that time. So this could have been a big event changing the pathway for our nation going forward in the future. But fortunately, for the president, he’s okay,” Tom says.

Tom went on to say the assassination attempt should have never happened, and the failure falls on the Secret Service considering the Secret Service determines what level of security they want to provide different diplomats of the U.S.

“In the case of a former president, when someone is the presumed nominee, it really doesn’t change anything. When they’re the nominee, it elevates a little bit more. And of course, when they’re the president they have full on support of the Secret Service to make sure that a commander in chief remains safe,” Tom explains. “But in the case here, obviously Donald Trump isn’t the presumed nominee, he is the nominee, even though we’re holding convention this week, he’s got the ballots. He’s got the votes to make it happen.”

Tom says what he hopes to see is an increase in security for Trump, but also an investigation into Saturday’s shooting.

“I think there will be a hearing probably in the Senate or the House very soon, or maybe both chambers to address these issues with the director of the Secret Service to say, ‘How could this happen?’ This isn’t just about the president, it’s about Americans who were in that audience that were not protected from a man who’s 140 yards from the podium,” Tom says.

Farm Journal Washington correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer reports Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller was close to former President Donald Trump when Trump was shot in the ear at the rally this weekend. Standing just 30' away, Miller described the scene to KHOU-11, a Houston TV station. Wiesemeyer says Miller initially mistook the gunshots for a balloon pop and then a firecracker, Miller realized the danger when Trump stopped speaking. It wasn’t until the third shot that Miller realized it was gunfire. The incident lasted about five to six seconds.

Miller, who is a potential candidate for USDA Secretary if Trump wins the presidency again, shared his experience on social media, expressing shock and gratitude that Trump was not seriously injured. He also expressed sorrow for the innocent bystander who was killed and emphasized the need for unity and courage. Miller plans to campaign for Trump this summer and was heading to the Republican National Convention after the rally. His presence at the shooting has garnered significant media attention in Texas.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Miller observed that three people directly behind him were hit:

• A man who was struck in the head and died
• A woman hit in the chest, who remained in critical condition
• Congressman Ronnie Jackson’s, R-Texas, nephew, who sustained a superficial neck wound

In response to the incident, Miller called for increased mental health support and a reevaluation of security measures for political candidates. He also urged the Biden administration to provide security detail for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who currently lacks such protection.

During the RNC this week, the tone is changing to a more unified one, according to Tom, who is representing Indiana at the convention his week.

“I know Trump is changing many of his speeches that he’ll be delivering throughout the convention time frame from Monday through Friday,” Tom says. “I know that he’s going to try to get people more unified, and he wants to unify the nation. Let’s face it, we’ve had fringes in both parties that have been kind of controlling the narrative, and I hope that we can bring those together and make sure we get our country on the right path to make sure we do always stand for all Americans.”

Also of note during the RNC this week, Wiesemeyer reports Jim Chilton a fifth-generation rancher from Arivaca, Ariz., will be speaking. His family has been in the cattle business for nearly 140 years. Chilton’s ranch extends to the U.S./Mexico border and is located in a top corridor for drug smuggling and human trafficking.

Wiesmeyer says Chilton appears to have been selected to speak at the convention to address immigration and border security themes from the perspective of a rancher whose property is directly affected by these issues.

He has testified before Congress multiple times about the challenges faced by ranchers in border areas. His inclusion aligns with the Republican Party’s focus on border security and immigration policy for the upcoming election.

In 2003, Chilton was named Rancher of the Year by the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association. He has also received other awards, including: The True Grit award from the Arizona Cattle Growers, the Individual of the Year award from an unspecified organization, the Arizona Farm Bureau Oscar for outstanding achievement and the Farm Bureau Environmental Stewardship award. His wife, Sue Chilton, purchased the ranch near Arivaca with her husband in 1987, and they later expanded their operation by buying the neighboring Flying X ranch in 1991. Together with Jim, Sue implemented grazing management programs and conducted detailed environmental monitoring on their ranch.

They have been recognized as cooperators with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) since 1980. Sue was appointed by Arizona Governor Jane Hull to serve a five-year term on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. In this role, she worked to improve relations between the Game and Fish Department and rural residents who provide wildlife habitat.

New CoBank Report says Federal Reserve is on the 'Horns of a Dilemma’

Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:47:20 GMT

The U.S. economy outperformed many economists’ expectations in 2023 and into the first quarter of this year, thanks to high employment numbers and consumer spending.

But Rob Fox, director of the Knowledge Exchange Division at CoBank, told AgriTalk Host, Chip Flory, there are worrisome clouds on the horizon. Namely, unruly inflation is not cooperating with the Federal Reserve’s efforts to tame it.

“Inflation numbers are not coming down as fast as they’d hoped,” Fox said. “The Fed has said as much that inflation is going to be a little bit higher for longer.”

Continued, high inflation contributed to the theme and title of CoBank’s new report released last week, “Sticky Inflation Puts Fed on the Horns of a Dilemma.” The report can be read here .

“The horns of the dilemma that I’m describing is that our economy is doing better than what everybody or a lot of people thought,” Fox told Flory on Monday. “Most people, economists, at the end of the year figured, ‘Hey, we’re probably going to have a recession. We’ve gone through the highest, fastest rate-increase cycle in the past 40 years. It’s almost impossible that we don’t have a recession.’ Well, as it turns out, we’ve avoided a recession, we’re doing much better than people thought,” he added.

Clouds On The Horizon

But Fox said some metrics are deteriorating and the Fed is watching them closely.

“For example, if you look at the broader unemployment numbers, and you include people who consider themselves to be under-employed, those numbers have been creeping up for the past year,” he said.

“Job openings have been declining for the past 18 months. Fewer people are quitting jobs, because they know it’s harder to find one,” he added.

Along with that, Fox said that real disposable income growth – which drives consumption and is the biggest part of the economy – has been trending downward for the past 18 months.

He cited information released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in its weekly GDP forecast, called GDPNow, as another indicator that there are cracks beginning to show up in the economy.

“At the beginning of February, they predicted that the Q1 GDP for the year estimate would be 4% today, and (instead) they’re seeing 2.4%,” Fox said. “So, not bad, but a definite deceleration is happening right now.”

Wildcards In The Deck

In addition, he highlighted some wildcards that the Fed is monitoring:

Oil prices: They are approximately $90 a barrel now, and economists say they are likely to hit $100 by mid- to late summer. “That would be a big damper on the economy,” Fox said.

Federal debt: Fox said the federal debt is out of control “That’s driving up borrowing costs for everybody,” he said. “That’s driving up market interest rates, without the Fed having to do anything. So, federal spending is taking care of those rate hikes for them.”

Stock market: Fox said he sees similarities between now and what happened when the dot-com bubble burst in March 2000. “That bubble bursting back in the day was one of the main contributors to a recession the following year,” Fox said.

How is the Federal Reserve likely to respond in the near term?

“My bias today, right now, is that they’re hoping to push this economy stronger and crossing their fingers that within the next couple of months, this inflation doesn’t get worse than it is.”

Fox told Flory he believes the Fed will continue on its stated path to making three cuts to interest rates in 2024, unless some extenuating circumstances arise.“You know, we’ve seen a lot of crazy geopolitical things going on, and you never know, but the Fed rarely changes its stated policy,” Fox said. “I’m an outlier in the world of economists here, but I’m sticking with this position.”

Despite the national election being less than eight months out, Fox said he doesn’t expect that to influence the Fed’s decision.

“In my mind, they completely ignore it because as we know, these cuts take some time to take effect, and that won’t happen until after the election,” he said.

For more AgWeb articles, see:

Will We See a Hard Fall or Soft Landing? It’s the Million Dollar Question for the Farm Economy This Year

Gulke: What’s Causing All the Volatility in Commodity and Financial Markets?

Why Did Grains Give Back Friday’s Gains? Will Selling Escalate into Month End?

Infrastructure Woes To Watch: Potholes Plague Global Ag Trade

The AgriTalk discussion between Fox and Flory is available here.

11 Key Takeaways From Biden's State Of The Union Address

Fri, 08 Mar 2024 19:58:42 GMT

President Joe Biden delivered a defiant argument for a second term in his State of the Union speech Thursday night. Biden fired multiple broadsides at Trump without ever mentioning him by name.

From the economy to Biden’s thoughts on infrastructure, the border and climate, there were several key takeaways from Biden’s State of the Union address. He led his address with Ukraine, Jan. 6, abortion and the state of the U.S. economy.

Ukraine. Biden accused “my predecessor” of “bowing down” to Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying it is “outrageous, it is dangerous and it is unacceptable.” Biden called for funding Ukraine in its war against Russia. Biden warned that Russia’s aggression would “not stop at Ukraine.”
The U.S. will build a pier on the Gaza coast to receive humanitarian aid, including food. “Tonight, I’m directing the U.S. military to lead an emergency mission to establish a temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine and temporary shelters,” Biden said. “No U.S. boots will be on the ground. This temporary pier would enable a massive increase in the amount of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza every day.” Biden added, “But Israel must also do its part. Israel must allow more aid into Gaza and ensure that humanitarian workers aren’t caught in the crossfire. …Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip.” The Biden administration has said Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t doing enough to allow the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. Biden stressed the need for a temporary cease-fire and called for hostages to be released.
Shrinkflation. Called on Congress to pass a bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) to stop “shrinkflation” in food packages. “Too many corporations raise their prices to pad their profits charging you more and more for less and less. That’s why we’re cracking down on corporations that engage in price gouging or deceptive pricing from food to health care to housing,” Biden said. “In fact, snack companies think you won’t notice when they charge you just as much for the same size bag but with fewer chips in it,” he added.
High-speed affordable internet. Biden said his policies are “providing affordable high-speed internet for every American no matter where you live. Urban, suburban, and rural communities — in red states and blue states. Record investments in tribal communities.”
Farm sector. Biden said: “Because of my investments, family farms are better able to stay in the family and children and grandchildren won’t have to leave home to make a living. It’s transformative.” He added, “Because of my investments in the family farm led by my secretary of Agriculture who knows more about this than anybody I know, we’re better able to stay on those farms so their children and grandchildren won’t have to leave home, leave home to make a living. It’s transformative.”
Border. Biden said he “will not demonize immigrants saying they ‘poison the blood of our country’ as he said in his own words,” referencing his “predecessor” without naming Donald Trump. Biden continued, “Unlike my predecessor, on my first day in office I introduced a comprehensive plan to fix our immigration system, secure the border, and provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and so much more… We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it. Send me the border bill now!” Biden rebuked Republicans for opposing a bipartisan border agreement in the Senate. Trump has opposed the measure, calling it a “gift” to Democrats in an election year. Biden called on Republicans to work with him. “We can fight about fixing the border, or we can fix it,” he said. Biden has been weighing executive action on immigration, but has yet to make such a move.
Climate. Biden said, “We are also making history by confronting the climate crisis, not denying it… I’m taking the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world. I am cutting our carbon emissions in half by 2030,” he said.
Infrastructure. Biden knocked Republicans for touting the flood of cash that has been funneled into their districts from bills that they opposed, such as the infrastructure law. “If any of you don’t want that money in your district, just let me know,” Biden said.
China. Biden said, “Our trade deficit with China is down to the lowest point in over a decade. We’re standing up against China’s unfair economic practices. We want competition with China, but not conflict.”
Manufacturing. “Where is it written that we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world? We are. We will. Instead of importing foreign products and exporting American jobs, we’re exporting American products and creating American jobs - right here in America where they belong. And thanks to our CHIPS and Science Act, the United States is investing more in research and development than ever before. It takes time, but the American people are beginning to feel it.”
Taxes. Biden said he wants to raise the minimum tax for multinational corporations to 21%, as well as lift the corporate tax rate to 28% from the current 21%. The president also hopes to:

Stop letting corporations get tax deductions for all employee salaries over $1 million (the current rule applies only to C-suite pay) and make it harder for companies to write off executives’ private jet travel.
Raise the tax on corporate stock buybacks from 1% to 4% to encourage companies to spend more of their revenue on salaries and improving productivity.
Make billionaires pay a minimum of 25% income tax.

Bottom line:

Biden’s SOTU address was clearly his effort to begin the national presidential re-election campaign. He directly referenced his age at times. “I’ve been told I’m too old,” he said as he concluded his speech. “Whether young or old, I’ve always known what endures… The issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are,” he said. “It’s how old are our ideas.”

Reaction:

As with most things related to our nation’s capital, responses primarily fell across political lines. Biden proponents and much of the media characterized the speech as “feisty.” The speech amounted to a general election preview, referring to former President Donald Trump 13 times only as “my predecessor.” Biden opponents thought his address was “angry” with no real message of bipartisanship. Trump responded to the speech in real time on his Truth Social site, defending himself and blasting Biden for what he said “may be the Angriest, Least Compassionate, and Worst State of the Union Speech ever made.”

Exclusive: Presidential Candidate Nikki Haley Shares Her Vision For The U.S., Agriculture

Tue, 09 Jan 2024 19:26:13 GMT

Nikki Haley, a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, joined AgriTalk on Tuesday to share her plans for the U.S. and U.S. agriculture if successful in her run for president.

Haley is a former ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina.

AgriTalk has extended an invitation to all presidential candidates to join Host Chip Flory and answer five standard questions about what they would do if elected. That information follows below. You can also listen to the full conversation between Haley and Flory here:

Q1: What’s your motivation to be President? Why do you want the job?

A: The long answer to that is that my parents came here 50 years ago to an America that was strong and proud and full of opportunity. I want them to know that country again. I’m doing this for my husband, who is a combat veteran and who’s currently deployed. I’m doing it for him and his military brothers and sisters, because they need to know their sacrifice matters. They need to know that we love our country.

I’m also doing this for my daughter who just got married. I saw how hard it was for her and her husband to own a home. The average homebuyer right now is 49 years old. And I’m doing this for my son who’s a senior in college. I’m tired of watching him write papers and things he doesn’t believe in just to get an A. That’s not us.

Right now, 81% of Americans don’t think their kids are going to have as good of a life as we did. We can’t be OK with that. I’m not OK with that. I think we have a country to save, and I’m determined to do it.

Q2: What’s the No. 1 issue or challenge for America? How and when will you address it as President?

A: I think the first thing we have to do is end this national self-loathing that’s taken over our country – the idea that they say America is bad or rotten or racist. Our kids need to know to love America, they need to be saying the Pledge of Allegiance when they start school every day. And once we get that national self-loathing out of the way, we can start focusing on the economy and getting inflation back on track. We can start focusing on getting our kids reading again and going back to the basics with education. We can start focusing on securing our border with no more excuses. We can start focusing on law and order in our country, and we can start focusing on a strong America that we can all be proud of.

Q3: Let’s talk rural America, agriculture, farming and ranching. What issues will you address as President?

A: Well, you know, I grew up in an agricultural state, and I was governor of an agricultural state. So, I know the challenges. The first thing would be to get the EPA out of the way. Right now, they care more about sagebrush lizards than they do about whether we can afford our utility bill. Then, we need to start seeing producers as the partners that they are. Food security is national security; that’s always been the case, and we can’t ever be OK with getting our food from overseas. We have to make sure not only do we have enough food produced here in America, but that we have more than enough that we can export overseas so we can make it the powerhouse that we know it can be.

That’s the same with energy. You’ve got biofuels here in Iowa, and it’s hugely important that we see that for the opportunity that it is. So the biggest thing is, get the EPA out of the way, and let producers know that we’re partners and support them through the process. The one thing I saw in South Carolina is farmers are the ultimate survivors. They can’t control the weather, they can’t control pricing. So, the last thing they need is to … have government go and put other mandates on them, whether it’s water, whether it’s anything else. We’ve got to stop all that.

Q4: Describe your energy and renewable energy policy plans.

A: First of all, things that Russia, China and Iran never wanted us to have are a strong military, and they didn’t want us to be energy independent. I don’t want to be energy independent. I want to be energy dominant. We need to make sure that we do that by getting the EPA out of the way. We should roll back Washington’s old rules dictating when we can sell E15 fuel. The rules don’t make sense anymore, and we should get rid of them.

As president, I’ll roll back all of the Biden administration’s green mandates, especially the ones on electric cars that he’s trying to force on us. And when we start to focus on that, then we can see what economic incentives we have to make sure that we grow biofuels and biodiesel in a way we can export it. Let consumers decide which fuels they prefer. I think that’s the biggest thing. I’ll be completely supportive of Iowans and completely supportive of biofuels, and that includes supporting the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Q5: How will businesses small and large view the fiscal policies of a Haley administration?

A: If you put an accountant in the White House magic happens (Haley has a bachelor of science degree in accounting and finance from Clemson University). I will tell you that we are $34 trillion in debt, and we’re having to borrow money just to make our interest payments. China owns some of that debt. What we need to do is we need to stop the wasteful spending. We’re seeing that in both Republicans and Democrats.

The first thing that we’ll do is we’ll stop the spending, we’ll stop the borrowing. I’ll eliminate all these pet projects, and I’ll veto any spending bill that doesn’t take us back to pre-Covid levels. Secondly, we’ll move as many federal programs as we can to the state level. That way, you’re reducing the size of the federal government, but you’re empowering people on the ground and moving more of those resources to let the people decide how best to use them. Then, we want to let the middle class breathe, and the way we’ll let the middle class breathe is we will eliminate the federal gas and diesel tax in this country.

Then, we’ll cut taxes on the middle class and simplify the brackets, and then we’ll make sure that we make the small business tax cuts permanent. They made corporate tax cuts permanent, but they made small business tax cuts temporary. We’ll stop double-taxing farmers the way they are right now, which is keeping them from having generational farms taking place. When you do those types of things that’s when you really get spending back on track. You get inflation under control, and you help those that really need it. I know small businesses are the heartbeat of our economy. We need to start acting like it.

Q: On trade policy, former President Trump says he’s going to invoke at least a 10% tariff on all imports into the U.S. Is that something you would consider?

A: No, because you can’t. When you do that you’re costing Americans more money. The time you want to apply tariffs is when you’re dealing with an adversary, when you’re dealing with a situation where you need to go and make sure that you’re making things harder for them. We need to do more trade with more friends, and we need to do it in a way that we’re exporting as much as we possibly can. As governor, I focused on how to (help) businesses export as much as they could. As president, it should be no different. I would be the No. 1 salesperson of American products, of American produce, of American things.

If you just start doing tariffs on everybody, guess what? They do it right back to you, and then everybody suffers the consequences. So, you have to be strategic. You have to be smart. That’s when you can make sure that it’s more of an advantage and you use it as leverage. You don’t just use it as an across-the-board plan.

To date, along with Ambassador Haley, AgriTalk has also talked with presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis. That conversation is available here:

Exclusive Q&A With Presidential Hopeful Ron DeSantis

Fed Eyes Interest-Rate Cuts for 2024 as U.S. Economy Slows

Wed, 06 Dec 2023 19:14:08 GMT

Current signals in the U.S. economy indicate the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates significantly next year. An initial cut could be made as early as the first quarter of 2024, though many analysts say cuts won’t begin until at least the second quarter.

One of the key factors the central banking system will consider is whether its inflation rate target of 2% has been achieved, says Vince Malanga, president of LaSalle Economics. That percentage is what the Fed has said it has been aiming for in order to help the U.S. achieve a healthy economy with price stability. Currently, the inflation rate is about 3.2%, but interest rates remain high.

“I think you’re going to see a marked, dramatic slowdown in inflation here in the next two or three months. And that will give indications that the Fed is at its 2% target, ” Malanga told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Tuesday. “If the Fed is at its 2% target, it’s going to be very hard pressed to make a case for (any additional) tightening.”

An About Face In Attitude
Flory noted that the potential for interest-rate cuts show there’s been a big shift in attitude by the Fed that has occurred in a relatively short period of time.

“The marketplace has swung very quickly from (saying) ‘more rate hikes are coming’ to ‘hold rates higher for longer’ to ‘maybe a rate cut sometime in 2024’ to ‘a rate cut will be coming in March of 2024,’” Flory said.

Malanga said the shift in attitude by the Fed started in September when interest rates were up to 5% on the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield.

“The view was, ‘Well, the Fed won’t have to tighten anymore, because the long end of the bond market is doing its work for them.’ But right after that, of course, the inflation numbers started to come in better than was generally expected, and there was some evidence out there that the economy was starting to slow. And I think both of those developments are building some momentum now,” Malanga told Flory.

Malanga said he believes the U.S. will release a relatively weak employment report this Friday. Furthermore, he anticipates the U.S. will have “good inflation numbers” by the time the Fed meets on Dec. 12.

“There are a lot of indications out here that the labor market is softening up. Historically, when the unemployment rate goes up by more than a half a percent that’s a signal of a recession,” Malanga said. “We’re right on the verge of that, and so I think that’s contributing to the psychology.”

Predictions Are Split Between Camps
Financial institutions are divided on whether Americans should anticipate going into a recession next year. For example, Bank of America says the U.S. will achieve a “soft landing,” while Deutsch Bank predicts a “mild recession.”

One factor likely to contribute significantly to the camp predicting a soft landing: 2024 is an election year.

“The Fed doesn’t want to have a recession. So, if the indicators are really pointing towards softness, that would urge them to (move) even faster,” Malanga said. “There will be a lot of political pressure placed on the Fed this summer, if the economy is slipping into a real recession.”

The full discussion between Malanga and Flory on the state of the U.S. economy is available below:

5 Balance Sheet Busters to Watch in 2024

Better Yields and Improved Crop Prices Propel Ag Economists’ Outlooks for 2024

El Nino’s Effect on Crop Prices

Speaker McCarthy Selects Unruly House Rules Panel

Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:17:01 GMT

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) issued the new GOP roster for the House Rules Committee Monday, and he made good on his pledges to give his conference’s hard right three positions on the powerful panel, which decides along with the speaker the bills going to the floor and the scope of amendments and debate.

He named Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) to the panel. All have track records of holding up major spending legislation, emergency disaster aid and forcing votes on divisive amendments against the wishes of GOP leadership.

Key for the Ag Sector

Norman in the past unsuccessfully pushed crop insurance amendments that would have cut premium incentives/subsidies by 15% for producers with specified adjusted gross incomes. Another amendment, co-sponsored by Norman, would have effectively muted the harvest price option.

Bottom Line

If Norman, Massie and Roy are in agreement, they can functionally block legislation, even bills McCarthy supports, from getting to the floor — unless McCarthy and his allies can garner Democratic votes on the legislation. But the minority usually votes no on the 9-4 split panel.

Debt Limit Debate: $1 Trillion Coin Not Off the Table

Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:26:41 GMT

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wants to sit down with President Biden, who has agreed to meet with the Republican leader, without saying when.

McCarthy said giving the Treasury Department authority to hike borrowing without add-on GOP conditions is “off the table.” House conservatives want to curb federal spending.

Point, Counterpoint

“When it comes to the debt ceiling, the president has been clear. It should not be used as a political football, but again, he’s looking forward to meeting with the Speaker and continue to build on that relationship,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeated on Friday.

“We cannot raise the debt ceiling,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted last week. “Democrats have carelessly spent our taxpayer money and devalued our currency. They’ve made their bed, so they must lie in it.”

Read more: Kevin McCarthy Finally Won the House Speaker Gavel, Now What?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat, said Biden should not negotiate with Republicans over raising the cap on borrowing, while sometimes centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), has said he wants to discuss Social Security and Medicare spending with the GOP. He told CNN that it was a “mistake” for the president to refuse to negotiate.

“Those who are posing for holy pictures as budget balancers… should note one important fact: Almost 25 percent of all of the national debt accumulated over the history of the United States… was accumulated during the four years of Donald Trump,” Durbin told CNN.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is expected to play a major role in in the emerging debt ceiling fight.

$1 Trillion Coin?

The news comes as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the Federal Reserve likely wouldn’t accept a $1 trillion platinum coin if the Biden administration tried to mint one to avoid breaching the debt limit.

Some Biden administration officials and Democrats on Capitol Hill have discussed the possibility that the Treasury could use an obscure law authorizing platinum coins to circumvent Congress if lawmakers don’t raise the debt ceiling.

Under the proposed scheme, the Treasury would mint a $1 trillion coin and deposit it at the Fed, and then draw the money to pay the country’s bills.

Election

30 Minutes With Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins In Her First Week On the Job

Do Tariffs Work? Leading Ag Economists Weigh In

Reports Now Say Trump to Tap Texas Native Brooke Rollins For Agriculture Secretary

Trump’s Cabinet Nominees Now Up Odds for Expanding U.S. Trade/Economic War with China

Ag Groups Say Stabenow’s Lame-Duck Farm Bill is Lame; Gets Lambasted for Timing, Details

Could Trump Actually Be Good for U.S. Ag Trade?

Why John Thune's Election as Senate Majority Leader is Considered Beneficial for U.S. Agriculture

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Who Will Be the Next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture?

Trump Return Likely to Slow, Not Stop, U.S. Clean-energy Boom

Buoyed by Stronger Support from Rural America than 2016, Trump Wins Second Term as President

Which Presidential Candidate Is More Likely to Tame Inflation or Support Farm Policies and Biofuels?

Hours Until the Election, 2024 Presidential Race is a 'Pure Toss-up’

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

Which Presidential Candidate Would Have the Biggest Impact on Ag?

Your Next Read:

The Recent Boom in Livestock Profitability is Masking a Harsh Reality of the Overall Farm Economy in 2024

Presidential Poll Results: How Farmers and Economists View Candidates' Impact on Agriculture

Farmer Rationale On Harris Vs. Trump

Economists’ Views On Harris Vs. Trump

Do Tariffs Work?

Trump Threatens Tariffs on Deere

Take Our Poll: 5 Questions Ahead of the Presidential Election

Where Do Harris and Trump Stand On Ag Policy Issues?

Trump Picks JD Vance as Running Mate, Here's Where He Stands on Policy Issues and Agriculture

If Trump Wins in November, There Are 2 Front-Runners For Ag Secretary, And There Were Both at Saturday's Rally

New CoBank Report says Federal Reserve is on the 'Horns of a Dilemma’

11 Key Takeaways From Biden's State Of The Union Address

Bottom line:

Reaction:

Exclusive: Presidential Candidate Nikki Haley Shares Her Vision For The U.S., Agriculture

Fed Eyes Interest-Rate Cuts for 2024 as U.S. Economy Slows

Speaker McCarthy Selects Unruly House Rules Panel

Read more: Bank of America Says a U.S. Debt Default is “Likely”

Key for the Ag Sector

Read more: Debt Limit Debate: $1 Trillion Coin Not Off the Table

Bottom Line

Debt Limit Debate: $1 Trillion Coin Not Off the Table

Point, Counterpoint

$1 Trillion Coin?

Read more: Bank of America Says a U.S. Debt Default is “Likely”