In the comic theater of American politics, few spectacles are as reliably absurd as the utopian promises of protectionism. Donald Trump’s tariffs, hailed by their proponents as a bold strike against foreign exploitation, have instead proven to be a blunt instrument of economic self-sabotage—particularly for the nation’s farmers. From his first administration to the present day these policies have not only disrupted free markets but have necessitated a cascade of government bailouts, turning independent producers into wards of the state. Such interventions are not savvy trade strategy but are classic crony capitalism: politicians picking winners and losers, all while taxpayers foot the bill for the inevitable fallout.
Let’s rewind to Trump’s initial foray into tariff warfare, beginning in 2018. Under the guise of national security and “fair trade”—invoking dusty provisions like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—the administration slapped duties on imports ranging from steel and aluminum to a broad array of Chinese goods. The stated goal? To curb trade imbalances and shield domestic industries from “unfair” competition. But as any student of economics knows, tariffs are taxes on consumers and producers alike, distorting prices and inviting retaliation.
And retaliate they did.
China, a voracious buyer of U.S. agricultural exports, hit back, targeting soybeans, pork, corn, and sorghum—staples of the American heartland. The impact was swift and devastating. Soybean exports to China plummeted by a staggering 77% in value, as Beijing pivoted to suppliers like Brazil and Argentina. Overall, retaliatory tariffs shaved an estimated $27 billion off U.S. agricultural exports between mid-2018 and the end of 2019, with soybeans bearing the brunt at 71% of the losses. Farmers, already grappling with volatile commodity prices, saw their margins evaporate. Input costs soared—fertilizers jumped by up to $100 per ton, machinery parts became pricier—and unsold crops piled up in storage, leading to a nearly 20% spike in farm bankruptcies in 2019.
What was the government’s response?
Not to admit error and repeal the tariffs, of course. Instead, the Trump administration rolled out the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), channeling $12 billion in direct payments in 2018 and another $16 billion in 2019 through the Commodity Credit Corporation. By 2020, roughly $28 billion had been disbursed to offset “trade-related losses.” This wasn’t relief; it was a bailout on steroids, dwarfing the infamous 2008 auto industry rescue.
Critics, including myself, pointed out the obvious: these funds were disproportionately funneled to swing states like Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin, smelling of electoral pandering. Administration officials dressed it up as compensation for foreign “unfair practices,” but let’s call it what it was—a taxpayer-funded Band-Aid for a wound inflicted by Washington itself.
Fast-forward to Trump’s second term, and the script remains eerily familiar. Tariffs have not only persisted but expanded, encompassing imports from Canada, Mexico, and beyond. The result? A deepening crisis in the farm economy, exacerbated by inflation, escalating production costs, and external shocks like weather anomalies. As of early 2026, U.S. agricultural exports are forecasted to dip to $173 billion, the lowest since 2021, with ongoing retaliatory measures from China continuing to erode markets for soybeans and sorghum. Break-even prices for key crops like corn ($5.03 per bushel) and soybeans ($12.80 per bushel) hover stubbornly high, while production costs are projected to climb another 3-3.1% this year.
The human toll is palpable. Chapter 12 farm bankruptcies have surged by nearly 36%, and states like North Carolina face potential losses of up to $695 million—about a third of average net farm income. The once-healthy agricultural trade surplus has flipped into a $50 billion deficit, a stark reversal from the early days of Trump’s first term. Farmers in the Midwest and South describe these as “depressing times,” with low commodity prices and inflated inputs squeezing them from both sides. New tariff threats, including those linked to European maneuvers in Greenland, only add to the uncertainty, further chilling investment and innovation.
Predictably, the administration’s antidote is more intervention. In December 2025, they unveiled $12 billion in “Farmer Bridge Assistance” (FBA) payments—a so-called one-time bridge to tide producers over amid market disruptions and inherited economic woes. Up to $11 billion targets row crop farmers, with disbursements slated for February 2026. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins frames this as support until new trade deals materialize and provisions from the July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA)—which hiked commodity reference prices by 10-21% starting October 2026—take hold.
Yet farm groups, such as the National Farmers Union, rightly decry it as insufficient. Since early 2025, over $30 billion in ad hoc aid has already flowed through programs like the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program ($9.3 billion) and Supplemental Disaster Relief ($6 billion).
And the spigot shows no sign of closing. As Congress wrangles over spending to avert a government shutdown by January 30, 2026, additional relief is all but assured. Republican leaders float another $15 billion, potentially tacked onto appropriations bills, while House Democrats push their “Farm and Family Relief Act” for $17 billion more. Figures like House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) and Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-AR) express optimism for at least $10 billion beyond the FBA. Meanwhile, a comprehensive five-year farm bill remains elusive, mired in midterm election politics and the normalization of piecemeal handouts—39% of surveyed economists agree this is the “new norm.”
From a libertarian perspective, this cycle is not just inefficient; it’s immoral. Tariffs violate the principles of free exchange, artificially inflating costs and stifling competition. They empower bureaucrats to meddle in markets, creating dependencies that breed further interventions. Bailouts, far from being benevolent, represent cronyism at its finest: politicians rewarding political allies with other people’s money, all while distorting incentives. Why innovate or diversify when Uncle Sam will write a check? This isn’t capitalism; it’s socialism for the connected.
Historically, such policies echo the follies of past protectionists. Think of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which deepened the Great Depression by igniting global trade wars. Or the endless farm subsidies since the New Deal, which have ballooned the national debt while concentrating production in the hands of agribusiness giants. Trump’s tariffs follow the same playbook, prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term prosperity. They ignore the Austrian insight that government distortions lead to malinvestments, booms, and busts—perpetuating a vicious cycle of intervention.
The solution? Dismantle the tariffs, end the bailouts, and let markets work. Free trade isn’t a panacea, but it’s infinitely preferable to the state’s heavy hand. Farmers, resilient as they are, would thrive in a truly competitive environment, unburdened by Washington’s whims.
Until policymakers embrace this truth, American agriculture will remain trapped in a taxpayer-funded purgatory. Trump’s tariffs may win cheers from nationalists, but they spell ruin for the very producers they claim to protect. It’s time to reject the illusion of protectionism and reclaim the virtues of liberty and free enterprise.
