Four ways Trump could impact the agriculture sector during second term

Donald Trump’s first term as president brought sweeping change to environmental regulations, trade policy and a host of issues that impact America’s agriculture sector. After winning his return bid on Tuesday, Trump’s second term is likely to once again have a sizable impact on the nation’s farms and ranches.

Here are four ways Trump’s next four years as president could impact the agriculture industry.

Trump may reject sustainable food movement in response to climate change

President Joe Biden’s administration spent billions on agriculture practices meant to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, but some environmentalists worry Trump will reverse those investments. 

“There’s a possibility that $19 billion of historic generational climate investments in agriculture could be completely lost,” said Ranjani Prabhakar, the legislative director of healthy communities for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law center. 

The nation’s agriculture sector accounted for 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2022, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data. The agency cites cattle production, rice crops and the application of chemical fertilizers as major sources of climate pollution.

During his first term, Trump reversed more than 100 climate and environmentally-focused rules that originated under former president Barack Obama’s administration. Under Trump, the USDA also stopped publishing government studies that mentioned climate change, according to a 2019 Politico investigation. He also pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Project 2025, the roadmap for a second term created by many Trump supporters and advisors, outlines that, under Trump, the USDA should remove the country from any “schemes” to produce sustainable food or provide funding for climate-smart practices for producers. 

“From the outset, the next Administration should: Denounce efforts to place ancillary issues like climate change ahead of food productivity and affordability when it comes to agriculture,” the document states.

Trump’s push for ‘mass deportation’ could harm farm labor

During his campaign, Trump promised to deport upwards of 20 million undocumented people, many of them agricultural workers who perform the dangerous jobs most Americans don’t want. Trump’s close allies have recently proposed eliminating the H-2A program, which farmers said is necessary to fill labor shortages. 

In an interview with The New York Times, Stephen Miller, who led Trump’s immigration efforts during his first term, said Trump's goal was to upend industries that rely on immigrant labor. 

“Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs,” he said.

Some research suggests deportations, especially at a large scale, could backfire on U.S. workers. In 2023, University of Colorado researchers estimated that, for every 1 million unauthorized workers deported, 88,000 native workers would lose jobs. When companies lose their labor forces, the researchers concluded, they find ways to use less labor, not replace their lost workers.

A historical example is the end of the Bracero Program, which allowed Mexican workers into the U.S. for seasonal jobs. Instead of hiring more U.S. workers when their labor force was suddenly gone, farmers turned to heavy machinery, according to 2017 research. There was no corresponding increase in employment or wages for native workers.

Temporary labor visa programs have exploded in popularity. In 2023, the government granted about 400,000 H-2A visas. But America’s farms still depend on an undocumented workforce. Out of about 2 million farmworkers in the U.S., government surveys show about 44% are undocumented. (Hundreds of thousands of other workers in the food supply chain — meatpacking plants, grocery stores, restaurants — are also undocumented.)

“If we lost half of the farmworker population in a short period of time, the agriculture sector would likely collapse,” said Mary Jo Dudley, the director of the Cornell Farmworker Program. “There are no available skilled workers to replace the current workforce should this policy be put into place.”

Trump has promised to be more aggressive on trade policy

At the start of his second year in office, Trump, responding to what he said were unfair trade practices, enacted the most significant increase in U.S. tariffs since the Great Depression. Trump imposed higher taxes on imports from several countries, including China, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, India and Turkey. 

In response, many of the affected countries imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports of agriculture and food products, leading to an estimated $27 billion decline in foreign sales between mid-2018 and the end of 2019, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service. The losses were most pronounced in the Midwest, with Iowa, Illinois and Kansas — states that collectively account for more than 50% of the region’s total agricultural exports agriculture — hardest hit. Soybeans were the most affected, but the corn and pork industries also suffered significant damage.

Trump, during his latest campaign, promised to be even more aggressive, proposing tariffs up to 10% on most imports, more than 60% on Chinese goods, and a “100% tariff” on nations that stop using the U.S. dollar. 

Trump recently told the Farm Bureau that tariffs — along with tax cuts and other incentives — would be part of his toolbox to relocate critical supply chains back to the United States, safeguard national security and economic stability, and expand international markets for U.S. agricultural products.

However, many have warned that Trump’s aggressive tariff policy could hurt farmers, especially those in the Midwest who rely on critical regional commodities, such as soybeans. 

“The issue is not just the short-run (monetary) losses, but what’s really the problem is that you lose long-run market access,” said Sandro Steinbach, director of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies at North Dakota State University.

Trump sees deregulation of the agriculture industry as a response to consolidation

The agriculture industry has undergone significant consolidation over the past several decades. From seeds to fertilizer, meat production to farming equipment, the agricultural supply chain is dominated today by roughly three dozen companies, according to an analysis from Farm Action, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting corporate monopolies in food and agriculture.   

Some blame consolidation for the rise in food prices, which many Americans have named as the most pressing financial problem facing families this election. 

Those corporations “have the power to decide who gets to farm and how they farm, what food gets produced and sold in this country, and how much we all have to pay for it,” said Basel Musharbash, an antitrust attorney and principal author of a consolidation report published by Farm Action.

Trump has not spoken much about consolidation and its impact on agriculture. But some Republicans said Trump, during a second term, would look to further deregulate the agriculture industry, which they believe could allow smaller meatpackers and independent farmers to better compete against large corporations. 

During Trump’s first term, his administration gutted one of the USDA agencies responsible for enforcing contract transparency and fairness for poultry and swine farmers. That office, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, was folded into the office responsible for marketing agricultural goods, the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

The move weakened the agency’s ability to determine whether a meatpacker violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, which was established 100 years ago in response to the concentrated meatpacker market. 

In 2020, under Trump, the USDA further weakened the act by withdrawing Obama-era rules that would have made it easier for livestock farmers to prove that large companies like JBS Foods or Tyson Foods treated them unfairly. 

The Trump administration also suspended fewer individuals and businesses for cheating farmers than during the Obama presidency. Trump also issued fewer fines during his four years in office than Biden did during his first two years, according to the most recent USDA data.