The July budget reconciliation package, more commonly known as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” included nearly $66 billion for agriculture. While people across the ag world welcomed the support, most of that funding won’t be available until well into 2026. Many farmers fear they may not be able to hang on that long due to low commodity prices, rising input costs and uncertainty over trade.
Over the past month, consensus has grown among farmers, lawmakers and administration officials that more federal aid is needed to keep farmers afloat until the 2026 crop season.
In August during the Farm Progress Show, Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden said there was “work left be done” to get farmers from this growing season to the next.
While saying previously passed legislation like the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program will help cover some losses not covered by crop insurance, Vaden acknowledged they are only a “partial answer.”
This week, during remarks at the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture meeting in Rogers, Ark., Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins blamed stalled trade talks with China, record crop yields and inflation as factors impacting farmers. She said USDA was “monitoring markets daily” and working closely with Congress to determine the amount of federal assistance that might be needed this fall. How that assistance can be delivered remains an open question.
What can USDA do?
During the first Trump administration, USDA authorized between $23 billion and $30 billion in funding to offset losses incurred by soybean farmers as a result of a trade war initiated by U.S. tariffs. Much of that funding came from the Commodity Credit Corporation. That fund gives the secretary of agriculture authority to borrow up to $30 billion a year to use at their discretion.
The problem with this option is farmers may need more than $30 billion to survive the year. Soybean farmers are especially vulnerable. Over the past five years, more than half of all soybean exports have gone to China. As of mid-September, China had yet to order any U.S. soybeans. This, on top of bumper crop yields and declining prices, has put the U.S. soybean industry in dire straits.
Can Congress take action?
Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman, R-Ark., said, as far as he’s concerned, “everything is on the table.”
“The farming community understands we’ve been there for them in the past and will continue advocating for the resources they need to ensure family farms are viable next planting season and beyond,” Boozman said. “USDA’s swift implementation of key provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill that modernize the farm safety net, which we fought hard to get adopted, will be an important step.”
The most straightforward path to additional farmer assistance would be for Congress to authorize funding to offset farm losses for this year. Unfortunately for farmers, the math for getting something passed is tricky.
With Republicans holding the White House and both chambers of Congress, albeit slim majorities, they could unilaterally pass a bill without Democrat support. However, some GOP lawmakers, most notably members of the Freedom Caucus, are widely expected to oppose additional funding without offsetting spending cuts. This could lead to another heated funding battle most would like to avoid.
In lieu of a Republican bill, GOP lawmakers could look to hammer out a deal with Democrats. That is, if they are willing to talk.
According to multiple sources within the House and Senate, no formal discussions have been held between party leaders about passing a farm aid package.
Just this week, with the federal government heading toward an Oct. 1 shutdown if a budget bill isn’t passed, President Donald Trump said Republicans “should not even bother” with Democrats and pass a bill on their own.
Democrats are still livid over being shut out of the reconciliation package debate this summer. Getting them to support any Republican proposal would likely require some GOP concessions — something they may not be willing to do.
House Ag Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig, D-Minn., said farmers and families are hurting now, in no small part, because of the Trump administration’s tariffs and economic policies. With harvest season coming, she said the administration is not delivering results.
“Input costs remain high. Prices are low due to high yields. We’ve lost markets farmers worked decades to develop — and the president is continuing his trade wars,” Craig said. “The administration needs to step up and end the chaos in farm country.”
Could tariff revenue be the answer?
One potential solution being floated is using revenue from tariffs to pay for farmer assistance. House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson initially considered it a novel idea to address a difficult situation. Unfortunately, after further examining the complexities of the plan, he conceded that the idea is probably not feasible.
While utilizing additional revenue seems logical on the surface, that plan presents its own set of challenges. Tariff revenue goes into the U.S. general treasury fund. Per the congressional budget law, any additional spending from the treasury fund must be offset by cuts elsewhere.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act already cut about $120 billion in net agriculture spending over 10 years. In order to reduce overall spending and strengthen farm safety net programs, lawmakers cut approximately $186 billion in nutrition funding and $1.8 billion for conservation programs.
Asking congressional lawmakers to come up with more major spending cuts could be a tall order. Privately, sources on both sides of the aisle say legislation utilizing tariff revenue is not on the table at this point.
Utilizing tariff revenue could also have long-term implications on the federal budget. While tariffs create additional revenue initially, many economists expect their ultimate impact will be negative. That’s because retaliatory tariffs imposed on U.S. goods will likely decrease international trade, raise the costs of goods, drive consumer spending down and reduce employment. This, according to multiple economists, could trigger a significant economic downtown.
Trump administration officials vehemently disagree with this projection. They contend tariffs will boost domestic demand and create leverage for the U.S. to broker trade deals more favorable to Americans.
Could Trump authorize tariff revenue for farmers?
In a Thursday interview with the Financial Times, Rollins said Trump is “drawing up plans” to use tariff revenue to fund a program supporting farmers this year. How the president can legally do that without congressional consent remains unclear.
According the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can authorize spending federal money.
The president does have some authority to spend contingency funds or reallocate money under certain emergency circumstances. This year, Trump has invoked no less than nine emergency declarations to, among other things, increase border enforcement, levy tariffs, and authorize additional mining and energy production on federal lands.
Could an ag-related emergency be declared to get funds moving? It’s certainly not out of the question. Does the president have other options? Boozman, for one, certainly hopes he does.
“Our ongoing, constant efforts to gather farmers’ feedback have always proved tremendously helpful as we make clear to the administration and colleagues in Congress how serious the situation is in rural America,” he said. “We’re encouraging the administration to look at the tools it has available right now to help address these challenges.”