As Trump Heads to Iowa, the ‘Golden Age’ Pitch Collides with Farm-Belt Reality
Tariffs, trade uncertainty, and higher input costs are testing the administration’s economic message in a state built on agriculture
As President Donald Trump prepares to travel to Iowa to promote his economic record and argue that his policies are restoring affordability, the contrast between the White House’s rhetoric and conditions on the ground in the farm belt is becoming harder to ignore.
A new analysis from the New York Times (link) underscores the disconnect. While the administration argues that tariffs, industrial policy, and a tougher trade posture are laying the groundwork for a new “golden age” of American prosperity, many Iowa farmers say they are experiencing precisely the opposite — rising costs, volatile export markets, and thinning margins.
That tension matters deeply in Iowa, where agriculture is not just an industry but the backbone of the state’s economy and political identity.
Tariffs and the cost squeeze on farmers
One of the central issues highlighted by the Times is the inflationary impact of tariffs on farm inputs. Steel-intensive products such as grain bins, machinery components, and tractors have become materially more expensive following the administration’s trade actions. For producers already operating on thin margins, higher capital costs arrive at the worst possible time — when commodity prices are struggling to offset input inflation.
From an economic standpoint, this is a classic double squeeze. Farmers face higher production costs on the supply side while simultaneously confronting restricted demand on the export side, particularly for soybeans.
China’s retaliatory response to U.S. tariffs sharply curtailed purchases of American agricultural products through much of 2025. For Iowa — one of the nation’s largest soybean-producing states — the loss of access to its largest export market had ripple effects across rural communities, from grain elevators to equipment dealers.
Trade truces help — but uncertainty lingers
The administration points to late-2025 negotiations with Beijing that reopened agricultural purchases and committed China to buying up to 25 million metric tons of soybeans annually. On paper, those volumes are broadly consistent with historical buying patterns.
But for farmers making planting and investment decisions months — or years — in advance, uncertainty itself is a cost. Temporary trade truces and shifting tariff threats make long-term planning difficult, especially for highly capital-intensive operations.
As Kirk Leeds, CEO of the Iowa Soybean Association, told the Times, the problem is not just price levels but the absence of clarity. Markets can adjust to almost anything — except unpredictability.
Aid programs blunt the pain, but don’t erase it
The administration’s $12 billion farm aid package helped stabilize some balance sheets, but many producers say the relief arrived late and failed to fully offset losses from depressed prices and higher costs. Emergency assistance can cushion shocks, but it does not replace functioning export markets or restore confidence.
According to the Rural & Farm Finance Policy Analysis Center, Iowa crop receipts were projected to fall about 4% in 2025, with farm bankruptcies climbing to their highest level since 2020. Those figures help explain why talk of a new agricultural boom rings hollow in much of rural Iowa.
The “golden age” message meets farm-country skepticism
That skepticism is sharpened by repeated claims from administration officials that U.S. agriculture is entering a historic upswing. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has previously framed Trump-era policies as ushering in a “golden era of agriculture,” emphasizing trade leverage, domestic production, and rural revitalization.
Yet many producers argue that the policy mix — tariffs, immigration restrictions, and budget tightening — has instead compounded stress across the farm economy. Reduced funding for USDA programs and food assistance, higher health-care costs following the lapse of Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) subsidies, and tighter labor availability have all added friction for farm operations.
Immigration policy is a particularly acute pressure point. In a state with a shrinking population, limits on farm labor have made it harder to staff livestock operations, processing facilities, and seasonal agricultural work.
Spillover effects beyond the farm gate
The Times also highlights an important secondary effect: distress in agriculture does not stay confined to farms. Manufacturing employment in Iowa has weakened as equipment demand softens. Layoffs at John Deere facilities and other manufacturers reflect how closely tied rural manufacturing is to farm income.
As Peter Orazem, an economist at Iowa State University, noted, restricting trade simultaneously compresses demand and raises costs — a combination that rarely ends well for profitability or investment.
Political stakes in a familiar battleground
Politically, Iowa remains a critical proving ground for Trump. He has won the state in three general elections, and Republicans are eyeing it closely ahead of the midterms, particularly with the retirement of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and heightened competition for her seat. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has voiced concerns about tariffs while continuing to work with the administration on affordability issues — a balancing act emblematic of the broader Republican dilemma in farm states.
E15: The litmus test Iowa is watching
For many Iowa producers and ethanol advocates, today’s visit ultimately boils down to one issue: year-round E15.
In the farm belt, support for allowing higher-ethanol blends to be sold year-round is no longer viewed as a niche biofuels fight. It is seen as a proxy for whether the administration understands Iowa’s rural economy — or is willing to prioritize refinery interests over corn growers.
As one analyst put it bluntly, President Donald Trump will leave the state either a hero or a liability depending on what he says — or does not say — about E15.
“Trump will be a renewed hero if he backs year-round E15 today in Iowa. A goat if he does not. That simple.”
The political stakes extend well beyond symbolism. According to an Iowa-based analyst, a failure to clearly push year-round E15 could have direct electoral consequences for Iowa Republicans already facing competitive races. “If Trump doesn’t push year-round E15, Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn would get beat. And Randy Feenstra is running for governor, and Ashley Hinson is running for the Senate. If Trump screws this up, Iowa might send three Democrats to the House.”
That assessment reflects a reality long understood in Iowa politics: biofuels are not a side issue. They sit at the intersection of farm income, rural jobs, fuel prices, and energy independence. For corn growers squeezed by tariffs and volatile export markets, E15 represents one of the few near-term policy wins that directly boosts domestic demand.
For now, the administration is betting that trade toughness and industrial reshoring will eventually deliver growth strong enough to vindicate its approach. But in Iowa’s fields and small towns, many farmers say they are still waiting to see how that promised “golden age” materializes — and whether it arrives before more operations are forced to downsize, consolidate, or exit altogether.
Against that backdrop, the administration’s broader claims about a coming “golden age” of agriculture — language previously echoed by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins — will be judged less on macroeconomic promises and more on whether farmers see tangible support for ethanol at the pump.
In Iowa, rhetoric matters. But on E15, action — or silence — matters far more.
