Former Ag Leaders Warn Farm Economy Near “Widespread Collapse,” Urge Congress to Intervene

Agribusiness earnings underscore margin squeeze across farm economy | Ag aid timing in Senate remains unsettled

LINKS

Link: Treasury Proposes Sweeping Rules for Section 45Z Clean Fuel
          Production Credit

Link: Video: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Feb. 1
Link: Audio: Wiesemeyer’s Perspectives, Feb. 1
 

Updates: Policy/News/Markets, Feb. 6, 2026

TOP STORIES—Trump signs stopgap bill to end shutdown, DHS funding fight loomsCongress averts broader disruption for FY 2026 agencies, but immigration policy disputes point toward another short-term fix President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed into law a funding package that ends the partial government shutdown, providing full Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations for five federal agencies and extending funding for the Department of Homeland Security only through Feb. 13. The short-term DHS extension sets up the next fiscal flashpoint. Negotiations are ongoing, with Democrats pressing for changes tied to Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities — proposals Republicans say they cannot accept. With positions still far apart, lawmakers are already signaling that another temporary spending measure will likely be required to keep DHS operating. Some members are openly floating a longer-term fallback: a continuing resolution that would carry DHS — and potentially other accounts — through the remainder of FY 2026. For now, the immediate shutdown risk has eased, but the funding fight has shifted squarely to immigration and border security policy, where a durable compromise remains elusive.—India keeps farm safeguards as U.S./India trade deal takes shapeTariff cuts favor industrial goods and select U.S. farm exports, but key commodities remain untouched More details are emerging on the U.S./India trade deal announced by President Donald Trump, underscoring a sharp contrast between broad tariff relief for industrial goods and only limited gains for U.S. agriculture. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told CNBC that India will cut tariffs on U.S. industrial goods to zero from a current average of 13.5% and eliminate duties on U.S. tree nuts, fruits, vegetables, wine, and spirits. In return, the U.S. would reduce its tariffs on Indian goods to 18% from 50%. Greer said the two sides are still finalizing the text of the agreement, which also includes a U.S. demand that India end purchases of Russian oil. In exchange, Washington would further lower tariffs on Indian goods and remove a punitive 25% tariff tied to those oil purchases.style=”margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt;”> However, Greer acknowledged that India will maintain protections in what he described as “key areas” of its farm sector. While he called the new access for nuts, fruits, vegetables, wine, and spirits a “big win” for U.S. agriculture, he did not cite progress on major commodities such as rice, beef, soybeans, sugar, or dairy. Greer added that the agreement would establish a “process for recognizing U.S. standards,” aimed at easing technical barriers to trade where India has historically resisted accepting U.S. regulatory standards. He noted that India would still need to navigate its domestic political process before formally adopting those standards. No effective date for the agreement has been announced. While specialty crop and beverage sectors are likely to welcome the tariff relief, the absence of any mention of core commodities is expected to temper enthusiasm across much of the U.S. farm sector. —Mexico commits to boost 1944 water treaty complianceTrump administration welcomes pledge as South Texas growers seek relief from years of shortfalls The United States and Mexico have reached a renewed commitment to strengthen implementation of the 1944 Water Treaty, a move welcomed by Trump administration officials and closely watched by agricultural producers in South Texas. Under the treaty, Mexico is obligated to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water over a five-year cycle to the U.S. from the Rio Grande River, while the U.S. provides 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico from the Colorado River. Mexico has fallen well short of its Rio Grande commitments in recent years, delivering roughly 400,000 acre-feet between October 2020 and October 2024, intensifying water stress for irrigated agriculture in the Rio Grande Valley. The Trump administration had warned that continued noncompliance could trigger tariffs or other sanctions. As part of the new pledge, Mexico committed to deliver a minimum of 350,000 acre-feet per year to the U.S. during the current five-year cycle — a step U.S. officials say is essential to restoring treaty balance and providing greater certainty for South Texas farmers heading into upcoming growing seasons. —USDA to deliver $452 million in U.S. food aid after USAID closureFood for Peace funding will send 211,000 tons of U.S.-grown commodities to seven countries via the U.N. World Food Program USDA announced Tuesday it will purchase up to $452 million in U.S.-grown agricultural commodities to support international food assistance under the Food for Peace program, following an interagency agreement with the now-closed U.S. Agency for International Development. Using Fiscal Year 2025 funding, USDA will provide the World Food Program with 211,000 metric tons of U.S. commodities for distribution in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, and Rwanda. USDA emphasized that the World Food Program and all partners operating USDA-managed international aid programs must procure commodities of 100% U.S. origin, adhere to strict accountability standards to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and pursue strategies aimed at reducing long-term dependency on foreign aid. The department said purchases are expected to occur by March and will include items such as ready-to-use supplemental food (RUSF), wheat, Corn-Soy Blend Plus, beans, peas, lentils, rice, sorghum, and vegetable oil. With Food for Peace now under USDA control, the department highlighted its broader aid footprint, noting that it has provided nearly 500,000 tons of U.S.-grown food through the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programs to support populations facing food insecurity worldwide. —Miran steps down from CEA role, stays at Fed amid nomination standoffFed Governor Stephen Miran formally exits his Council of Economic Advisers post, pledging to remain on the Federal Reserve Board until a successor is confirmed, as political tensions complicate leadership changes at the central bank Stephen Miran has resigned as head of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), saying he had committed to doing so if he remained on the Federal Reserve Board beyond the end of January, when his Fed term technically expired. Miran took an unpaid leave from the CEA after being confirmed as a Fed governor last fall, but said in a letter Tuesday to Donald Trump that formally departing the council was necessary to honor the pledge he made to the Senate. Quote of note: “I believe it is important to stay true to my word while I continue to perform the job at the Federal Reserve to which you and the Senate appointed me,” Miran wrote. The move comes as Trump has said he intends to nominate former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh as the next Federal Reserve chair. Many observers expect Warsh would be nominated to the Fed governor seat currently held by Miran as part of that transition. That process, however, faces political headwinds. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has said he will block action on any Trump administration Fed nominees until the Department of Justice concludes its investigation into whether Fed Chair Jerome Powell misled Congress over the renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters. Trump has rejected calls to intervene in the probe, saying it should run its course. Within the Fed, Miran has emerged as one of the most outspoken advocates for lower interest rates. Since joining the Board on Sept. 16, 2025, he has dissented at every meeting, arguing that rate cuts have not gone far enough. At the Jan. 28 meeting, he and fellow Governor Christopher Waller favored a 25-basis-point rate cut, while the committee voted to hold rates steady. For now, Miran’s continued presence on the Fed underscores both the internal policy debate over rates and the broader uncertainty surrounding the central bank’s leadership transition.—Agribusiness earnings underscore margin squeeze across farm economyVolatile commodity markets, policy uncertainty, and cautious farmers weigh on processors and input suppliers alike Earnings reports from Bunge and Corteva point to mounting financial pressure across the agribusiness sector, reflecting tighter margins, policy uncertainty, and growing caution among producers. Bunge reported adjusted earnings per share of $1.99 for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2025, down from $2.13 a year earlier but still ahead of market expectations. Looking ahead, however, the company sharply lowered its full-year outlook, projecting adjusted EPS of $7.50 to $8 — well below prior expectations above $8.70. Bunge said volatile commodity markets and compressed margins are weighing on results, and reiterated that delays in biofuel policy decisions under the Trump administration have added to uncertainty. The performance underscores broader strain on companies that handle, trade, and process agricultural commodities. Corteva’s quarterly results tell a similar story from the farm-input side of the industry. The company reported seed segment net sales of $1.74 billion, down 2%, while crop protection sales slipped 1% to $2.17 billion. Total net sales of $3.91 billion came in below expectations, with Corteva projecting operating earnings of $3.45 to $3.70 per share. The softer sales volumes suggest farmers are closely scrutinizing input purchases amid pressure on crop margins, signaling a more defensive posture heading into the new growing season. Taken together, the results highlight a sector grappling with narrower margins from both ends of the supply chain — processors facing volatile markets and policy delays, and input suppliers contending with farmers pulling back on spending.—Agricultural aid timing in Senate remains unsettledBoozman says producer losses are mounting as lawmakers weigh FY 2026 supplemental and a possible “skinny” farm billSenate Ag Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said lawmakers are still working to finalize agricultural aid for producers, with the assistance likely to be attached to an expected supplemental spending request for FY 2026. Speaking to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), Boozman cautioned that both the timing and the size of the aid package remain unresolved.“If you are growing something from the ground, you are probably losing money,” Boozman said, underscoring the financial pressure facing producers as Congress debates next steps.Boozman also said he expects some form of a farm bill this year — either a scaled-back “farm bill 2.0” or a “skinny” farm bill focused on core provisions. Still, the path forward is uncertain. Any bill would need the support of at least 60 senators to advance in the Senate, and the anticipated House version faces its own hurdles, including clearing committee and securing broader bipartisan backing. —Former ag leaders warn farm economy is near “widespread collapse,” urge Congress to interveneBipartisan group of ex–commodity chiefs, farm leaders, and former USDA officials lays out nine-point rescue plan, blaming tariffs, trade policy, labor disruptions, and USDA cuts for deepening crisis A bipartisan group of 27 former leaders of major agricultural commodity groups, biofuels organizations, and senior USDA officials is warning Congress that the U.S. farm economy is facing a potential “widespread collapse of American agriculture,” driven by administration policies that have raised costs, weakened export markets, and hollowed out federal farm support. In a Feb. 3, 2026, letter (link) sent to the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, the signatories say farm conditions have deteriorated sharply from the record income and export surpluses of recent years, with bankruptcies doubling and fewer than half of U.S. farms expected to be profitable this year. Core warning and economic diagnosis. The group argues that current policy choices — combined with congressional inaction — have created a compounding crisis across rural America. Key indicators cited include: • Farmer bankruptcies doubling and profitability plunging across farm country• A historic U.S. agricultural trade deficit• A collapse in U.S. global market share for major commodities, especially soybeans They highlight soybeans as a stark example: U.S. whole soybean exports fell from 47% of global market share in 2018 to 24.4% today, while Brazil gained more than 20 percentage points over the same period. Once markets are lost, the authors warn, they are extremely difficult to regain. Policies blamed for the downturn. The letter identifies several interconnected policy failures as drivers of the crisis: 1. Higher farm input costs from tariffsTariffs on fertilizer, chemicals, and machinery parts have pushed production costs above commodity prices. While the group applauds the recent exemption of fertilizer from tariffs, they question why all farm inputs have not been exempted. 2. Loss of export markets and trade credibilityWithdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade wars — especially with China — are cited as having permanently damaged U.S. reliability as a supplier. Brazil, Argentina, and Australia are identified as major beneficiaries. 3. Weakening global trade alliancesThe authors warn that U.S. allies are forging new trade blocs without the U.S., pointing to EU–Mercosur agreements, Canada–China trade ties, and the growing influence of the BRICS bloc. 4. Cuts to food aid programsReductions in foreign aid and domestic food programs are undercutting demand for U.S. commodities such as rice, wheat, and peanuts, while also weakening U.S. geopolitical influence. 5. Failure to fully support biofuelsThe letter calls ethanol and biodiesel the most important value-added markets for farmers over the past two decades, arguing that restrictive blend limits, delayed EPA action, refinery exemptions, and Congress’s failure to pass nationwide E15 legislation have stalled growth. 6. Agricultural labor disruptionsMass deportations, removal of protected status, and lack of H-2A reform are blamed for labor shortages in dairy, produce, and meat processing — leading to food waste, higher consumer prices, and financial stress across the supply chain. 7. USDA staffing and research cutsThe signatories warn that widespread USDA firings and reduced funding for land-grant research are delaying payments, degrading service delivery, and threatening long-term U.S. agricultural competitiveness. “Farmers don’t want handouts.” Throughout the letter, the group emphasizes that farmers are not seeking subsidies, but rather:• Reliable domestic and export markets• World-class research to stay competitive• Stable rural infrastructure, including health care access They argue Congress must assert itself to prevent long-term damage to rural communities and the farm economy. The nine-point action plan. The letter urges Congress to take immediate action on nine fronts: • Exempt all farm inputs from tariffs• Repeal tariffs disrupting agricultural export markets• Pass Trade Promotion Authority• Prioritize binding, enforceable trade agreements• Complete USMCA review, resolve the Canada dairy dispute, and extend the agreement• Pass nationwide E15 year-round ethanol and support sustainable aviation fuel• Pass a new farm bill• Enact farm labor reform, including H-2A changes• Restore funding for land-grant research, USDA staffing, and food aid programs The group also says it will convene meetings with farmers and urges Congress and agricultural organizations to do the same to hear directly from producers. Signatories (as listed in the letter) Harold Wolle — Retired Minnesota farmer; past president, National Corn Growers Association Buzz Mattelin — Retired Montana farmer; past president, National Barley Growers Association Bart Ruth — Nebraska farmer; past president, American Soybean Association Pam Johnson — Retired Iowa farmer; past president, National Corn Growers Association; founder, International Maize AllianceBob Dinneen — Past president & CEO, Renewable Fuels Association Donna Reifschneider — Past president, National Pork Producers Council; former GIPSA administrator Jim Mulhern — Past president & CEO, National Milk Producers Federation Ron Gray — Past chair, U.S. Grains Council Jon Doggett — Past CEO, National Corn Growers Association Randy Doyal — Past chairman, Renewable Fuels Association; former CEO, Al-Corn Clean Fuels Neil Conklin, PhD — Former USDA ERS director; former chief economist, Farm Credit Council; former OMB agriculture branch chief Ron Warfield — Past president, Illinois Farm Bureau Becky Doyle — Illinois pork producer; former Illinois agriculture director Don D. Hutchens — Past director, Nebraska Department of Agriculture Paul E. Schickler — Past president, DuPont Pioneer Larry Elworth — Former senior advisor, USDA & EPA Christine Hamilton — South Dakota farmer and rancher Dawn R. Riley — Former USDA appointee; former agriculture staffer to Sen. Mitch McConnell Thomas Hebert — Former USDA deputy undersecretary for natural resources and environment Melina Fox — Indiana farmer; former USDA FSA and Rural Development official Charles David Willett — Past senior director, public policy, National Corn Growers Association Craig Yunker — Managing partner, CY Farms; Farm Foundation fellow John C. Foltz, PhD — Professor emeritus, Ohio State University; former dean, University of Idaho Jonathan Coppess — Associate professor of agricultural policy, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign Robert L. Thompson — Former USDA assistant secretary for economics; former Reagan CEA economistAlan D. Barkema — Iowa farmer and economist, Apical EconomicsRobert White — Indiana farmer; former Senate Agriculture Committee staff; former USDA appointee —Farm leaders’ letter sets up clash with Trump administration over aid versus marketsWhite House likely to cite record farmer assistance as proof of support, while critics argue payments mask deeper damage from trade, labor, and tariff policy A sharply worded letter from former leaders of major farm, commodity, and biofuels organizations warning of a potential “widespread collapse of American agriculture” is expected to draw pushback from the Trump administration, particularly over claims that current policies have left farmers in crisis despite tens of billions of dollars in federal aid in recent years. Administration officials and allies are likely to counter that the scale of emergency assistance, disaster payments, and income support provided to farmers undermines the letter’s central premise. The White House’s core argument is expected to be straightforward: farmers are receiving unprecedented federal support, and that support demonstrates the administration is standing with rural America. But the dispute goes well beyond a debate over dollar figures. At its heart is a political and policy clash over whether direct payments can substitute for stable markets, trade access, and long-term competitiveness — a question that resonates deeply in farm country and on Capitol Hill. Aid as the administration’s primary defense. In responding to the letter, officials tied to President Donald Trump are expected to emphasize that farm income has been propped up through successive rounds of relief, including disaster aid linked to extreme weather, trade-related assistance, and expanded crop insurance support. From the administration’s perspective, this financial backing is evidence that claims of a looming collapse are overstated. Expect officials to argue that:• Federal aid has kept farms operating through a period of global volatility• Short-term financial stress does not equal systemic failure• Assistance reflects a conscious policy choice to shield farmers while pursuing broader goals such as tariffs, border enforcement, and fiscal restraint elsewhere Politically, this line of defense is effective because the payments are tangible, easily quantified, and widely received.“Short-term pain” and the nationalist policy frame. Beyond aid totals, the administration is likely to frame the criticism as resistance to a longer-term economic strategy. Tariffs, trade disruptions, and stricter immigration enforcement will be defended as necessary steps to rebuild U.S. manufacturing capacity, protect national security, and restore control over labor markets. Under this argument, agriculture is portrayed as sharing in a temporary adjustment period — one that officials say will ultimately leave the U.S. economy stronger and more self-reliant. Some allies may also characterize the letter’s authors as representatives of a pre-2016 trade and globalization model, implicitly casting them as out of step with the administration’s nationalist economic approach. Why the letter is politically uncomfortable. Despite the likely pushback, the letter poses a real challenge for the administration for several reasons. First, the messengers are difficult to dismiss. The signatories include former leaders of corn, soybean, pork, dairy, grains, and biofuels groups, as well as senior USDA economists and officials — many with Republican backgrounds or service in GOP administrations. Labeling them as partisan critics risks alienating trusted voices in farm states. Second, the letter’s central argument cuts directly at the administration’s reliance on aid. The authors stress that “farmers don’t want handouts — they want markets,” a line that reflects a widely held view among producers. While payments may stabilize cash flow, they do not replace lost export markets, predictable labor supply, or confidence in long-term investment. Third, timing matters. The letter arrives as Congress debates a new Farm Bill 2.0, reviews the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, weighs nationwide E15 legislation, and grapples with concerns about USDA staffing and agricultural research funding. That context gives farm-state lawmakers political cover to press the White House on specific policy changes without openly breaking with the president. Likely Capitol Hill response. Republican lawmakers on the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are expected to tread carefully. Many privately share concerns raised in the letter, particularly on input costs, trade erosion, and labor shortages. Publicly, however, they are likely to praise the administration’s financial support while using the letter to justify targeted legislative pressure on issues such as tariff exemptions for farm inputs, biofuels policy, and USDA capacity. Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to cite the letter as evidence that the administration’s broader economic strategy is failing rural America, even as they acknowledge the importance of recent aid. Bottom Line: The Trump administration’s pushback will almost certainly center on how much money farmers have received. But politically, aid is a defensive argument, not a long-term vision. By reframing the debate around markets, competitiveness, and sustainability — rather than payments alone — the letter forces an uncomfortable question for policymakers: Is U.S. farm policy stabilizing agriculture, or merely subsidizing its decline? That question is likely to linger as Congress and the administration head into the next round of farm, trade, and energy policy fights.