Trump to Announce Farmer Bailout

Tuesday, October 07, 2025

The Trump administration is expected to announce a plan as soon as Tuesday to bail out U.S. farmers stung by trade disputes and big harvests, with the initial outlay potentially totaling up to $15 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Posted by reinheitsgebot at 09:33 PM | 46 COMMENTS | permalink

Trump bailout for trade-hit US farmers expected this week reut.rs/4mThBae

[image or embed]
-- Reuters (@reuters.com) Oct 6, 2025 at 6:01 PM

Comments

Trump has made farmers into beggars.

As beggars, MAGA will turn on them.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2025-10-07 08:19 AM

Hillbilly JD and Brahmin Usha Vance may not like this. They have shares in a vulture company called AcreTrader that specializes in selling seized foreclosed American farms to foreign investors. That's patriotism for you.

A bandaid to get through the midterms.

Doesn't fix the base problem.

But it will ensure enough of them are stupid enough to vote GOP again anyway.

www.loc.gov

we've been bailing out farmers for a long time.

I only point that out because some of you seem to believe this started with Trump.

How does he plan to get congressional approval during the shutdown?

some of you seem to believe this started with Trump.
#4 | Posted by eberly

Nobody thinks that.
Everybody thinks you're stupidly trying to save face for Republicans.

"we've been bailing out farmers for a long time."

And when was the last time we put farmers in a trade war so they sold $0 soybeans to China?

You live in a Clown World, Eberly.

"As beggars, MAGA will turn on them."

^
Why should we bail out farmers who made Bad Choices and planted the Wrong Crops?
We shouldn't.

Why should we bail out farmers who hired Illegals instead of American Citizens?
We shouldn't.

Fascists never think the other fascists will come for them.

" we've been bailing out farmers for a long time."

1. Not to this extent.

2. Not because of repeated self-inflicted gunshots.

Just admit: sales dropping to $0 is unprecedented, and a MAJOR eff-up.

Oh, it's a huge screw up on Trump's part. That's what makes it different.

Not the size of the bailout.

en.wikipedia.org

Not our first embargo.

"In 1979, US President Jimmy Carter issued an embargo on the export of wheat to the Soviet Union as a response to the Soviet"Afghan War. But the embargo did not bring any positive effect to the USA. The Soviet Union eluded the embargo by increasing its domestic wheat production and importing from other countries. The Reagan administration lifted the embargo in 1981, but US farmers suffered financially, leading the US government to introduce bailout programs to the dairy industry. Bailouts helped the dairy industry to increase production however the US government had to buy all oversupply. Later the Reagan administration spent $100 million annually to store and transport all dairy oversupply worth $3 billion from the previous administration.[17][12]"

"Later the Reagan administration spent $100 million annually"

So...today's equivalent of $350 million, adjusted for inflation.
www.bls.gov

Trump's Bailout is $15 billion. 4,000% higher.

Thanks for proving my #1 point. Any comment on point #2?

"dairy oversupply worth $3 billion from the previous administration."

My apologies: I missed this in the original equation. Once adjusted, that adds $10 billion. Trump's is "only" 50% higher...but that is all for less than one year, while the others represent multiple years.

And, as usual, it excludes the interest we'll pay to service the extra debt.

-Any comment on point #2?

an embargo that's not worked...or at least not worked yet and comes with significant consequences....that any thinking person would have known would lead to this bailout.

"any thinking person would have known would lead to this bailout."

Are you saying that leaves out Republicans?

"an embargo that's not worked...or at least not worked yet and comes with significant consequences."

Thanks for proving my point #2.

which republicans? elected officials or farmers?

-Thanks for proving my point #2.

I'm glad you view my words as "proof".

But it's really just agreement.

Shouldn't the democrats make this an issue?

Run on the bailout as being necessary only because of horrible incompetence in the first place.

Point out that even with this bailout, farmers are still suffering unnecessarily. It could have been avoided. IOW, outright point the finger at the entire republican party for this mess.

Is it futile? Meaning that even if the democrats did this....they still can't expect to get anywhere some swing states? Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc....can't they pick up seats in congress and turn some of those states blue in the presidential election over this issue?

we've been bailing out farmers for a long time.

I only point that out because some of you seem to believe this started with Trump.

#4 | Posted by eberly

I didn't think it started with Trump.

But I also see a difference between subsidies to level out year to year variability in pricing and production and intentionally burning the farms down then paying for it to keep them politically happy.

Shouldn't the democrats make this an issue?
Run on the bailout as being necessary only because of horrible incompetence in the first place.

That would require actual leadership from the animated corpse known as Chuck Schumer.

They could start by sitting down with lobbyists and the Executive director and the board of the American Soybean association.

soygrowers.com

What do they want? What can the democrats offer the republicans aren't?

And there are plenty of state associations as well........grain and feed, wheat, corn, etc......lots and lots of influence and money.

"What can the democrats offer the republicans aren't?"

Huh?

How can Democrats, who have no power in Washington, offer Republican farmers anything?

Stop looking for Democrats to solve Republican problems.

Shouldn't the democrats make this an issue?

They should.

But.

The Democratic Party is dead.

They've been campaigning on "Trump bad!" for the past decade.

The DNC blocked Bernie twice and are doing everything they can to stop Mamdani from winning in New York.

What can the democrats offer the republicans aren't?

Oh I don't know, how about not mindlessly following a demented old fool as they scuttle any and all international goodwill and preeminence of the United States?

You keep pulling this bulls(*& line as if it's not clear that anything is better than what the GOP is currently selling.

-You keep pulling this bulls(*& line as if it's not clear that anything is better than what the GOP is currently selling.

It's not --------. You yourself said the leadership is crap and Clown agrees with you.

I sincerely wish the democratic party would sell their advantages to these groups. Not just hope they decide on their own.

Why in the hell do you think these associations exist? If your view is simply "well, they should just know not to support a demented old fool...." then you're not understanding how important these relationships are.

"I sincerely wish the democratic party would sell their advantages to these groups"

Then go help them do it!

You're just a downright horrible person.

-The Democratic Party is dead.

If I posted that you'd all blow a gasket.

And if you really believed that, then you wouldn't be so hard on farmers for voting for Trump.......

Nobody is harder on farmers who voted for Trump than Trump.

It's not --------. You yourself said the leadership is crap and Clown agrees with you.

Dude. It's not a hard concept.

On one hand, you have poor leadership but a return to a status quo that saw tens of billions of dollars in sales of various ag products on international markets and billions in sales for domestic aid programs.

On the other, you have an unnecessary trade war causing zero dollars of sales of ag products on international markets and zero dollars in sales for domestic aid programs, but a short term "fix" of debt fueled bailout money.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

"Why in the hell do you think these associations exist?"

To lobby for the Federal handouts.

If your view is simply "well, they should just know not to support a demented old fool...." then you're not understanding how important these relationships are.

#26 | Posted by eberly

Look, if they're still viewing this from a lens of normalcy then they are in fact stupid.

What will it take for them to realize that they're following a losing bet that will laugh all the way to the bank at their expense?

AGAIN.

THIS. IS. NOT. HARD.

If your view is simply "well, they should just know not to support a demented old fool...." then you're not understanding how important these relationships are.
#26 | Posted by eberly

Huh?

Everybody should know not to trust a demented old fool.

Who's the better spokesman to deliver that message to these poor farmers that your heart can't stop bleeding for?

The Republican from Kansas who understands "how important these relationships are."

Or the Liberal from the East Coast who thinks half these farmers are closeted homosexuals who enjoy tranny porn.

It's a tough call I know. Take all the time you need.

"a return to a status quo"

says who?

Where is the leadership in the democratic party saying anything like that to farmers and these organizations?

You not making the connection. You're jumping to the part where a lot of influential people just magically come to the conclusion you think they should.

It's not done by telepathy.

It's why these organizations exist and I were a serious democrat wanting to influence these people, there is a process.

I have to go for a while.

It's apparent someone is trying to stay no more than 2 inches from my ---- on every thread and with every post.

Thank you all for ignoring that little twerp like I am.

This is a great discussion.......

"Where is the leadership in the democratic party saying anything like that to farmers and these organizations?"

Here is an excerpt from the 2024 Democratic Party Platform.

AGRICULTURE

American farmers are the backbone of our country. They feed America, and help feed the world. But over the years, trickle-down economics has hit rural America hard. Farming costs have gone up and incomes have gone down. Big Agriculture moved in, telling too many small farms that the surest path to success was to get big or get out. As a result, we lost over 400,000 farms in America in the last 40 years, and rural communities have paid a steep price. Too many young people have had to leave their hometowns to find good-paying work and a shot at their dreams.

The President believes that no one should have to leave the community where they grew up just to find opportunity. His Investing in America agenda is investing in all of America, including farms and rural areas. It's creating new sources of income for farmers and increasing competition among suppliers, to both lower the cost of farm inputs and to get small and mid-size farmers a larger share of profits. The Inflation Reduction Act is helping farmers and ranchers adopt climate-smart practices, which make the land more resilient and increase profitability, while connecting them to new markets and premiums for sustainably produced commodities. The Administration recognizes the critical role that our land stewards play in our food systems, economy, and environment, and is working hard to drive both public and private funds to reward these champions for nature for their hard work. The Administration has also supported independent meat and poultry processing, reducing producers' reliance on big companies to buy their product; and it's working to make livestock and poultry markets fairer and more transparent. Today, family farms have more income from more varied sources, so their children have more opportunity to stay family farmers.

half these farmers are closeted homosexuals who enjoy tranny porn.
#33 | Posted by snoofy

I have to go for a while.
#34 | Posted by eberly

Nailed it!

Trump drumming up controversy to give a replica sword to a dignitary is right on brand.

Cheap, tacky and boorish all in one s&*^ty diaper wearing package.

Classic American farm brand John Deere is seeing prices rise and profits drop -- and Trump's tariffs are making things worse
www.independent.co.uk

... The company, which is the leading supplier of farm equipment in the United States, is in a worse financial position now than it was a year ago. In its Q3 earnings report, John Deere said its net income was down 26 percent compared to the same time last year. It also saw a 9 percent decline in sales.

That, in part, is due to President Donald Trump's tariffs.

Tariffs on steel and aluminum have made it more expensive to manufacture equipment, even though John Deere assembles 80 percent of its equipment in the U.S., and only 25 percent of its components are imported, the company reported.

"Tariff costs in the quarter were approximately $200 million, which brings us to roughly $300 million in tariff expense year to date," Josh Beal, the director of investor relations, told the Wall Street Journal in August. ...

Can Deere tractors plow under Trump tariffs (November 2024)
www.fierceelectronics.com

... John Deere, the world's biggest farm machinery manufacturer, prides itself on using AI for autonomous tractors and precise See & Spray crop spraying technology. Its yellow and green tractors and lawn mowers are also iconic symbols of America's heartland, helping place Deere in the political crosshairs of future tariff policies under President-elect Donald Trump.

Deere's innovative self-driving tech and other improvements rely heavily on sensors and GPUs. Various upgrades have meant the newest giant farm machines are priced at half a million dollars or more apiece, often putting them out of reach of average farmers. An autonomous Deere 8R tractor recently sold for $500,000, with autonomous electronics adding another $50,000. In the past two years, Deere has reacted by creating a new pricing scheme, a pay-per-use licensing model for monthly billing of AI-based applications like See & Spray, said to cost a fraction of the traditional upfront investment.

Against the backdrop of needing to hold down costs to farmers, Trump has repeatedly promised tariffs on many types of imports, especially from China. In September, Trump singled out Deere for reportedly wanting to move some production to Mexico, proposing steep tariffs that could make the newest farm tech even more expensive.

"I'm just notifying John Deere right now, if you do that, we're putting a 200% tariff on everything that you want to sell into the United States," Trump said Sept. 23. It isn't clear whether the remark has had any effect on Deere & Company's Mexico plans. The company laid off 503 workers in Illinois and 310 in Iowa earlier in 2024, amid reported steps to acquire land in Mexico to shift production previously done in the US. ...