As financial pressure continues to grip agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins says trade aid could come as soon as next week. But with ongoing discussions about potential tariff-related assistance, the November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor found economists are mixed about the possible impact on the farm economy and whether the payments will keep input prices high.
Before the government shutdown, the situation looked bleak. Hope of a trade deal with China seemed slim. But in October, China committed to buying 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by the end of 2025, followed by at least 25 million tons annually for the next three years. That news buoyed soybean prices, and while sales were slow, a string of purchases the past two weeks further fueled prices, with soybean prices up more than $1 since the beginning of October.
Rollins was on CNBC this week talking about those recent sales, as well as possible tariff aid.
“Just a couple of weeks ago, the announcement was that China is back on to buy soybeans, 12 million metric tons this year, 25 million metric tons over the next few years. They’ve already put in a purchase order. We’ve already started shipping soybeans their way, almost a million and a half metric tons. We have every indication they will continue to buy soybeans, sorghum, etc.,” Rollins said during the interview. “But it goes to the larger effort of President [Donald] Trump. We can’t be so reliant as Americans producing American products on one country, our foreign adversary.”
Is Tariff Aid Still Needed?
At the center of the most recent debate is whether USDA should issue new tariff-related aid payments to offset market disruptions that began years ago and continue to depress cash prices, even though China and the U.S. seem to have a deal. Rollins gave a more specific timeline about when producers impacted by lower crop prices, along with trade disputes, can expect some financial help.
“We are looking at the aid right now. We have always said it is to solve for, to mitigate, anything under these new trade negotiations. Every day that changes, and that’s what we’re working on. So we’ll have an announcement probably in the next week or two on what that’s going to look like,” Rollins said on CNBC.
Reuters reports that aid package could total more than $15 billion, which is higher than the $12 billion Politico reported.
Rollins and the White House have said China will live up to its promise to buy 12 million metric tons of soybeans this year. But ag economists aren’t so sure. Farm Journal’s November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, an anonymous survey, found more than three-quarters (76%) of economists surveyed say China won’t purchase that amount of soybeans this year, while 24% of economists think China will.
But there’s also some confusion. While some reports say China made this purchase commitment for the calendar year, there’s talk it’s for the marketing year, which would give China until Aug. 31, 2026, to make good on its promise.
Under Secretary Richard Fordyce Says USDA is Still Working on Possible Tariff Aid
Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation Richard Fordyce sat down with “U.S. Farm Report” for a one-on-one interview last week. During that interview he said USDA is working daily to understand the severity of the situation across multiple commodities and regions — pressure that economists and farm groups say is reaching crisis levels for some commodities, including cotton and rice.
“We’re having conversations almost on a daily basis with the secretary’s office, the chief economist’s office, the White House,” Fordyce says. “When and if we do something, we want it to be well-informed through the data we have available. We want it to be representative of where we are today but also representative of where we were.”
He also says they are taking into consideration many farmers were forced to sell at harvest for much lower prices than they’re seeing today.
New Monthly Monitor data shows the Mid-South, Midwest and parts of the Southwest are experiencing the most severe financial stress.
Cotton growers might be among those facing the most immediate hardship, and Fordyce says their situation is not lost on the department.
“There are multiple commodities that are part of the conversation,” he says. “Cotton is absolutely one of them. When we make a decision, it’s going to be informed, it’s going to be representative of where we are, and it’s going to use the data we have access to.”
Economists Say Aid Alone Won’t Fix Structural Problems and Could Keep Input Prices High
Farm Journal’s November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor reflects a divided view on whether additional trade aid is needed. Exactly half of economists say yes, trade aid is still necessary, while the other half say no.
But economists overwhelmingly agree on two key risks:
U.S. agriculture has become too reliant on ad hoc payments. A striking 94% say the industry has become “too addicted” to emergency programs. And it’s not just farmers, but also industry and input suppliers who have become reliant upon these payments. Many economists say repeated aid packages distort land values, cash rents, equipment purchases and overall decision-making.
One hundred percent of economists argue tariff-aid payments will keep fertilizer prices high. Every economist surveyed says tariff aid would keep input prices elevated, particularly fertilizer.
But this also leads to a bigger issue: Is there enough competition in the fertilizer market? Two-thirds (67%) of economists surveyed say there is not enough competition in fertilizer markets.
- Fertilizer prices track crop prices, not energy costs — a sign of market power.
- The market is concentrated and driven by a handful of global producers.
“The fertilizer market appears to be very concentrated, limiting competition,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “In a competitive fertilizer market, fertilizer prices should track more closely with energy costs as the primary input cost in fertilizer production (supply) instead of tracking more closely with crop prices as the primary demand for fertilizer. Prices correlating more closely to production costs suggest a competitive supply-driven market. Prices correlating more closely with crop prices suggest a demand-driven market with some market power.”
“More competition is always better, but closing out competition with trade barriers right now is a bad idea,” said one economist.
“While we only have a few suppliers, there is not competition to offer lower prices. Fixing this is a whole other issue,” said another economist in the monthly survey.
“Economies of scale are so large that firms will be few in number. Breaking them up may lead to more competition but also higher prices as economies of scale are lost,” was another comment in the November survey.
AFBF: Farmer Assistance Urgently Needed as Trade Deals Came “Too Late”
A new analysis from the American Farm Bureau Federation underscores the severity of the financial downturn. The group cites USDA’s most recent Commodity Costs and Returns, WASDE, and Farm Sector Income and Finances reports, saying they “confirm what those in agriculture have known for several years: U.S. farm income is under immense pressure as input costs have increased dramatically while crop prices have fallen sharply.”
The result, according to AFBF, is that margins for row crops and specialty crops have been at or below breakeven for several consecutive years.
AFBF outlines three urgent warnings:
- Farm financial stress is severe and persistent.
- Margins remain below breakeven, working capital has eroded, and Chapter 12 bankruptcies are rising. Lenders expect profitability to remain elusive heading into 2026.
- Trade losses have compounded economic pressures.
- Farmers have suffered multibillion-dollar export declines in major markets, including China. While new trade frameworks have been announced, export volumes have not increased and cash prices remain at or below early-2025 levels.
- Without action, long-term viability is at risk.
AFBF says additional financial support is critical to offset trade losses and provide a bridge until new farm bill enhancements take effect. It also notes that while recent trade discussions offer some optimism, many benefits might come too late, especially for farmers who were forced to sell grain at harvest price lows because they lacked storage.
November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor Reflects that Strain
Even though economists fear more ad hoc aid will keep input prices inflated for longer, economists still say the ag economy is strained.
- 70% of economists say the crop sector is currently in a recession.
- 88% say the current margin squeeze will accelerate consolidation.
- Working capital is deteriorating, and many economists believe cash rents are not adjusting to economic reality.
The latest survey also showed modest month-over-month improvement, largely due to improved crop prices, but year-over-year conditions are still weaker.
- 47% say conditions are somewhat better than a month ago.
- 21% say things are worse; none say “much worse.”
- 68% say the ag economy is worse than a year ago; 16% say “much worse.”
- Only 5% see year-over-year improvement.
Economists describe the outlook as ongoing strain, not a 1980s-style collapse, but with little relief in sight.
USDA to Farmers: We Understand the Strain
Fordyce says USDA leadership is not detached from the reality on the ground.
“My first operating loan was in 1983. It was 18%, and I still wanted to farm,” he says. “There are people up and down the hallways within USDA leadership who have farmed, who are farming or who have direct ties to a farm. There’s absolutely a 100% understanding of what’s happening — big picture, commodity specific and geography specific.”
While USDA weighs whether tariff-related assistance is appropriate — and whether it would help or worsen long-term challenges — farmers, economists and lenders agree on one point: The financial pressure in agriculture is real, widespread and growing.
AFBF warns that without action, the long-term viability of many farms is at risk. Economists caution that too much ad hoc aid could distort markets even further, and USDA says it wants any decision to be grounded firmly in data.
As Fordyce puts it: “We want it to be informed, we want it to be representative and we want it to use the data we have access to.”