As election results rolled in Tuesday night, even early returns pointed to strong gains for Democrats.
With Republicans losing key seats, even in largely rural districts, the election results raise an important question: What does the changing makeup of Congress mean for agriculture in the months and years ahead?
“We were all expecting a blue wave, and it looks like a tsunami,” says Callie Eideberg, principal with the Vogel Group, a bipartisan lobbying and business advisory firm based in Washington, D.C.
Eideberg joined Farm Journal’s exclusive Ag Vote 2026 live election coverage Tuesday night. While she says she was surprised by the strength of some early results, she believes the outcome reflects broader frustrations that extend beyond politics.
“I think it’s probably a little bit of both, the wake-up call on the Republican side and maybe for farmers and ranchers out there,” Eideberg says. “Just like everything in this world, just like our country day to day, things are changing. Policies have to change, practices have to change, operations and businesses have to change, and they’re just moving at a speed that’s really, really challenging to keep up with.”
That frustration comes as farmers continue to face elevated production costs and tight margins.
In an interview with Newsmax on Election Day, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pointed to the previous administration when discussing the economic challenges facing farmers. Rollins said average input costs increased about 40% under President Joe Biden, citing feed, fuel and fertilizer, while adding that inputs are now coming down.
USDA farm expense data show the scale of cost increases between 2020 and 2025. Fuel costs rose 32%, fertilizer increased 37%, labor costs climbed nearly 50% and interest expenses jumped 73%.
While some expenses may have eased slightly, as Rollins claims, many remain elevated. Diesel, in particular, continues to be a major pain point for producers. The average farm diesel price was $5.75 per gallon on Oct. 2, compared with $3.02 a year earlier, an increase of roughly 90%.
Frustration Over Farm Economy and Ag Policy Concerns
Brian Klippenstein, a Missouri cattle producer and former leader of the Trump USDA transition team, says Republicans have an opportunity to make adjustments following the election results.
“It is important, and it’s also an opportunity to make adjustments,” Klippenstein says. “And adjustments are something that I think the Republicans are going to have to make.”
Klippenstein says he believes President Donald Trump and many USDA officials want to help agriculture, but he points to two major concerns among rural voters: the farm economy and the direction of agricultural leadership.
“President Trump loves farmers. There are a lot of great people that work at USDA, and they’re doing blocking and tackling and working hard. And Secretary Rollins is someone who deeply desires to have positive impact,” Klippenstein says. “But look, there are two problems. One, which you’ve covered extensively, and that is the farm economy. The results aren’t cutting it. Whether that is Trump’s administration’s fault or not, a debate.”
He says the second concern centers on what some conservative farmers and rural voters view as a disconnect between their expectations for conservative agricultural leadership and the administration’s approach.
Klippenstein specifically points to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, arguing that its approach to food and farming has created concerns among agricultural producers.
“You start with air dropping a liberal, ag suing trial lawyer from Harvard, RFK Jr., into the cabinet to tell the American people what they should eat and to tell the American farmer how they should farm. He’s bringing along with him the MAHA agenda. It’s an agenda of the activist food elite. It’s a food policing agenda,” claims Klippenstein.
He also raised concerns about the Trump administration’s recent involvement in beef prices and increasing beef imports free of tariffs, competition with Brazil in soybean and beef markets, and what he describes as negative rhetoric from some government officials toward agriculture.
“The only reason I’m being critical is because I’ve seen the potential and They’re such good people and well-meaning people and I want them to make a correction,” he adds.
Can Congress Pass a Farm Bill Before the End of the Year?
One of the biggest questions following the election is whether Congress can move a new farm bill across the finish line during the lame-duck session.
Eideberg isn’t optimistic.
She says Congress got off to a slow start, with House committee markups coming later than they should have, despite the chamber largely working from legislation introduced during the previous Congress.
“I think that there was an incredible delay in this Congress and even just getting started,” Eideberg says. “We saw markups this summer, which was too late, especially when the House was recycling a bill that they had previously put forward in the previous Congress.”
She also points to the Senate, which had not passed its version of the legislation by Election Day, meaning lawmakers had not yet moved to a conference committee to reconcile differences between the two chambers.
“There’s no broad agreement between the four corners,” Eideberg says. “And we just don’t have the time to get this done.”
However, not everyone in Washington is ready to count out a farm bill this year. Mike Seyfert, president and CEO of the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), believes there’s still a path forward, although he acknowledges it won’t be easy.
“I think we can. I don’t think it’s going to be easy, and I think a lot of it’s going to be dependent on what leadership wants to do,” Seyfert says.
Seyfert points to ongoing negotiations among staff for the four corners of congressional agriculture leadership: Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson and Ranking Member Angie Craig.
He says a senior committee member recently told him staff had made encouraging progress during a meeting focused on the farm bill.
“The desire of the four corners, their teams and the rank-and-file members of the committee to get this thing across the finish line is absolutely there,” Seyfert says. “And I think if it’s up to them, I think there’s a deal to be made and I think they’ll get it done.”
Seyfert says conversations with congressional staff over the previous month to six weeks have also indicated that negotiations are serious.
“We haven’t talked to anybody, I’d say, in the last four to six weeks that hasn’t indicated to us that they didn’t feel like there was a way to land the plane,” he says.
Other Legislation Could Find a Path in the Lame Duck
Beyond the farm bill, NGFA is also watching the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which provides funding for waterways and inland infrastructure.
With bipartisan support pushing the legislation through committee and the House, Seyfert says the Senate is the next hurdle. He believes there could be an opportunity to move the legislation before the end of the year.
However, Congress faces a crowded legislative calendar, including the National Defense Authorization Act and government spending bills.
Seyfert says that could make it difficult for lawmakers to move the farm bill, WRDA and highway legislation individually.
Instead, he sees the possibility of attaching some of those priorities to a larger spending package or other legislative vehicle.
“I don’t know that there’s going to be enough time to move farm bill, WRDA, highway bill on their own on the floor,” Seyfert says. “But I think they absolutely could be attached to a spending package, NDAA, whatever else it might be that’s moving.”
Divided Government Could Create Opportunities for Compromise
While Eideberg believes passing a farm bill this year will be difficult, she sees the election results as an opportunity for lawmakers to find common ground.
Rather than viewing the outcome as a political reckoning, she says divided government could encourage more collaboration between Republicans and Democrats.
“I’m really looking forward to divided government,” Eideberg says. “I think when you have Democrats and Republicans who are forced to work together, it can produce really good policies.”
She argues that when one party controls two of the three branches of government, there can be less room for different perspectives and new ideas.
“When we have a single party, Democrat or Republican, that controls two of the three branches of government, we don’t get plurality of thought. We don’t get new ideas. We get stagnation,” Eideberg says. “And that is what I’m really hoping for as we look to the next two years.”
Still, bipartisan compromise may be increasingly difficult to achieve, particularly when it comes to agricultural policy.
Agriculture’s Voice in Washington Will Matter More Than Ever
Ken Barbick, food and agriculture practice lead at Invariant in Washington, D.C., says farmers and ranchers will need to remain engaged with lawmakers and continue educating policymakers about the issues facing their operations.
“In terms of getting that underlying bipartisan farm bill accomplished over the finish line, it is becoming increasingly difficult because of the way the coalitions are structured with just the makeup across the country right now,” Barbick says.
His advice to producers moving forward is to make sure their voices are heard on both sides of the aisle.
“As farmers are watching, they’re going to have to really continue to up their education game and engagement and not take things for granted on either side of the aisle going forward,” Barbick says.
The midterm results will shape the next two years in Washington, but for agriculture, the immediate priorities remain clear: addressing the farm economy, advancing a new farm bill and ensuring rural America has a voice in the policy decisions that affect its future.