Introduction
The article received attention from readers questioning the impact of “America First” trade policies following reports of U.S. farmers facing extreme financial distress. With damaging tariffs, slashed federal programs, and rising global competition—especially from Brazil—many are asking if these policies have helped or harmed the very communities they promised to protect. We conducted a full fact-check to answer the user’s question: Are American farmers truly “getting wiped out” while other countries are thriving off U.S. losses?
Historical Context
“America First” trade policy, made a hallmark during Donald Trump’s presidency, prioritized domestic manufacturing and reduced reliance on global imports. While proponents argued this empowered American industry, critics claimed it triggered trade wars that especially hurt U.S. agriculture. In 2018–2019, tariffs against China prompted major retaliatory actions, plunging export demand and resulting in a $23 billion bailout for affected farmers. As similar tactics reemerge in 2025, small and mid-sized farmers are again caught in the economic crossfire.
Fact-Check on Specific Claims
Claim #1: “All U.S. products destined for China face a 125% tax due to Trump’s tariff war.”
This claim is exaggerated. While recent tariffs have significantly increased export costs to China, there is no universal 125% tariff applied to “all” U.S. products. According to the U.S. Trade Representative and WTO filings, Chinese retaliatory tariffs on key U.S. agricultural exports—such as soybeans, sorghum, and cotton—range between 25% to 100%, with some outliers reaching higher based on specific disputes. However, a blanket 125% rate on all exports is inaccurate and lacks corroboration.
Source: U.S. Trade Representative, WTO Tariff Database
Claim #2: “The USAID program buying $2 billion annually in agricultural goods has been dismantled.”
This is largely accurate. Under the current administration, USAID’s food aid procurement programs have seen major restructuring. Although not formally “dismantled,” both internal staffing and budgetary allocations shifted dramatically in early 2025, reducing emphasis on domestic agricultural purchases. The article correctly notes a significant rollback in the program’s functionality, which historically spent around $2 billion annually on crops like lentils, wheat, and sorghum for global humanitarian purposes.
Source: USAID Budget Justification 2024 & 2025, Congressional Research Service
Claim #3: “Federal programs providing climate-related grants and conservation support have been frozen or gutted.”
Verified. Multiple USDA initiatives developed during the Biden administration—including the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) and working lands conservation programs—have been frozen or defunded since early 2025. Public reporting confirms over 15 programs, totaling billions in support, are on pause pending review for compliance with new policy priorities. This has curtailed support for small and sustainable farms across the country.
Source: Politico (April 2025), USDA Press Briefings, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Claim #4: “Brazil is benefitting economically from the U.S. trade crisis, taking over commodity markets like sorghum and soy.”
True and backed by trade data. Brazil has been expanding its agricultural exports aggressively, especially to China, which reduced U.S. imports amid political tensions. From 2023 to 2024, China’s imports of U.S. soybeans, corn, and sorghum dropped by 15%, while imports from Brazil rose significantly. Brazil is now China’s largest soybean supplier and is gaining ground in other commodities traditionally dominated by U.S. exporters.
Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, UN Comtrade, Reuters
Conclusion
The article presents a largely accurate, though heavily critical, depiction of conditions facing American farmers in 2025. While emotionally charged, most major claims are supported by factual evidence and current policy outcomes. There is clear economic turmoil within the industry, exacerbated by climate-related natural disasters, international trade tensions, and reduced federal aid. However, one claim regarding the 125% blanket tariff on all exports to China overstates the case. The broader premise—that American farmers are facing disproportionate hardship while countries like Brazil gain competitive advantage—is verified by trade data and agricultural economists.
While the article leans into a critical narrative of the Trump administration’s agricultural and trade policy, it avoids sensationalism and offers sourced perspectives from both farmers and policy experts. Readers should consider the accuracy strong, with only modest exaggeration in isolated instances.
How You Can Take Action
Want to know the truth behind every headline? Download the DBUNK app to get real-time fact checks and stop misinformation before it spreads. You can also follow us on social media and submit your own fact-check request—completely free.
