Introduction
This article was flagged by readers concerned with the economic credibility of “America First” policies and whether U.S. farmers are truly benefiting from recent trade and policy changes under the Trump administration. Specifically, the user questions how American farmers are being negatively impacted while global competitors profit. We investigated the key claims made in the article to evaluate their accuracy, context, and implications.
Historical Context
U.S. farmers have long relied on federal support, export markets, and trade agreements to weather economic uncertainty. During Trump’s first presidency (2017–2021), a trade war with China resulted in retaliatory tariffs that hurt farm exports, necessitating a $23 billion bailout. Under the Biden administration, investments were made in climate resilience, conservation, and local food systems. As Trump returned to office in 2024, early policy shifts included rolling back these initiatives while reigniting global trade tensions.
Fact-Check of Key Claims
Claim #1: “All US products destined for China face a 125% tax thanks to Trump’s tariff war.”
There is no official confirmation that a blanket 125% tariff now applies to all U.S. agricultural exports to China. Trade data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that while certain products like sorghum, soybeans, and corn have seen high retaliatory tariffs, they fluctuate by product—ranging from 25% to over 80%. Chinese tariffs imposed in past trade disputes peaked around those levels, but the article incorrectly implies a single universal rate currently enforced. Therefore, the claim is exaggerated.
Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
Claim #2: “Trump’s administration has frozen or dismantled federal conservation and food aid programs, including climate-smart funding and USDA initiatives.”
This claim is accurate. Reporting by Politico and industry groups confirms that Trump’s 2024 administration placed over 15 USDA programs under review or freeze, particularly those linked to climate initiatives and DEI policies. These include the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC), the Local Food for Schools Program, and Local Food Purchase Assistance. The administration is reassessing whether these programs align with its revised priorities, causing delays and uncertainty for farmers relying on those funds.
Claim #3: “Brazil is benefiting from U.S. trade disruptions and extreme weather, increasingly replacing American exports.”
This claim is supported by available market data. According to USDA trade reports and the U.S.-China Business Council, China’s agricultural imports from the U.S. dropped 15% in 2024, while Brazil’s share of global soy and corn exports to China has grown. Extreme weather in the U.S., paired with policy instability, has given competitors like Brazil an opening. This represents both a real economic loss and a soft power setback for U.S. trade reliability.
Claim #4: “USDA layoffs were orchestrated by Elon Musk.”
This is unsubstantiated. There is no credible evidence that Elon Musk orchestrated mass layoffs at the USDA. While the agency has undergone downsizing and voluntary buyouts—especially within field offices expanded during Biden’s term—linking the personnel decisions directly to Musk lacks documentation. No government filing, press release, or investigative report supports this claim.
Verdict: Insufficient evidence.
Conclusion
The article accurately highlights the cascading challenges facing American farmers, including extreme weather, volatile global markets, and reductions in federal support. Several claims, however, are either overstated (such as the 125% universal tariff claim) or lack sufficient evidence (like Musk’s influence over USDA staffing). Nevertheless, the core concern—that current trade and domestic policy decisions are disadvantaging U.S. agriculture in favor of global rivals—is valid and supported by multiple reputable sources. The article leans critical of the Trump administration and contains a few emotionally driven assertions, but its major factual claims, with some exceptions, withstand verification.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to cut through the noise and get the real story behind the headlines? Download the DBUNK app and start fact-checking your news today. Join our community on social media to stay informed and empowered. Together, we can challenge misinformation with facts and clarity.
Original Article
Click here to read the full article on The Guardian
