
Seeds of Instability: The Future of Agriculture Under Trump 2.0
- foodfightadmin
- November 8, 2024
- Agriculture, Climate Change, Federal, Hunger In America, SNAP
- adlps, ads-2
- 0 Comments
The prospect of a second Trump administration raises alarm bells for the future of food and farming in the United States, as many fear a return to policies that undermine public interests in favor of large corporate agribusinesses. The Union of Concerned Scientists‘ (UCS) Karen Perry Stillerman, who worked on food and agriculture policy during Trump’s first term, says we could expect “more of the same, and worse,” this time around. The policies being discussed by the Trump campaign and its allies, particularly those outlined in Project 2025, paint a grim picture for farmers, farmworkers, and consumers alike.
A potential second Trump term could bring a mass deportation initiative that would target millions of undocumented immigrants, many of whom are farmworkers. “Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants – and even seeking to remove legal immigrants and denaturalize US citizens – would be extraordinarily damaging to a food system that relies heavily on immigrant workers,” Stillerman warns. Such actions could destabilize local economies, drive up food prices, and leave farms short-staffed, threatening the stability of food production across the nation.
Another area of concern is the possibility of renewed trade wars. During his first term, Trump’s tariffs led to increased costs for farmers and a drop in export markets, which hit US commodity farmers hard. To mitigate the damage, the administration bailed out farmers with $28 billion of taxpayer money, but the resulting trade chaos left lasting impacts. “Trump’s obsession with tariffs could lead to a new trade war, raising consumer prices and increasing farmers’ costs,” says Stillerman.
USDA food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and school meal initiatives may also come under attack. During his first term, President Trump made several attempts to restrict access to these programs, which provide vital support for millions of Americans. With Project 2025 guiding the administration, fresh efforts to dismantle nutrition assistance and weaken dietary guidelines could emerge, affecting both urban and rural communities.
The future for USDA’s antidiscrimination efforts looks similarly bleak. The Biden administration took steps to address the USDA’s history of discrimination against farmers of color, establishing an Equity Commission and allocating $2 billion in financial assistance to harmed farmers through the Inflation Reduction Act. But Stillerman fears that this progress could be undone, especially considering the openly divisive rhetoric of Trump’s campaign.
Environmental and conservation efforts could also face significant setbacks. Trump’s first term included cuts to conservation programs, and Project 2025 suggests a doubling down on these efforts. Programs designed to address soil erosion and water pollution could see reduced funding, despite their popularity with farmers. Meanwhile, climate action—which the Biden administration prioritized—could be completely erased from the USDA’s mission. Trump’s stance on climate change as a “hoax” raises concerns that USDA’s efforts to address agriculture’s impact on the climate could be stymied.
The influence of large agribusiness corporations could grow even stronger, with the “revolving door” of lobbyists-turned-policymakers potentially spinning faster than ever. During his first term, Trump’s USDA frequently sided with corporate interests over those of small farmers and rural communities. There is some speculation that Trump might offer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a role in his administration, which could lead to unexpected changes in food policy.
In the meantime, UCS and other advocates are preparing to fight to protect the progress made under the Biden administration. Stillerman calls on President Biden and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to move quickly to secure climate-focused conservation funding and ensure it reaches farmers before any potential change in leadership. “The outgoing administration should shore up the USDA, its staff, and the many programs that are making people’s lives better,” she urges.
Defending science and scientists is also a priority. During his first term, Trump’s administration repeatedly attempted to sideline scientists and dismantle science-based policymaking. “President-elect Trump has promised to fire government scientists and dismantle science agencies,” says Stillerman. With science being key to sound policymaking in agriculture, UCS is mobilizing to defend against potential attacks, working with its network of 17,000 scientists and partners to launch an emergency campaign.
Stillerman acknowledges that the coming months will be challenging, but emphasizes the importance of staying vigilant and ready to act. “We can make a difference by speaking out against unfair policies, defending science, organizing locally, and using our voices to call out and challenge disinformation,” she says. Despite the uphill battle, UCS and its allies are committed to protecting the food system, safeguarding science, and defending democracy in the face of adversity.