USDA announces more than $15 billion in farm assistance before midterms

Farmers and scholars question whether temporary aid solves broader pressures

In the last few weeks before the midterm elections, farmers faced higher diesel and fertilizer costs that made it difficult to turn a profit. Against that pressure, more than half of the USDA’s more-than-$15-billion tranche will go toward an $8 billion one-time payment plan for farmers buffeted by soaring diesel prices. The USDA said it would release more details about the payments this month, but it was not clear when they would reach farmers, who rely on diesel for trucks, tractors and combines.

On Friday, diesel averaged $6.32 a gallon, slightly below its September peak but 70% higher than a year earlier, according to motor club AAA. Filling a 100-gallon tank cost $260 more than it did one year earlier. The Associated Press reported that farmers had endured the higher diesel and fertilizer costs largely because of President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran. In the previous year, tariffs drove up expenses for other equipment farmers used, while the trade war with China resulted in a near boycott of U.S. agricultural goods.

Separately from that more-than-$15-billion tranche in other payments and initiatives, the USDA plans $13.8 billion in safety-net program payments for eligible producers for the 2025 crop year. The agency said the payments would offset shortfalls for farmers who grow key crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.

Within the more-than-$15-billion tranche, the USDA also announced at least $5 billion in guaranteed loans for ranchers and fishermen. It assigned an additional $1.8 billion in payments to producers and landowners who participated in conservation programs, $573 million to fertilizer manufacturing projects and $57 million to expanding meat processors. It designated another $86.6 million in grants for innovative projects for specialty crop producers.

On Thursday, the agency said it would purchase up to $472.5 million in agricultural commodities to support producers and give them to charitable programs. The funding would come primarily from the USDA and did not need immediate congressional approval. Other announced steps included expanding sales of a diesel normally used only for off-road use, helping ranchers by making cattle-sale data more transparent and strengthening wolf-management policies to protect livestock.

Gregg Ibendahl, a farm management specialist at Kansas State University, estimated that the diesel payments would “more than cover the increase in fuel costs,” and said the money could also help farmers manage high fertilizer prices. He expected the ad hoc payments to be a major help for farmers who otherwise would not make a profit this year.

Ibendahl said the payments did not address the broader issues driving up prices. He said: “That input side risk, I think, is the thing that really has hurt farmers this year, as well as the fact that there has been a lot more uncertainty about what’s going to happen in the world.”

He also questioned whether temporary government support could reassure lenders financing the next crop year. “It’s hard to go to your lender in the next spring and say, ‘OK, well, we’re looking pretty good this year, but it’s all because of these extra temporary government payments, so how much can you make me a loan (for) next year for my crop?’” he said.

Alexandra Middlewood, an associate professor of political science at Wichita State University, said she had heard mixed reactions from farmers: they were happy their businesses would survive this year but saw the programs as one-time bailouts rather than a long-term solution.

Rural voters, including farmers and people who rely on the agricultural economy, have been an instrumental voting group for Trump, the Associated Press reported. Michael Smith, a political science professor at Emporia State University, said many rural voters like the president but some of his policies have hurt the agriculture industry. Smith said immigrant deportations have threatened the agricultural labor force, while cuts to foreign aid and SNAP food stamps have hurt the market for agricultural products.

“Some people who admire Trump really just admire the person, the man,” Smith said. “But it doesn’t mean they necessarily like his policies. Well, Trump himself isn’t on the ballot this year. His policies are.”

Middlewood said cost of living and access to health care were the top issues for rural voters. She added that there was a perception the administration had not done enough to address those issues, even as Trump touted a booming economy at campaign rallies.

Based in Kansas, Middlewood did not expect frustrated rural voters to shift to the Democratic Party because the state has been a Republican stronghold for a long time. She said some voters might instead sit out the election or vote independent, which would hurt Republican candidates. “Independent voters make or break elections,” she said. “And so that’s really what it’s going to come down to this year is those independent voters and who they’re breaking for.”

It remained unclear whether the payments and initiatives would motivate more rural voters to turn out in agricultural states where traditionally Republican seats were seen as competitive. The announcements may explain Trump’s increased attention to rural areas, including scheduled visits to Iowa and Kansas on Sunday, two days before the election. The financial scale of the measures was detailed, but their timing, durability and possible electoral consequences remained unresolved.