By Rebecka Pieder/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON – In a deal that could provide a major trade boost for American farmers, the White House said that during the recent summit, China committed to buying at least $17 billion in additional U.S. agricultural products annually for three years. 

But Beijing has not confirmed the figure and farm groups expressed skepticism that the deal would materialize.

“I think we are cautiously optimistic when it comes to these things because we’ve been on both sides of this equation. You know, the first time we went through the tariff crisis, we lost 20% market share,” said Todd Main, director of market development at the Illinois Soybean Association.

President Donald Trump visited Beijing in May for talks. Two days after the U.S. delegation returned, the White House shared a list of achievements reached between the two countries. 

This included a commitment that China would increase U.S. beef imports and buy at least $17 billion per year in additional U.S. agricultural products over the next three years. In a statement to Medill News Service on May 20, the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not confirm the $17 billion or the time frame. However, it discussed progress on the trade of beef and other agricultural products. 

Tariffs hit hard

American farmers have been caught in a cost pinch for years. Grain prices are down, and the costs of machinery and fertilizer are up, making it harder for farmers to break even. 

Last year, these pressures were exacerbated as the Trump administration placed high tariffs on Chinese imports, sparking Beijing to retaliate by halting imports of U.S. agricultural products. 

China is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products. This hit Midwestern farmers particularly hard. Iowa and Illinois produce the most soybeans in the United States, and China is their largest market by far.

If Beijing were to follow through on the commitments announced by the White House, it would increase total U.S. farm exports to China to $28 billion to $30 billion a year, according to Reuters. While this would be below the $38 billion exported in 2022, it would be higher than the $24 billion in 2024 and much higher than last year’s $8 billion. 

A return to predictable trade relations between the U.S. and China would benefit farmers, said Chris Chinn, Director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

“This announcement is a great first step in what we hope is a full commitment to purchasing American products,” he said.

Jerry Costello II, director of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, echoed this sentiment while expressing doubts at the likelihood of the deal panning out.

“If China truly committed to purchasing an additional $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products for three years and followed through on the purchases, it would provide meaningful support for Illinois farmers,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.”

When asked to confirm the $17 billion number, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy notably omitted any mention of the figure or the time frame. 

“It is hoped that both sides will create favorable conditions for two-way agricultural trade by jointly reducing tariffs, removing non-tariff barriers, and expanding market access, so as to promote the recovery and continuous expansion of cooperation in agricultural trade,” the spokesperson said. 

China also resumed registration of U.S. beef suppliers after the summit, according to the spokesperson.

Soybean imports cut off

After the Trump administration imposed sprawling tariffs on China last year, China halted imports of U.S. soybeans for several months. In November, the U.S and China reached a trade agreement in which China committed to purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans by the end of February. The order represented a sharp decrease from 2024 levels.

“The ag industry has heard big promises before, but the actual trade commitments have often failed to materialize,” Costello said. “During previous trade agreements, China fell well short of its pledged purchases, leaving farmers to suffer the economic impact.”

Lance Muirhead, a seventh generation farmer in Macon County, Illinois, has felt the costs of the trade war first hand. As a direct result of ongoing trade disputes, he has had to tighten the budget on the farm he operates together with his family, he said.

“It has put a halt on us buying any new equipment we might have been in the market for,” Muirhead said. “I run a 16-year-old combine that I’d like to upgrade to a slightly newer model, but that’s just not in the budget the way commodity prices have been.”

He is “skeptically optimistic” about the new proposed trade agreement. While a tweet or a promise can have positive effects on the market, that hype is short-lived unless commitments are followed through with concrete purchases the way they were last fall, he said.

“I think the proof will be in the pudding and only time will tell, but I sure hope the agreement is executed,” he said. “When China has that big of a basket, it’s hard not to want to put all of your eggs, or soybeans, into it.”

‘Just fluff’?

Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also expressed skepticism.

“There’s a long history of the president coming back and misrepresenting what he’s achieved. My first question is, are any of these commitments real or are they just fluff?” Schiff, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told Medill News Service.

When China halted imports last year, it was a massive blow to U.S. soybean exports, said Main, of the Illinois Soybean Association. It’s a market that has been built up over the last 30 years, and establishing new markets takes time. 

Even if the deal were to pan out, soybean farmers still should diversify their buyers so they are no longer so reliant on China, he said.

“If you look out a decade or so, we know that long-term China is not going to be the dominant buyer that it once was,” Main said. “And so we have to pivot.” 

Medill News Service articles are reported and written by graduate student journalists in the Washington program of the Medill School at Northwestern University.

The White House says China will be purchasing at least $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products each of the next three years.

The post Wisconsin farmers hopeful for relief from Trump’s new trade deal with China appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s trade agenda faced another major setback Thursday when the U.S. Court of International Trade handed a win to two small businesses and the state of Washington after they challenged the president’s 10% global tariffs, imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous emergency tariff regime.

In a 2-1 decision, the court granted a permanent injunction to a Florida-based toy manufacturer and a New York-based spice importer that sued the Trump administration in March, alleging the new tariffs would harm their businesses.

The court also granted relief to Washington state, which was among nearly two dozen states that sued over the tariffs. 

Tariff ‘bazooka’

Jay Foreman, CEO of toy company Basic Fun!, said he was “extremely excited” upon learning the decision.

“It takes a lot of guts and chutzpah for small companies like us and Burlap and Barrel to put ourselves out on the line to fight what we feel is injustice and unfair,” he said during a virtual press conference, referring to the other company named in the lawsuit, an online spice retailer.

“Certainly, there’s a place for tariffs on strategic products that make sense to protect in this country …  but in cases across the board, to approach this situation with a bazooka instead of a fine-tooth comb makes no sense, and it hurts companies like ours, hurts companies like Burlap and Barrel, hurts the consumer,” Foreman said Thursday evening. 

Basic Fun! is behind popular toys, including Tonka Trucks and Care Bears.

Foreman said he expects imports that were subject to the tariffs to arrive as soon as tomorrow.

“I’m already emailing my customs broker to make sure they’re on it,” he said.

The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs Basic Fun! and the online spice retailer Burlap and Barrel, and does not give universal relief to all businesses that must pay the blanket 10% tax on imports. 

Jeffrey Schwab, who argued the case on behalf of the clients for the Liberty Justice Center, said the nonprofit advocacy law firm has been “wrestling” with what the decision means for other businesses that are paying the import tax.

“It’s not entirely clear, and probably will depend on what happens now if the government appeals. If the government seeks a stay that could have an effect. Certainly, I think companies will probably want to file (legal challenges), being concerned about making sure that the tariffs stop for them, and possibly ensuring that they get a refund too,” Schwab said.

Win for Washington state

The ruling also applies to Washington state as an importer subject to the tariffs, according to the ruling. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called the ruling “a win for both affordability and the rule of law.”

“It’s American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign,” he said in a statement. “The court’s order will encourage more parties to challenge this illegal executive overreach.”

The judges ruled other states that sued did not have standing because they were “non-importers.” Among them were Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Trump ordered the fresh round of tariffs on Feb. 20, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 opinion, that his initial global tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, exceeded his presidential authority.

Following the Supreme Court loss, Trump’s alternative tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, went into effect on Feb. 24.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now in the legally mandated process of refunding businesses and importers who paid a collective $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

From carbon credits to biofuels and biomanufacturing, foreign companies are considering setting up closer to customers while capitalizing on Wisconsin's resources and environmental markets.

The post Beyond tariffs: European businesses finding niches in northern Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

Importers that paid tariffs later struck down by the Supreme Court can now apply for refunds.

The post Wisconsin businesses could recoup millions paid in illegal tariffs  appeared first on WPR.