Cans used for Lost Boy cider in Alexandria, Virginia, cost the small business more because of increased aluminum tariffs. Tristan Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy, stands near his production line on Feb. 6, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Customs and Border Protection tariff refund system went live Monday, marking what small business advocates call a “complex” first step for entrepreneurs to recoup $166 billion in import taxes accrued under President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in February.
Importers and brokers can now upload a detailed list of each tariff paid under Trump’s now illegal order to charge duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.
Customs officials estimate 330,000 importers paid the duties. Refunds are expected within 60 to 90 days, according to CBP.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision earlier this year found Trump’s steep global tariffs exceeded his presidential powers.
Following the high court’s decision, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton ordered the government to stop charging the tariffs and establish a refund system.
A handful of small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenge to Trump’s 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Small business owners angry, frustrated
States Newsroom documented the experiences of several small businesses across the U.S. who faced increased costs following Trump’s change in international trade policy.
Now many are experiencing a “confusing mix of relief,” Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, told States Newsroom in an interview Monday.
Trent, whose organization advocates on behalf of small businesses said “our entrepreneurs, many of whom were angry that they had to pay tariffs in the first place, and were frustrated by the back-and-forth over the last year, opened up the portal this morning only to see that it had crashed. It just feels like the uncertainty just keeps popping up.”
Trent, who spoke to “five or six” businesses Monday morning who experienced technical issues, said the portal was up and running again by afternoon.
Customs and Border Protection did not confirm for States Newsroom whether the system had crashed, but rather provided a written statement.
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection has developed a new tool, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), to efficiently process refunds, pursuant to court order, for importers and brokers who paid IEEPA duties,” according to an agency spokesperson.
“CBP has issued guidance to the trade community to help them prepare to use the new CAPE tool. Importers and brokers can visit CBP’s website for resources and step-by-step guidance,” the statement continued.
Monday’s launch is the first part of a four-step process in refunding the taxes paid by American businesses of all sizes.
Trent said the “complex” process is yet another hurdle for small operations.
“This is progress, but it’s not yet justice,” Trent said in an earlier statement Monday. “Small business owners should not have to jump through hoops to get back money they never should have had to pay. We need a refund process that is simple, accessible, and fast.”
Guides for refunds
The Liberty Justice Center, the libertarian legal advocacy group that represented small business plaintiffs before the Supreme Court, has established the Tariff Equity Refund Resource for America. The platform offers online guides for how to properly submit documentation for the refunds.
“We took this fight all the way to the Supreme Court on behalf of small businesses, and we’re not stopping now,” Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement Monday. “We are a nonprofit law firm — our only goal is to help businesses recover every dollar they are owed, not to take a percentage of it. At a time when others are looking to profit off confusion, we are making this process clear, accessible and free.”
Trump declared international trade a national emergency just over a year ago, citing a trade imbalance on imports and exports between the United States and several other countries. The president imposed a 10% blanket tariff on all global imports and steeper double-digit taxes on products from some of the top U.S. trading partners.
The president delayed and changed the rates on numerous occasions.
Following his Supreme Court loss, Trump imposed a new round of universal, temporary tariffs under a separate statute. The Liberty Justice Center is again representing small businesses in court to fight the new import taxes.
Strong winds whipped around Doug Bartek, a fifth-generation farmer, as he headed into a grain bin to shovel soybeans onto a conveyor chute. The 60-year-old was anxious at the onset of the spring planting season, rattling off the long list of issues affecting his family’s livelihood at their 2,000-acre farm near Wahoo, Nebraska.
The high cost of fuel, equipment and fertilizer — compounded by the Iran war — and also tariffs, perceived “price gouging” by suppliers, and low soybean prices driven by a global supply glut. All of it weighs on Bartek, who is chairman of the Nebraska Soybean Association.
“Our biggest struggles are our inputs, be it fertilizer, seed, chemical, parts,” Bartek said. “There has been so much drastic markup in all of these. And I just kind of feel like the farmer’s kind of painted in the corner.”
Bartek’s concerns are shared by many Midwest soybean producers. Costs, such as equipment, have crept up over time while soybean prices have stayed low. Tariffs levied by the Trump administration last year and the resulting monthslong trade war with China only made things worse, they say. Then the Iran war bottled up shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, restricting global fertilizer supplies and sending fertilizer prices sky high. A ceasefire deal announced April 7 raised hope that bottlenecks in the strait would abate, but the future of the agreement was uncertain.
“A lot of producers are pretty nervous going into this year,” said Justin Sherlock, a soybean farmer and president of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association. “It looks like we’re going to have another year of negative returns.”
Years of rising costs, low soybean prices
Soybeans, which are used for livestock feed, food and biofuels, are among the top U.S. agricultural exports. That hasn’t always been the case. Before the 1960s soybeans weren’t a major crop in the U.S, according to Chad Hart, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University. It wasn’t until the 1990s that soybean production accelerated due to international demand — primarily from China — and soybeans and corn are now dominant in U.S. agriculture.
But U.S. soybean farmers, who typically also grow corn, have been facing financial issues for years even before the onset of the Iran war. Soybean prices have been persistently low in recent years. The global market has been awash in soybeans, driven in part by Brazil, which surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest soybean producer years ago.
“If we look at global soybean production over the past several years, it continues to set record after record, after record,” Hart said. “There’s been just large supplies globally, and that has led to depressed prices.”
Meanwhile, Midwest soybean farmers’ costs have risen. Overall farm production expenses, including seed and pesticide, have increased over time, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Operating costs for soybean production have stayed elevated since 2020 and are projected to increase again in 2026, according to the agency.
The cost of land also is a major issue for farmers, experts say. Midwest crop land values have increased. And most regional farmers rent some of their land, according to Joana Colussi, research assistant professor in the department of agricultural economics at Purdue University.
Soybeans from last year’s harvest are loaded into a truck at Doug Bartek’s farm near Wahoo, Neb., on April 6, 2026. (Charlie Riedel / Associated Press)
Bartek, who rents three-quarters of his land, said landowners are increasing rents, causing further financial strain.
“There’s a lot of what I call absentee landowners that have absolutely no idea what goes on on the farm,” he said. “All they know is their taxes went up and you get to make up the difference, some way, somehow.”
“They’re very concerned about negative margins driven by low prices and high cost,” said Paul Mitchell, a professor of agricultural and applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, of farmers. “There’s just a liquidity cash crunch for a lot of them and they’re just trying to figure out how to deal with everything.”
The number of farms in the U.S. has shrunk over time, and consolidation in farming is a long-term trend, though farmers’ financial pressures wrought by high input costs and low commodity prices have contributed, Hart said. Larger farms tend to be more competitive and depend on large, expensive machinery.
“The financial reserves need(ed) on a farm are much greater than they used to be,” Hart said. “We’re a bit more sensitive to the financial conditions these days because so much capital is being utilized within the farm business.”
Tariffs, trade war have lasting impacts
Market forces aren’t the only issue weighing on farmers. Sweeping tariffs levied by President Donald Trump in April 2025 exacerbated a trade war with China, the top buyer of U.S. soybeans. China responded with retaliatory tariffs and effectively boycotted U.S. soybeans, cutting off a major export market for Midwest farmers and driving the price of soybeans even lower.
“When that was announced and soybean prices basically collapsed, if you could afford to hold on to your beans and wait for better times, you were OK,” said Mike Cerny, a soybean and winter wheat corn farmer in Sharon, Wisconsin. “If you had a mortgage due or payments due or cash flow needs and you had to sell at that point, you were taking it pretty rough.”
The U.S. and China eventually reached a deal in late 2025. Beijing committed to buying 12 million metric tons of soybeans by January and at least 25 million metric tons annually for the next three years. China has since met its initial soybean purchase goal, and the Trump administration also rolled out a $12 billion temporary aid package in December to boost farmers affected by the trade war.
But the damage is already done, experts and farmers say. While China’s renewed purchases and the federal payments are helping, it’s not enough to recover farmers’ losses. Even after federal assistance, farmers still lost almost $75 per harvested acre of soybeans in the 2025 crop, according to the American Soybean Association. And the trade war further pushed China toward competing soybean exporters, such as Brazil — accelerating a trend of declining U.S. soybean exports to China.
“When China decided to stop purchasing, we couldn’t find enough other markets to replace those sales,” Hart said. “We’re still feeling the impacts today. When you look at where soybean exports are today versus where we would normally expect them to be, we’re still running anywhere from 15% to 20% behind normal.”
Joseph Glauber, former chief economist at the Department of Agriculture between 2008 and 2014, said global competitors to U.S. soybean farmers gained from the trade war.
“When China has put on tariffs against the U.S. they’ve tended to buy them from Brazil or Argentina, largely Brazil,” Glauber added. “We’re not nearly as dominant in the world as we used to be in terms of the global export market for soybeans.”
Iran war drove up fuel, fertilizer costs
After the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, a severe slowdown in shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz sent the price of oil soaring. The shipping disruption also largely stopped the export of nitrogen fertilizers manufactured in the Persian Gulf and limited access to key fertilizer ingredients. The price of urea, the most widely traded nitrogen fertilizer, skyrocketed.
Soybeans don’t require nitrogen fertilizer, but it’s vital for corn, and most soybean farmers also grow corn. About half the global supply of urea comes from the Middle East, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia are two of the top sources of U.S. fertilizer imports, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The U.S. and Iran last week agreed to a two-week ceasefire that included reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but traffic remained slowed amid disagreements over Israeli attacks in Lebanon, and the price of urea remains elevated.
Many Midwest farmers bought their fertilizer well in advance of the spring planting season. But some farmers who didn’t buy early face elevated prices. Dave Walton, a corn, soybean and hay farmer in Iowa and vice president of the American Soybean Association, said in March that some of his neighbors didn’t have cash on hand last fall to buy fertilizer and were struggling to budget for fertilizer due to high prices.
The war also caused gasoline and diesel prices to surge, causing further headaches for farmers. Oil prices dropped following the ceasefire announcement, but the war and the closure of the strait will have lasting impacts on farmers, said Seth Goldstein, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar, an investment research company. Facilities in the Middle East that are critical for exporting chemicals, oil and other commodities were damaged or destroyed during the war, and it will take time for supply chains to recover, he said.
“Facilities have been hit, like liquid natural gas plants,” Goldstein added. “You are also looking at a big supply crunch in commodity chemicals, which are the inputs for crop chemicals.”
“We burn a lot of diesel fuel,” said Chris Gould, a corn and soybean farmer in Maple Park, Illinois. “It’s hard to say if I’m gonna come out ahead or behind on this whole deal. But I suspect I’m gonna come out behind.”
Concerns about the future
Farmers’ financial problems are showing up in some measures. Farm bankruptcies, while still relatively low, continued to climb in 2025, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. In a survey of 400 farmers conducted by researchers at the Purdue Center for Commercial Agriculture in late March, almost half said their farm operation is financially worse off than it was a year ago.
Goldstein, the Morningstar analyst, said farmers’ high costs and low revenues contributed to the spike in bankruptcies between 2024 and 2025. If costs rise faster than crop prices going forward, he added, that “would strain farmers again and likely lead to more bankruptcies.”
After 43 years of farming, Bartek said the smell of fresh dirt still gets him excited for spring planting. But he’s also heard of farmer suicides, bankruptcies and “retirement sales” where farmers are forced to auction off their operations due to financial problems. Bartek compares farmers to gamblers who put “millions of dollars in the dirt” hoping for returns.
At times, Bartek doubts his own decision to go into farming. He’s also worried about his son, who purchased a farm a few years ago.
Bartek wonders: “Did I do the right thing helping him get into farming?”
This story is a collaboration between Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Shipping cranes stand above container ships loaded with shipping containers at the Port of Los Angeles on Feb. 20, 2026 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — One year after President Donald Trump announced his now-illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs, he marked the anniversary by signing executive orders adjusting duties on pharmaceuticals and metals as Democratic critics slammed economic fallout from Trump’s trade policies.
Last April 2, Trump shocked American businesses and global markets when he declared a national emergency to impose a 10% tariff on goods from nearly every country, plus higher double-digit duties on imports from major U.S. trading partners.
Investors lost trillions days after the announcement, and Trump began months of delays and on-again, off-again taxes on imports.
In doing so, Trump raised the effective tariff rate on foreign goods to its highest point since the 1930s. Economists warned the average American household would end up losing up to a few thousand dollars in increased costs.
After lawsuits from small business owners and Democratic state officials, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 in February that Trump’s unprecedented triggering of sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act exceeded presidential authority.
Since then, the White House has sought other legal routes to impose tariffs. Several, like duties on metals, are already in place under national security statutes, and have been since Trump’s first term. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s major blow, Trump announced a temporary base 10% tariff on all imports under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
On Thursday, Trump signed two executive orders changing the tariff calculation on imported steel, aluminum and copper, and slapping a whopping 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals made by transnational companies that decline to invest in manufacturing their drugs in the United States.
Both tariff adjustments are under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute authorizing the president to impose trade restrictions in response to national security threats.
Dems stress affordability
Democrats pounced on Trump’s “Liberation Day” anniversary ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and will surely include affordability as a central issue.
On a press call organized by the Democratic National Committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries laid blame on Trump’s tariffs for increasing costs.
“We can thank the Trump tariffs for imposing thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, small business owners and farmers throughout the country,” he said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that in one year, Trump “thrust the United States’ economy into chaos with sweeping tariff taxes on dozens of countries.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., described Trump’s trade policy as “manic.”
“Trump is taking money out of the pockets of families walking an economic tightrope, by slapping huge taxes on groceries and other essentials,” he said in a statement Thursday.
Several questions on the degree to which tariff costs have been passed on to consumers, and how much they have stymied growth and hiring, remain unanswered, according to a one-year analysis from the Yale Budget Lab.
Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said during the virtual DNC press conference he met this week with business owners in his state and heard trepidation about their decisions moving forward.
“The thing that they just continue to hammer over and over again is just how uncertain this moment is, how much unpredictability that there is and that they cannot, you know, they cannot figure out how to invest further or try to grow their business,” Kim said, adding businesses need “immediate relief” after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs.
Kim is among two dozen Senate Democrats sponsoring a bill that would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner to report to lawmakers every 30 days on the status of IEEPA tariff refunds.
States Newsroom has interviewed several business owners about the effects of tariffs and the prospect of being made whole by the government for the now illegal IEEPA tariffs they were charged.
Small businesses that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs have been largely left to fend for themselves as they navigate the administration’s refund system.
In Washington, the lawmakers calling for small businesses to be first in line to receive their share of the $166 billion paid in tariffs say that, for the most part, their hands are tied.
“I’m fighting for that to happen, but most of it’s going to end up playing out in court, but it really matters to our small businesses in particular,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.
Baldwin said she met with the owners of a local textile company that laid off staff to afford tariffs on imported fabric — and now they wonder if they’ll get their money back.
In Wisconsin, importers paid $3.5 billion in tariffs from March to December 2025, according to the small business coalition We Pay The Tariffs. More than a dozen Wisconsin companies, including Milwaukee Tool and Kohl’s, have sued the Trump administration for tariff refunds.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is currently updating its duty payment processing system to issue refunds at scale. Officials must review more than 53 million entries filed by importers that include emergency tariff payments.
The development of the CBP system’s new functions to receive, process and refund these duties was mostly complete as of last week, according to court filings.
Once the process is set, it becomes a question of who has the resources and know-how to navigate CBP’s refund system. The Trump administration is requiring business owners to file their own claims.
CBP’s updated system will require importers to file a declaration detailing their payments of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, according to an affidavit filed in trade court earlier this month.
“It’s incumbent on smaller importers to do what they need to do to get their money,” said Chris Duncan, a former CBP attorney who currently works as a tariffs and customs lawyer.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, said that puts small businesses at a disadvantage.
“Small businesses do not have teams of legal and financial experts to submit their forms. Small businesses do not have the time to navigate this convoluted system,” Markey said in a call with business owners last week. “Small businesses need their refunds, and they need them now.”
Markey and 19 other Democratic senators sent a letter to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott on Friday demanding the agency automatically refund IEEPA tariffs through its existing system rather than the updated one.
“There is no principled reason for the Trump administration to conduct the refund process this way,” reads the letter, reviewed by NOTUS. “CBP already has the payment records it needs to issue refunds.”
Markey — along with Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeanne Shaheen — also introduced a bill that would require CBP to issue full tariff refunds with interest and prioritize returning money to small businesses.
Without buy-in from Republicans, however, Democratic senators say it will be up to the local communities to pressure the federal government.
“What is going to be most helpful is to create enough pressure in communities, particularly small communities,” Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said.
Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat who represents the Madison area, expressed concern about the “dysfunction” that could arise from companies trying to navigate the intricacies of the CBP’s refund system and answer to consumers who shouldered price increases.
“Bottom line is, we never should have done illegal tariffs to begin with. Congress should have stood up, as Democrats had asked for, for our constitutional authority around tariffs, and now we’re going to wind up creating all kinds of dysfunction for businesses and individuals,” Pocan said.
Following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down his emergency tariffs in February, Trump said he would continue his tariff agenda using alternative legal authorities and imposed a 15% global tariff, which Congress must vote to extend later this year.
Nevertheless, when asked if tariff refunds should be passed on to consumers, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican who represents suburban and rural areas west of Milwaukee, expressed openness to the idea.
“If it’s something that they could actually draw, like a clear line or a bright line. You know, we had a lot of companies where the tariffs had a direct effect on aluminum out of Canada or textiles out of Vietnam, or — you know, it was all part of the manufacturing process,” Fitzgerald said.
“So I’m not sure how that would shake out either, if it was one element of a larger manufacturing versus, like, a straight retailer who was selling some type of consumer goods.”
This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.
Volvo will discontinue the EX30 in the U.S. after the 2026 model year.
Tariffs, tax-credit changes, and slowing EV demand likely sealed its fate.
Small electric SUV will remain on sale in Canada, Mexico, and other markets.
Volvo is suffering a new setback as the short-lived EX30 is leaving the USA after this model year. The automaker confirmed the news that will see both the normal and Cross Country versions of the electric crossover exit the U.S just two years after launch. Meanwhile, Volvo will continue selling it in Mexico and Canada, which makes the reasoning behind the decision easier to piece together.
On paper, the EX30 made a lot of sense. It was positioned as Volvo’s most affordable EV, starting at just over $40,000, with up to 422 horsepower in dual-motor form and EPA range estimates of around 253–261 miles depending on configuration. It was quick, stylish, and small enough to appeal to urban buyers who didn’t need a full-size electric SUV.
In reality, the U.S. market just wasn’t ready for it. The EX30 is tied to a Chinese-built EV architecture like the one used in the Zeekr X. That complicated life for Volvo when President Trump enacted steep tariffs on Chinese-made vehicles. Volvo shifted U.S. supply to Belgium to get around the issue, only to end up hit by more tariffs later on.
At the same time, Trump killed the EV tax credit for imported vehicles and then all vehicles. Sales reflected that change. Volvo shifted just over 5,400 EX30s in the U.S. during 2025. A Volvo spokesperson confirmed the situation to The Drive, saying it is “a thorough evaluation of our business and operational strategies and is a direct response to shifting market conditions and financial factors.”
Importantly, Volvo isn’t backing away from electrification overall. The brand will continue selling the EX40 and EX90 in the U.S., and the upcoming EX60 is still likely coming later this year. The EX30 didn’t flop in America because it was a bad car. It just ended up being launched at the worst time possible for a small, imported EV. Most automakers worldwide would struggle with such a task, and it’s why so many have changed their EV plans.
Volvo will discontinue the EX30 in the U.S. after the 2026 model year.
Tariffs, tax-credit changes, and slowing EV demand likely sealed its fate.
Small electric SUV will remain on sale in Canada, Mexico, and other markets.
Volvo is suffering a new setback as the short-lived EX30 is leaving the USA after this model year. The automaker confirmed the news that will see both the normal and Cross Country versions of the electric crossover exit the U.S just two years after launch. Meanwhile, Volvo will continue selling it in Mexico and Canada, which makes the reasoning behind the decision easier to piece together.
On paper, the EX30 made a lot of sense. It was positioned as Volvo’s most affordable EV, starting at just over $40,000, with up to 422 horsepower in dual-motor form and EPA range estimates of around 253–261 miles depending on configuration. It was quick, stylish, and small enough to appeal to urban buyers who didn’t need a full-size electric SUV.
In reality, the U.S. market just wasn’t ready for it. The EX30 is tied to a Chinese-built EV architecture like the one used in the Zeekr X. That complicated life for Volvo when President Trump enacted steep tariffs on Chinese-made vehicles. Volvo shifted U.S. supply to Belgium to get around the issue, only to end up hit by more tariffs later on.
At the same time, Trump killed the EV tax credit for imported vehicles and then all vehicles. Sales reflected that change. Volvo shifted just over 5,400 EX30s in the U.S. during 2025. A Volvo spokesperson confirmed the situation to The Drive, saying it is “a thorough evaluation of our business and operational strategies and is a direct response to shifting market conditions and financial factors.”
Importantly, Volvo isn’t backing away from electrification overall. The brand will continue selling the EX40 and EX90 in the U.S., and the upcoming EX60 is still likely coming later this year. The EX30 didn’t flop in America because it was a bad car. It just ended up being launched at the worst time possible for a small, imported EV. Most automakers worldwide would struggle with such a task, and it’s why so many have changed their EV plans.
Republican lawmakers have heard farmers’ concerns about President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. Their response? Short-term pain, long-term gain.
Farmers faced a shrunken export market and operating costs after Trump enforced steep tariffs on key trading partners and farm materials last year. In response, the Trump administration will begin disbursing a $12 billion bailout to farmers due to “unfair market disruptions” at the end of this month.
Republican lawmakers from Wisconsin, a major agricultural producer, acknowledge the 2025 to 2026 crop season challenges, which resulted in an estimated $34.6 billion in losses for the industry, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. But they’re arguing that the success of specialty crops and rosier-than-expected economic indicators are evidence farmers can withstand any turmoil the tariffs have caused.
“Our farmers understand that we have to level the playing field. And how do you do that? You do that with these tariffs,” U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden said. “In order to get to the long term, you have to get through the short term, and that’s the reason that this money’s going back to people in the agriculture industry.”
A bipartisan group of agricultural experts said the Trump administration’s policies have “significantly damaged” the American farm economy in a letter to Senate Agriculture Committee leadership this month, as first reported by The New York Times.
“It is clear that the current Administration’s actions, along with Congressional inaction, have increased costs for farm inputs, disrupted overseas and domestic markets, denied agriculture its reliable labor pool, and defunded critical ag research and staffing,” they wrote.
Wisconsin agriculture experts told NOTUS the administration’s bailout is undesirable and insufficient to cover many farmers’ lost revenue this year.
“They don’t solve the long-run problem of higher input costs and low prices; they are a Band-Aid to get us through this short-term problem,” said Paul Mitchell, the director of the Renk Agribusiness Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Agriculture professor and economist Steven Deller, also of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, had a similar view.
“We’re hemorrhaging thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, and they’re giving us pennies,” Deller said, adding that farmers want “fair markets” and a “level playing field.”
Republicans in the state, however, are standing behind the president’s agenda, pointing to the administration’s stated goal to boost the manufacturing industry through baseline tariff rates for all countries, reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.
“Wisconsin, at the end of the day, is going to benefit as we bring manufacturing back to the state,” said U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the likely GOP nominee for governor.
He blamed the North American Free Trade Agreement for sending manufacturing companies packing for cheaper operations in China. Trump replaced NAFTA during his first term in office with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement — a deal Tiffany applauded.
Trump administration officials have defended tariffs in cable television appearances and in congressional hearings as key to transforming the American economy, even as some agricultural industries languish. At a Senate Banking Committee hearing earlier this month, Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on whether instability in the agricultural markets is a result of Trump’s tariff policies.
“It has nothing to do with the tariffs,” Bessent said.
Still, there are some signs the administration could be responsive to the backlash. The Trump administration is planning to roll back tariffs on some steel and aluminum goods due to concerns the tariffs are hurting consumers, the Financial Times reported.
The soybean industry is one of the hardest hit by tariffs, which temporarily cost farmers the U.S.’ largest soybean trading partner, China. Although China fulfilled its initial purchase agreement last month and has agreed to purchase tens of millions more metric tons over the next few years, American soybean producers withstood an unprecedented five consecutive months without purchases by China.
This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.
Login
