Stratfor: will Trump end free trade in food, & wreck US farmers?

Summary: Stratfor looks at trade, one of the great engines of prosperity in the post-WWII world. Amidst all America’s whining about the unfairness of trade, many industries rely on the great array of treaties to facilitate free trade — such as farming. Will Trump’s ignorance wreck this, or will this be another of his faux populist broken promises?


“Trade Negotiations Sow Seeds of Doubt for U.S. Agriculture”

Stratfor, 13 April 2017.


Grant Wood’s 1930 painting “American Gothic” is quintessential Americana. The austere depiction of a farmer and his land evokes the agrarian core that has long underpinned the United States’ geopolitical strength. Today, the U.S. agricultural system is still central to the country’s success, though it looks much different now than it did in Wood’s time.

Small family farms have given way to massive industrial operations, and the agricultural sector as a whole has become far more globalized. In fact, despite its reputation as the “breadbasket of the world,” the U.S. agricultural sector depends as much on other countries as they depend on it. The United States exports more than 20% of its agricultural production by volume, and export revenues account for about 20% of net farm income. As productivity improves each year with help from technological advancements, moreover, it will outpace domestic demand, leaving exports to sustain the U.S. agricultural sector. But the extent to which they can depends in large part on the future of international trade deals such as NAFTA.

"American Gothic" by Grant Wood


U.S. agriculture lobbies have long advocated trade agreements to keep the country competitive with other major producers. Since the mid-20th century, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and subsequent deals have sent the value of agricultural exports from the United States soaring.

NAFTA gave U.S. agriculture another boost when it took effect in 1994. The deal opened a massive market in Mexico to corn producers in the American Midwest, while also providing American consumers with a wealth of fruits and vegetables from their southern neighbor. It was hardly surprising, then, that the U.S. agricultural sector rallied behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before it fell apart. Nor is it surprising that the United States’ farming industry is wary of the current administration’s plans to renegotiate NAFTA.

A Vulnerable Sector.

Of all the sectors that have benefited from NAFTA, the agricultural industry is the most vulnerable to changes in its terms. Though agricultural exports represent only about 8% of the United States’ exports to Mexico, they would account for roughly 42% of the total increase in tariffs on U.S. exports in the unlikely event that NAFTA were revoked. (Meat and sugar would be among the hardest hit exports from the United States, while sugar and vegetables would be two of the imports most affected by the reintroduction of tariffs.)

Mexico is already working to expand its trade ties with South American countries such as Brazil and Argentina to offset the repercussions that a NAFTA overhaul would have on its agricultural imports and exports. And the U.S. agricultural industry will likewise have to deal with the fallout of a revised trade deal. Farm states — especially those, such as Texas, that do more trade with nearby Mexico — would feel the effects of the changes most acutely. After all, much like manufacturing, agricultural processing depends on intricate cross-border ties. Cattle born in Mexico, for instance, are often raised and slaughtered in Texas for export back across the border.

America's crops
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

Rehashing a Familiar Problem.

This won’t be the first time a disagreement in the NAFTA bloc has targeted the United States’ agricultural sector. In 2009, Mexico imposed tariffs on specific facets of the U.S. agricultural industry during a dispute about trucking. By targeting individual congressional districts, including parts of Oregon and California that rely on agricultural and processed food exports, Mexico City pressured Washington into complying with the trucking ruling.

But agricultural communities are losing their political clout; in 2006, researchers at Montana State University found that farming is the primary economic activity in just 40 of the United States’ 435 congressional districts. The agricultural lobby has atrophied enough, in fact, that the last farm bill — a hefty piece of legislation proposed every five years to fund the country’s agricultural activities — failed in 2013, before Congress eventually passed a diluted version. Spending on lobbying activities for agribusiness, too, has declined in recent years, though it is still higher than it was at the start of the 21st century.

An Uncertain Future.

Agriculture lobbying on agribusiness

Considering their waning influence in U.S. politics, the country’s agricultural producers were particularly nervous as President Donald Trump took aim at their two most important trade partners, China and Mexico, during his campaign for the presidency. Several agribusinesses and farming concerns joined together to write a letter to the president after his inauguration in January outlining the importance of open trade to the agricultural sector. If Trump’s efforts to correct the United States’ trade imbalances prompted countries such as China or Mexico to curtail their imports of U.S. agricultural products, for instance, the American farming sector would suffer disastrous consequences. So far, though, the worst-case scenario appears unlikely. Geographic constraints, coupled with 20 years of progressive integration in numerous industries, including agriculture, will limit the Trump administration’s options to deliver on its promises to amend or discard international trade deals.

That’s good news for U.S. agriculture. Domestic demand alone would fall far short of supporting production in several agricultural sectors. Without China and Mexico, the pork, beef, grain and dairy industries would have no clear alternative market to turn to that could match those countries’ demand, and excess supply could cause prices to plummet. But until the negotiations over NAFTA are complete, the U.S. agricultural sector’s future will be tinged with uncertainty.

Trade Negotiations Sow Seeds of Doubt for U.S. Agriculture
is republished with permission of Stratfor.


Why do many of our leaders get hard erecting barriers to trade?

Because they are ignorant, believing their own propaganda about “America no longer producing anything.” In fact exports have been a growth sector of the US economy since 1970, a story Trump and his 1% buddies want to ruin — to the detriment of American and the world (the people of the world looking to us us for leadership). See the amazing growth in exports as a fraction of US GDP. The people in those industries will fight Trump’s efforts to wreck the global trade system (which has brought such great prosperity to the world).

Exports as a percent of GDP
Stratfor logo

About Stratfor

Founded in 1996, Stratfor provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world. By placing global events in a geopolitical framework, we help customers anticipate opportunities and better understand international developments. They believe that transformative world events are not random and are, indeed, predictable. See their About Page for more information.

For More Information

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about globalization and trade, and especially these…


4 thoughts on “Stratfor: will Trump end free trade in food, & wreck US farmers?”

  1. How come you don’t show the chart of the amazing growth in imports as a fraction of US GDP which are even bigger then the exports and account for the amazing growth in the US trade deficit and the amazing growth in the percentage of working age people being unemployed?

    1. DJF,

      “How come you don’t show the chart of the amazing growth in imports as a fraction of US GDP which”

      Because the point of the Stratfor article is that Trump is putting exports at risk — and exports are an engine of growth for the US economy.

      There are thousands of fascinating economic factoids of no relevance to this issue.

  2. I wouldn’t be sad at all to see the corn and soybean export markets to China, mexico and others severely disrupted. Not all growth is progress. Sure large scale industrialization has dramatically improved yields and efficiency creating the need to export, but it has done so at a price to the health of the land and the people. Our diet is so heavily skewed towards corn and soy derivatives that is surely a major factor in the western worlds ongoing health crises. Chinas adoption and ongoing rise of western “metabolic syndrome” is proof of that, but i guess that fact that we exported that problem is probably a win for pharmacy industries.

    I think the corn and soybean industry parallels the coal industry but is less far along. We are going to start making hard connections, of probably much more significance to the inevitable health problems of having agriculture so tilted towards easy produced but increasingly nutrition-less grains.

  3. Pingback: A look at the US economy, and the next recession - Fabius Maximus website

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top