Trump administration officials say tariff revenue is delivering huge benefits to farmers. Data from the field paints a more complicated picture.
According to the January North Dakota State University Trade Monitor, tariffs on agriculture inputs due to President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act collected $958 million in revenue through October. More than half of that revenue, at $530 million, was collected from farm machinery. About $273 million came from agriculture chemicals, while fertilizers accounted for $110 million and seeds yielded $44 million.
Despite the seemingly impressive numbers, those totals are relatively modest compared to overall production costs according to the NDSU analysis. It concluded that U.S. farmers and input suppliers bore substantially higher costs than the tariff revenue collected.
That’s not news for farmers who’ve seen skyrocketing costs cripple their operations. Kansas farmer Nick Levendofsky said tariffs and trade uncertainty are making planning harder for farmers. According to him, when tariffs are put on goods, farmers are not only incurring additional costs, but also being forced to sell their goods for a lower price.
“Even before tariffs, input costs were already high. Fertilizer, seed, chemical, equipment, fuel and land costs remain elevated,” Levendofsky said during a Wednesday press call discussing tariff impacts on 2026 planning. “Tariffs add another layer of cost at a time when farmers are trying to plan months or even years ahead.”
Levendofsky, who also serves as director of the Kansas Farmers Union, said many of his fellow Kansans are already anticipating higher costs for key inputs like fertilizer. That, combined with projected higher operating costs, could push overall crop production costs higher than last year and above USDA’s latest projections.
Are tariffs yielding benefits?
Over the past year, Trump has repeatedly touted tariffs as a tool that will help farmers in the long run. While acknowledging there may be some short-term pain, he’s argued tariffs will ultimately open more markets for farmers and help finalize favorable trade deals.
American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said he is skeptical of Trump’s tariff policy. In remarks at the annual farm bureau convention, he recalled a 2025 meeting with the president in which he said farmers favored trade, not tariffs. Trump responded that he needed tariffs to bring other nations to the negotiating table.
“My comment to him was, ‘We pray to God that you’re right,’” Duvall said.
But it’s not just long-term benefits that Trump is promoting. According to him, farmers are already reaping the benefits.
When Trump and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a $12 billion farmer assistance plan late last year, the president said the aid was only possible due to tariff revenue.
“We’re taking in so much money with the tariffs now that it’s such a pleasure. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to help you,” Trump told Senate Ag Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., during a Dec. 8 White House event. “We’re making our country. We’re the richest country in the world now.”
According to a Jan 13. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond analysis, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security collected $287 billion in customs duties, taxes and fees during calendar year 2025. That’s 192% more than what was collected in 2024.
Still, despite this apparently newfound wealth, the $12 billion in farmer assistance does not come close to offsetting agricultural losses over the past few years.
On Jan. 15, a coalition of 56 agriculture organizations sent a letter to Congress saying extreme economic pressures are “threatening the long-term viability of the U.S. agriculture sector.” Despite the $12 billion in farmer assistance, additional support in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and other farmer assistance programs, they say financial losses continue to mount.
“In addition to continuing to pursue federal policies to increase long-term domestic demand for U.S agricultural commodities, we urge Congress to provide immediate economic support to fill in the gap of remaining losses for both field and specialty crop farmers,” the ag groups state in their letter. “Additional support will stabilize the farm economy, protect rural communities and ensure a secure food supply. This support must be robust enough to fill in sector-wide gaps.”
What about all that tariff revenue?
So why doesn’t Trump simply allocate more tariff revenue to farmers? That’s where things get tricky. Tariff revenue goes into the federal government’s general treasury fund. By law, only Congress can allocate those funds.
There is a provision in federal law that the Department of Agriculture can utilize in certain cases. Per Section 32 in the Agriculture Act of 1935, USDA has access to 30% of the prior year’s customs receipts. The department can allocate those funds to purchase certain commodities for food nutrition programs or to offset occasional surpluses.
For example, Rollins announced Jan. 13 that USDA was invoking Section 32 authority to purchase $80 million in almonds, grape juice, pistachios and raisins for food assistance agencies.
Section 32 can also fund some administrative expenses and federal marketing orders. However, USDA cannot allocate more than $350 million from Section 32 to direct farmer payments or disaster relief programs. Therefore, the president’s legal authority to distribute tariff funding for farmer assistance is somewhat limited without congressional support.
Additionally, most of the additional revenue generated by Trump’s “emergency” tariffs will not hit the books until later this year at the earliest. And that’s assuming the Supreme Court does not strike down Trump’s authority to levy tariffs without congressional approval. Suffice to say, how much revenue farmers are getting from tariffs remains, at best, unquantifiable at this point.
What are farmers to do?
Iowa farmer Aaron Lehman said producers in his state have few profitable alternatives to corn and soybeans. The export market for those products has been rocked by trade uncertainty.
According to Lehman, if agriculture was going to enter a period with this level of price volatility, something should have been done long ago to help farmers diversify their economic options. As it stands now, he said nothing has been invested to help farmers prepare for this period of “trade chaos.”
Levendofsky noted that farmers are “price-takers, not price-makers.” He said uncertainties from last year’s trade environment are carrying over into 2026 planning. For some, that will mean shifting away from export-dependent crops like grain sorghum. It had been a major crop for western and southwestern Kansas that was primarily utilized through USAID’s Food for Peace Program.
In the wake of USAID’s demise, grain sorghum prices are now under $3 per bushel. As unutilized sorghum piles up across the state, some grain elevators said they may not accept more.
With trade disputes heavily impacting other crops, including wheat and soybeans, Levendofsky said many farmers are delaying equipment purchases and other long-term investments. Some farmers are taking more risks just to survive.
As Levendofsky sees it, when tariffs disrupt trade and invite retaliation, markets become less reliable. That makes it harder to lock in contracts, manage risk and plan for stable income heading into the new year. For him and other farmers, he said tariffs are not an abstract policy issue. They directly shape how farmers plan what to grow and whether they can invest with confidence.
“Tariffs are tools, not toys,” he said. “The bottom line is simple: Farmers need predictable trade policy and stable markets to plan responsibly for 2026. Continued tariff uncertainty makes that increasingly difficult.”