Elections Have Consequences: Why Some Americans Don’t Want to Bail Out Red State Farmers

We’re all watching the economic wreckage tariffs leave in their wake—higher prices, warped markets, and the inevitable retaliation from other nations that hits our export industries hardest. What tends to go unnoticed, though, is the flood of special-interest lobbying that follows these trade barriers. Take the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs as a perfect example: according to Judge Glock, those sparked a mind-blowing 425,000 requests for exemptions. Of those, nearly 200,000 were granted—most of them secured thanks to campaign contributions or backdoor political influence.

But even that flood of corporate carve-outs is minor compared to the bailout frenzy now once again aimed at the deep-red farming heartlands.

During Trump’s first term, farmers hauled in an extra $24 billion above their regular subsidy levels to make up for lost markets after countries like China slapped retaliatory tariffs—such as the 25% levy on U.S. soybeans. Then in 2024, even as Trump campaigned on a turbo-charged trade war that risked crushing rural economies again, farm country rallied behind him anyway. In fact, Trump pulled in a jaw-dropping 78% of the vote across 444 counties that are most reliant on farming, crushing Kamala Harris by a 30-point margin in those areas.

In plain terms, farm country cast its vote for another round of trade war turmoil. And now those same voters, and their elected representatives, are demanding another round of taxpayer-funded rescue packages to shield them from the damage they voted to bring upon themselves. Congress had already approved a $10 billion emergency farm payment bill just before Biden left office. Now, Trump has reportedly instructed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to “have some programs in place that would potentially mitigate any economic catastrophes that could happen.” Conversations in Washington are already underway about how to structure this next bailout package.

“Farm country voted overwhelmingly to unleash a new trade war. And now these same farmers and their political leaders want taxpayers to finance another round of bailouts to protect them from the consequences of their own votes.”

For taxpayers, this should be infuriating. The American public and thousands of businesses just coughed up $16 billion in tariffs last month. Did they get any taxpayer-funded help? Not even close. Export-heavy industries like pharmaceuticals, energy, electronics, and software—who stand to lose big in a prolonged trade war—aren’t getting blanket bailouts. Instead, only those with deep pockets and political muscle are carving out private exemptions. Meanwhile, farmers who knowingly voted for the same policies that devastated them before are once again being lined up for golden parachutes.

Whatever happened to the GOP’s devotion to personal responsibility? These are the same politicians who preach that poverty is a moral failing, and that low-income Americans should face the consequences of their “bad decisions.” But when it’s their own voter base at risk—when it’s wealthy Republican farmers—the tone suddenly shifts. Their bailouts, we’re told, are “different.”

True conservatives—yes, the few of us left—know full well that these bailouts don’t just violate conservative principles, they also make zero economic sense. The last time we played this game, most of the relief came through the USDA’s Market Facilitation Program (MFP), which grossly miscalculated actual losses. The truth? Agricultural exports barely dipped, and even soybeans—supposedly the biggest casualty—only dropped by 11% before rebounding by a massive 60% above pre-tariff levels by 2022.

And it gets worse. The bulk of those payments went to the richest of the rich. The American Enterprise Institute found that “the largest 10 percent of farms, with average annual gross farm incomes of $2.14 million, received average subsidies … of $230,700 per farm” between 2018 and 2019. Compare that to mid-sized farms, which received around $18,000, or the small farms, which barely got anything at all.

It’s not just that these massive subsidies overcompensated for the modest losses. They were also redundant. Washington already doles out $20 billion a year in regular farm subsidies. Add in the taxpayer-backed crop insurance program that cushions income dips, and what you have is a system that lets wealthy agribusinesses triple-dip into federal welfare: subsidies, insurance payouts, and trade-war bailouts.

The sad truth? Americans still cling to the myth that farm subsidies protect small, struggling family farms from nature’s unpredictability. In reality, they’re America’s largest and most entrenched corporate welfare scheme. The family farm has largely been absorbed into massive agribusinesses that rake in billions in aid. The top 10% of farms—those pocketing the vast majority of subsidies—are projected to report an average net cash income of $572,000 this year. And that’s net, not gross.

Even with trade wars and pandemics, net farm income hasn’t dipped below 15% in the past several years, and margins have averaged around 24%. Bankruptcy rates in farming remain among the lowest in any sector. Yes, yearly income can fluctuate with the weather, but the answer to volatility isn’t taxpayer-funded welfare—it’s insurance and smart financial planning. Futures markets exist for a reason.

Yet, none of this is really about economics. It’s about power. Decades of central planning have shifted agriculture from independent family farms to centralized, corporate operations backed by fierce lobbying networks. These agribusiness giants have become some of the most powerful political players in Washington. Unlike health or energy lobbyists—who lawmakers at least pretend to resist—farm lobbyists are openly courted and often bragged about by politicians writing agricultural policy.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Republicans, who’ve built careers railing against government handouts, are fully complicit. They’re just as eager as their Democratic colleagues to shovel federal dollars back home—so long as the recipients are red-state farmers.

Trump’s big-government trade strategy and Washington’s long history of farming favoritism are on a collision course once again. Taxpayer funds that should go toward deficit reduction will instead prop up the very people who voted for policies that now threaten to ruin them. If Trump and the GOP believe tariffs are a winning strategy, they need to own the fallout. No more bailouts. Let the consequences speak for themselves.