The Dictatorship

How Trump’s trade deal and aid package affect American farmers

Published

6 months ago

December 12, 2025

How Trump’s trade deal and aid package affect American farmers

RANDOLPH, Minn. (AP) — When Donald Trump promised new tariffs while running for president, Gene Stehly worried that trade disputes would jeopardize his international sales of corn, soybeans and wheat.

A little more than a year later, Stehly said his fears have become a reality, and Trump’s latest promise of federal assistance is insufficient to cover American farmers’ losses.

“Maybe this will all come out to be better at the end, but I can tell you right now, it certainly isn’t the case at the moment,” Stehly said.

Trump announced Monday that his Republican administration would distribute $12 billion in one-time payments to farmerswho have suffered from persistently low commodity prices, rising costs and declining sales after China cut off all agricultural purchases from America during the trade war.

While rural areas remain conservative bastions, farmers’ patience with Washington is wearing thin. Several of them described the government bailout, an echo of similar policies during Trump’s first term, as a welcome stopgap but one that will not solve the agricultural industry’s problems.

“It’s a bridge. It’s not the ultimate solution we’re looking for,” said Charlie Radman, a fourth-generation farmer who grows corn and soybeans on the land his family has owned near Randolph, Minnesota, since 1899. “What we really want to have is a little more certainty and not have to rely on these ad hoc payments.”

But farmers support for Trump remains steadfast.

Kansas sorghum farmer Garrett Love, who was at the White House when the aid was announced, said farmers know that securing fair trade deals is a “hard process,” and farmers “appreciate lowering tax burdens, lowering regulations, increasing freedom, and Trump has definitely done that.”

Farmers caught up in trade war

American soybean and sorghum farmers typically export at least half their crops. They were hit the hardest by Trump’s trade dispute with China, the world’s largest buyer of soybeans that has increasingly relied on harvests from Brazil and other South American nations.

Trump and his Cabinet have boasted about the deal he struck with Chinese President Xi Jinping in October. But Liu Pengyu, the spokesperson for the Chinese embassy, said this week that “agriculture trade cooperation between China and the United States is proceeding in an orderly manner” without giving specifics.

So far, China has bought only a little more than one-quarter of the 12 million metric tons of soybeans that U.S. officials said would be purchased before the end of February, raising doubts on whether Beijing would follow through on that pledge or commitments to buy 25 million metric tons annually in the next three years. China has not confirmed those numbers.

“In general, I don’t trust their motives and integrity of their promises,” said Bryant Kagay, who farms in northwest Missouri.

Even if China does buy the agreed amount of American soybeans, that would only bring U.S. farmers near to the amount they were selling every year before Trump took office.

That is a big part of why Minnesota farmer Glen Groth said he’d “like to see the administration focus more on opening up markets outside of China.” In addition to finding other international buyers, agriculture groups are pushing to expand domestic uses like biodiesel, ethanol, aviation fuel and animal feed.

Dan Keitzer, a soybean and corn farmer in southeast Iowa, said recent bumper crops and technological advancements that produce bigger harvests means that the industry needs more customers.

“I think most farmers would tell you that they don’t want to go to the mailbox and get a check from the government. That’s not why we farm,” he said. “We need more demand for our product.”

Aid is considered a Band-Aid

Trump has placated farmers with money before. During his first term, he provided $22 billion in 2019 to help cushion them from trade disputes with China. There was $46 billion in 2020, an expanded number that reflected financial challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The $12 billion that he announced this week will not quell farmers’ fears about the future. They already are ordering supplies for next year’s crops and meeting with their bankers to discuss the loans they will need. But they’re trying to stay optimistic that crop prices will improve if they find more buyers. Farmers will find out exactly how much aid they can expect around Christmas.

The aid payments that are due to arrive by the end of February will be capped at $155,000 per farmer or entity, and only farms that make less than $900,000 in adjusted gross income will be eligible. During the first Trump administration, a number of large farms found ways around the payment limits and collected millions.

Farmers would like to see Trump aggressively tackle concerns about higher costs that are eating into their bottom line.

Trump signed an executive order over the weekend directing the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to investigate anti-competitive practices anywhere in the food supply chain, starting with the fertilizer, seed and equipment that farmers rely on and continuing to deal with meat packing companies and grocers who help determine what price consumers pay.

Tregg Cronin, who farms and ranches with his family in central South Dakota, said he’s grateful for the president’s acknowledgment that farmers are “caught in the middle” of the trade war.

But he said that any checks that farmers receive from the government will likely “get turned around and sent right out the door.”

___

Funk reported from Omaha, Neb. Associated Press writers Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines, Iowa, Sarah Raza in Sioux Falls, S.D., and Didi Tang in Washington contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

17 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

17 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

17 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.