I’m a sixth-generation farmer. Trump’s funding freeze is throwing my world into chaos.

The Trump administration’s decision to pause and review federal funding has sparked uncertainty for many Americans. Even if you have not personally felt the effects yet, you soon might, because these abrupt freezes are hitting family farmers and ranchers hard. And when farmers struggle, every consumer feels it at the grocery store.

Agriculture is a complex industry, often overlooked in national policy discussions. Farmers take on an immense amount of financial risk to put a crop into the ground or raise a herd of livestock, only to be wiped out by a natural disaster, rising costs or collapsing markets. The programs under review — or those completely frozen — help family farmers manage risk, access credit and stay afloat when times get tough.

Without intervention, these cuts will ripple through rural economies.

Like all businesses, farmers need some stability to succeed. As a sixth-generation farmer from West Virginia, I understand the administration’s desire to root out waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs. But the current freeze is creating chaos instead of reform. No one knows what funding will be available, or if key programs will have the staff needed to operate. Here are a few examples of the funding freeze’s real-world impacts on America’s farmers.

The freeze has most immediately impacted federal conservation and voluntary climate-smart agriculture projects. Across the country, farmers have been left in limbo after making sustainability investments, trusting that the government would uphold its commitments.

For example, some farmers who purchased cover crop seed to improve soil health or installed solar panels to reduce energy costs are now learning that federal reimbursements have been cut off. These are not theoretical losses. These are real financial burdens that could push family farms into bankruptcy. Without intervention, these cuts will ripple through rural economies. Every farm that goes out of business means fewer families in rural communities, less money spent at the local businesses, fewer kids in the local schools, and fewer tax dollars for roads, hospitals and emergency services.

Farmers and policymakers in both parties have broadly supported international food aid for decades. American farmers produce more food than we can consume, and food aid donations serve the dual purpose of providing a new market opportunity for farmers and feeding people in need around the world. The U.S. purchased roughly $2 billion in food aid last year from American farmers; dismantling our food aid program is certain to disrupt market prices and create additional stress for U.S. food producers.

Beyond agriculture, the funding freeze threatens the infrastructure that keeps rural communities running. Federal grants and loans help small towns replace aging and costly infrastructure, such as broadband and water systems, and invest in local meat and food processing. Local entities have relied on federal loans and loan guarantees — existing commitments that the government is now freezing, leaving farmers, investors, lenders and rural communities on the hook for funds already spent.

Shrinking the size of the federal workforce might seem like a reasonable way to cut costs, but in agriculture it could have disastrous consequences. Farmers rely on federal employees to administer disaster relief, risk management programs and conservation initiatives, and rural areas already struggle to recruit and retain qualified staff.

One of the more alarming impacts could be on U.S. Department of Agriculture food safety inspectors. Meatpacking plants cannot operate without them, meaning staffing shortages could slow or shut down processing facilities. This would hurt livestock growers, who already face limited options due to industry consolidation. It would also reduce meat supply, driving up prices for consumers. These funding freezes do not just hurt individual farmers. They reinforce a food system already dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Over the past several decades, agriculture has become more concentrated, with a few companies controlling everything from seeds and fertilizers to meatpacking and grain trading. Farmers have few choices on where to sell their products, leaving them at the mercy of companies that keep farm prices low while raising costs for consumers.

Every farm that goes out of business means fewer families in rural communities, less money spent at the local businesses, fewer kids in the local schools, and fewer tax dollars for roads, hospitals, and emergency services.

Further instability in federal programs only strengthens these monopolies. When family farmers lose access to credit, conservation programs or technical assistance, they are more likely to be forced out of business or absorbed by corporate interests. That means less competition, fewer independent farmers and higher grocery prices for American families.

Finally, federal research funding drives breakthroughs in crop and animal science, safeguarding our food supply from emerging diseases and advancing technologies that help farmers produce more with fewer resources. However, the current funding freeze has stalled agricultural research, leaving farmers without the tools they need to adapt to a changing climate and evolving threats. Investing in agriculture is investing in the future — ensuring farmers can keep farming, rural communities can stay vibrant, and every American can have access to safe, affordable food.

Supporting family farmers and ranchers means supporting the backbone of our nation. These funding cuts are not just numbers on a budget spreadsheet; they represent real dollars that sustain families and power rural economies. Freezing spending and making sweeping decisions without congressional oversight just adds more uncertainty to a stressed farm economy. The right way to evaluate government programs is through thoughtful, measured approaches that protect taxpayer dollars without causing harm to family farmers, ranchers and rural communities.

Policymakers must listen to the voices of those most impacted and recognize the real-world consequences of any cuts. Our rural economy and food system — and therefore all of America — depends on it.

Rob Larew