Republicans uncomfortable as Trump's tariffs impact their states
The agriculture sector is set to face significant challenges due to the newly implemented 25 percent duties on imports from Mexico and Canada, which took effect at midnight.
TroibNews 
Republicans in Washington have been largely dismissive of concerns regarding President Donald Trump’s tariffs, suggesting they are merely a negotiating tactic. However, as major tariffs are implemented on the nation’s two largest trading partners, a sense of alarm is beginning to surface among some GOP lawmakers.
“I’m concerned,” Sen. Ron Johnson stated regarding the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico that became effective just after midnight Tuesday. “I’m concerned.”
“Uneasy, I think, is a word,” added Sen. Jerry Moran.
These senators, along with many others from states with significant agricultural sectors, are becoming increasingly apprehensive about the repercussions of trade retaliation from Canada and Mexico. The Canadian government has already announced over $20 billion worth of U.S. goods, including agricultural products like poultry, beef, fish, and yogurt, that will be subjected to increased tariffs. The repercussions for agricultural producers, traditionally a Republican stronghold, are expected to be severe, forcing some in the party to question Trump’s trade policies, albeit somewhat discreetly.
The agricultural sector experienced losses amounting to $26 billion due to retaliatory tariffs during the initial phase of Trump’s trade war in 2018 and 2019, according to the Agriculture Department. Notably, soybean, sorghum, and pork producers suffered the greatest losses. Although the USDA intervened with billions in direct payments to assist farmers during those tumultuous times, such funding may not be as readily available in a potential second term for Trump, particularly with his administration aiming to reduce federal expenditures.
The Commodity Credit Corporation, which is the funding source for these payments, is reportedly facing a budget crunch, and former Trump trade official Ronald Baumgarten indicated that persuading the administration to allocate additional funds could prove challenging, especially as they target cuts in spending elsewhere. “If you're trying to shrink government, you certainly don't want to enlarge the subsidies,” Baumgarten noted.
Despite this, some Republicans expressed confidence on Monday that the Trump administration would devise a strategy to assist farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by the newly implemented trade measures.
“We’re going to keep our guys in the game,” said Sen. John Hoeven, though he acknowledged his concerns over the immediate consequences of the tariffs. “I’m going to work hard to do that. And that’s why we’ve got to separate short term and long term. The long-term goal is to get better terms for our guys.”
In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump appeared to recognize the mounting anxieties within agricultural communities, directly addressing "the Great Farmers of the United States." He urged them to prepare for a boost in domestic agricultural production, stating, “Get ready to start making a lot of agricultural product to be sold INSIDE of the United States. Tariffs will go on external product on April 2nd. Have fun!"
According to the White House, Trump was referring to reciprocal tariffs he plans to impose globally, set to take effect on April 2. These will be determined based on the tariffs and trade barriers other countries impose on U.S. goods. However, the economic implications are far more complex.
Over the past 25 years, agricultural exports have emerged as a crucial revenue stream for American farmers, climbing from $57.3 billion in 1998 to $174 billion in 2023, as reported by the Agriculture Department. Consumers depend on imports from countries like Mexico and Canada for access to specialty crops, including seasonal fruits and vegetables, as well as beverages. Additionally, American farmers rely on imports for essential materials like potash, a key fertilizer ingredient, and steel or plastic for farm equipment, which are not sufficiently produced domestically.
“You cannot export a potash mine,” remarked Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, an organization advocating stronger U.S.-Canada relations. “It’s in the ground [in Canada]. You can’t just get it.”
Significant agriculture lobbying groups and GOP lawmakers are now looking to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to champion agricultural interests in Cabinet discussions and provide support to producers endangered by the ongoing tariff disputes.
During her confirmation hearing, Rollins assured the Senate Agriculture Committee that she would work to “bring in new trade partners” and “expand access” for U.S. farmers to international markets.
The reservations expressed by farm-state Republicans over Trump’s latest tariffs, though not overwhelming, signify a shift in tone from the confident rhetoric prevalent in recent weeks. Many comments indicating concern were often accompanied by affirmations of support for Trump’s overarching trade initiatives.
“I'm a farmer in real life, too,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa stated. “It is something we'll all have to weather, but ultimately the proceeds from the tariffs, he’s funneling a lot of that right back to agriculture. I think it's kind of ‘wait and see’ a little bit as to how it plays out. It's not terrible, you know, I mean, you hear a lot of concern out there, and a lot of times concerns are ‘what-ifs’ that never really come about.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt expressed that he held no worries about the tariffs, arguing they should be viewed as part of a broader strategy that would enhance conditions for farmers in the long run. “It’s not in a vacuum,” Schmitt contended. “I think if you combine the reduction of government spending with energy outputs, that we’re actually going to be in a much better spot.”
However, for a party that has largely exuded confidence in Trump’s negotiating prowess and dismissed fears surrounding tariffs as exaggerated, even the tempered doubts shared by some lawmakers mark a notable change in their messaging.
Democrats, eager to find a compelling political narrative following the November elections, are already seizing on the chance to criticize Republicans for the economic ramifications of these tariffs.
The stock market dipped on Tuesday following the trade announcements and currently remains lower than the levels seen when Trump assumed office in January. Consumer sentiment also declined in February, and inflation appears to be maintaining a steady presence.
Sen. Gary Peters pointed out that Trump’s campaign was built on promises to reduce costs after years of high inflation and soaring housing expenses. “The president should be focused on lowering costs,” Peters insisted. “He said he was going to lower inflation, and through these tariffs he’s actually going to increase inflation and hurt American families.”
Trump narrowly secured Michigan in the previous election, part of his wider success across manufacturing-focused swing states in the Upper Midwest. However, the consequences of tariffs on Michigan’s automotive and agricultural sectors—both heavily reliant on trade with Canada and Mexico—could present Democrats with a viable opportunity to connect with voters.
Rep. Debbie Dingell noted, “Trump’s newly installed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said he wants to bring manufacturing back to this country... I want to work with him, but let's do it in a way that's not going to do irreparable harm.”
Chris Marquette contributed to this report.
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
“I’m concerned,” Sen. Ron Johnson stated regarding the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico that became effective just after midnight Tuesday. “I’m concerned.”
“Uneasy, I think, is a word,” added Sen. Jerry Moran.
These senators, along with many others from states with significant agricultural sectors, are becoming increasingly apprehensive about the repercussions of trade retaliation from Canada and Mexico. The Canadian government has already announced over $20 billion worth of U.S. goods, including agricultural products like poultry, beef, fish, and yogurt, that will be subjected to increased tariffs. The repercussions for agricultural producers, traditionally a Republican stronghold, are expected to be severe, forcing some in the party to question Trump’s trade policies, albeit somewhat discreetly.
The agricultural sector experienced losses amounting to $26 billion due to retaliatory tariffs during the initial phase of Trump’s trade war in 2018 and 2019, according to the Agriculture Department. Notably, soybean, sorghum, and pork producers suffered the greatest losses. Although the USDA intervened with billions in direct payments to assist farmers during those tumultuous times, such funding may not be as readily available in a potential second term for Trump, particularly with his administration aiming to reduce federal expenditures.
The Commodity Credit Corporation, which is the funding source for these payments, is reportedly facing a budget crunch, and former Trump trade official Ronald Baumgarten indicated that persuading the administration to allocate additional funds could prove challenging, especially as they target cuts in spending elsewhere. “If you're trying to shrink government, you certainly don't want to enlarge the subsidies,” Baumgarten noted.
Despite this, some Republicans expressed confidence on Monday that the Trump administration would devise a strategy to assist farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by the newly implemented trade measures.
“We’re going to keep our guys in the game,” said Sen. John Hoeven, though he acknowledged his concerns over the immediate consequences of the tariffs. “I’m going to work hard to do that. And that’s why we’ve got to separate short term and long term. The long-term goal is to get better terms for our guys.”
In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump appeared to recognize the mounting anxieties within agricultural communities, directly addressing "the Great Farmers of the United States." He urged them to prepare for a boost in domestic agricultural production, stating, “Get ready to start making a lot of agricultural product to be sold INSIDE of the United States. Tariffs will go on external product on April 2nd. Have fun!"
According to the White House, Trump was referring to reciprocal tariffs he plans to impose globally, set to take effect on April 2. These will be determined based on the tariffs and trade barriers other countries impose on U.S. goods. However, the economic implications are far more complex.
Over the past 25 years, agricultural exports have emerged as a crucial revenue stream for American farmers, climbing from $57.3 billion in 1998 to $174 billion in 2023, as reported by the Agriculture Department. Consumers depend on imports from countries like Mexico and Canada for access to specialty crops, including seasonal fruits and vegetables, as well as beverages. Additionally, American farmers rely on imports for essential materials like potash, a key fertilizer ingredient, and steel or plastic for farm equipment, which are not sufficiently produced domestically.
“You cannot export a potash mine,” remarked Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, an organization advocating stronger U.S.-Canada relations. “It’s in the ground [in Canada]. You can’t just get it.”
Significant agriculture lobbying groups and GOP lawmakers are now looking to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to champion agricultural interests in Cabinet discussions and provide support to producers endangered by the ongoing tariff disputes.
During her confirmation hearing, Rollins assured the Senate Agriculture Committee that she would work to “bring in new trade partners” and “expand access” for U.S. farmers to international markets.
The reservations expressed by farm-state Republicans over Trump’s latest tariffs, though not overwhelming, signify a shift in tone from the confident rhetoric prevalent in recent weeks. Many comments indicating concern were often accompanied by affirmations of support for Trump’s overarching trade initiatives.
“I'm a farmer in real life, too,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa stated. “It is something we'll all have to weather, but ultimately the proceeds from the tariffs, he’s funneling a lot of that right back to agriculture. I think it's kind of ‘wait and see’ a little bit as to how it plays out. It's not terrible, you know, I mean, you hear a lot of concern out there, and a lot of times concerns are ‘what-ifs’ that never really come about.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt expressed that he held no worries about the tariffs, arguing they should be viewed as part of a broader strategy that would enhance conditions for farmers in the long run. “It’s not in a vacuum,” Schmitt contended. “I think if you combine the reduction of government spending with energy outputs, that we’re actually going to be in a much better spot.”
However, for a party that has largely exuded confidence in Trump’s negotiating prowess and dismissed fears surrounding tariffs as exaggerated, even the tempered doubts shared by some lawmakers mark a notable change in their messaging.
Democrats, eager to find a compelling political narrative following the November elections, are already seizing on the chance to criticize Republicans for the economic ramifications of these tariffs.
The stock market dipped on Tuesday following the trade announcements and currently remains lower than the levels seen when Trump assumed office in January. Consumer sentiment also declined in February, and inflation appears to be maintaining a steady presence.
Sen. Gary Peters pointed out that Trump’s campaign was built on promises to reduce costs after years of high inflation and soaring housing expenses. “The president should be focused on lowering costs,” Peters insisted. “He said he was going to lower inflation, and through these tariffs he’s actually going to increase inflation and hurt American families.”
Trump narrowly secured Michigan in the previous election, part of his wider success across manufacturing-focused swing states in the Upper Midwest. However, the consequences of tariffs on Michigan’s automotive and agricultural sectors—both heavily reliant on trade with Canada and Mexico—could present Democrats with a viable opportunity to connect with voters.
Rep. Debbie Dingell noted, “Trump’s newly installed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said he wants to bring manufacturing back to this country... I want to work with him, but let's do it in a way that's not going to do irreparable harm.”
Chris Marquette contributed to this report.
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
