Skylar Holden, a livestock farm in Missouri, had signed a $ 240,000 contract with the agricultural department to add screens and improve the water system for his property. But after the Trump government froze the federal financing abruptly, Mr. Holden said, he was suddenly tens of thousands of dollars and on the hook for tens of thousands of more work and material costs, and the risk of losing his farm.
“When my farm payment is due, chances are I can't afford it,” he said in an interview.
Mr Holden's situation underlined the potentially precarious position of farmers throughout the country, since a fast series of guidelines has paused federal financing on various programs and subsidies through the Trump government. Even while courts have stopped many of the orders, rural communities of the effects are staggering, causing confusion and panic at one of the core constitution of President Trump.
Billions of dollars in financing are at stake. One executive order focuses on the inflation reduction law, including money for farmers to maintain soil and water and complete energy projects. Other guidelines affect states and producers. Another, which froze the American foreign aid expenditure, has temporarily left hundreds of millions of dollars in food and supplies in ports and has stopped future purchases of grains and goods.
Farmers, who voted overwhelming for Mr. Trump, have already had a difficult piece. In the past two years, falling prices for corn, soybeans and wheat from 2022 have resulted in high levels in fallo -agricultural income falls. Although that figure will rise sharply this year, mainly due to the payments of the government, the high -speed policy of the administration has wary of many farmers and some agribusinesss.
“Farmers do not need any uncertainty than they already have,” said Nick Laandofsky, the executive director of the Kansas Farmers Union, who represents around 4,000 farms in the state, most of which are family businesses.
Direct payments to farmers are in danger.
Shortly after he was inaugurated, Mr Trump ordered an indefinite break about financing provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, the characteristic climate and the domestic expenditure law of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Although a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to release the funds on Monday, it is unclear when and whether this will follow the example.
Asked if it would release the money, the agricultural department did not respond directly and only said that it had ordered “an extensive assessment” of his contracts, work and staff. Agency staff who spoke about the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said that no financing had been released.
If funds remain frozen, it can influence more than 25,000 conservation contracts of $ 1.8 billion that are financed by the Climate Act, which may comprise thousands of rural farmers.
The contracts, usually costs for sharing costs that have been reached with the agricultural department, are extremely popular, with the demand that exceeds the available amount of money. According to the contract, farmers, farmers and landowners are reimbursed for practices that help maintain and protect soil, water and the environment. But financing has become an important target for the Trump administration because of the connection with Mr Biden and the focus on the climate.
“This is not only hippie-dippy things,” said Aaron Pape, who raises cattle, pigs and poultry on 300 hectares in Wisconsin. “This influences regular farmers.”
Mr Pape, who owes $ 30,000 for a screens and water management contract under the directive, said that he might be forced to take out extra loans to cover his costs. Although he did not vote for Mr. Trump, Mr Pape said that he hoped that the president understood that farmers were “the constituency that brought you to power and the actions you take, have serious, immediate consequences for our livelihood.”
More than a dozen farmers and farmers, the New York Times told that the tumult had made it harder to plan for the year, which influenced the decisions about the purchases of seed and equipment. Many expressed themselves that the administration could again pause future payments with little warning or focus on other programs such as disaster relief payments and crop insurance, resulting in underted consequences for the food supply.
The Climate Transignment Act also offered around $ 1.7 billion to strengthen an agricultural department for national energy fairs. Just as with nature conservation programs, beneficiaries received reimbursement for projects. De Halt, ordered under the guideline entitled 'Unchanging of American Energy', has potentially left thousands of beneficiaries in the uncertain or the bill.
Adam Greene, who cancel sheep in a remote part of the state of Washington, received two subsidies worth around $ 33,000 to install solar panels and a heat pump on its farm, where fuel is expensive and the range is unreliable. To cover the prior costs, Mr. Greene has taken out a loan, planning to pay it when he received a reimbursement. Those plans and the hope of expanding his operation are now on hold.
Like all farmers who spoke to the Times, Mr. Greene emphasized that although he did not blame the employees of the agricultural department, he was more hesitant to work with the federal government.
“These are obligations that the federal government has made to farmers on which we depend on,” he said. “If you want to change the policy, change the policy, but just don't save.”
Mr. Trump has also paused payments by the Commodity Credit Corporation, a pot of money that used his first administration to pay farmers who are financially suffering from retaliating capacity and the Biden administration used to stimulate climate-friendly agricultural practices. It is unclear how much of the financing is frozen; The Iowa Soybean Association recently said that its members were owed $ 11 million in compensation by that program alone.
As an addition to the confusion, some farmers reported that subsidies for marketing their products or buying equipment for distribution were also stopped, although those programs are not financed with dollars of inflation reduction. It was not immediately clear which guidelines caused the problems.
Tom Smude, who operates a seed processing company in Pierz, Minn., Recently heard that his $ 530,000 subsidy, funded by the state through the American rescue plan, was also paused.
Mr Smude took out a bank loan to pay a down payment for equipment that could mill more efficiently Sunflower seeds, in the expectation that the subsidy will cover three-quarters of the costs. But when the equipment arrives, he will not be able to pay for it.
Although Mr Smude said that he shared the faith of Mr Trump in lowering government spending, he expressed confusion about the priorities of the president.
“It's what he wants, keeping growth in industry and America,” he said. “I feel like I'm doing my part and now you go against what you said, a bit.”
For his part, Mr Holden does not blame Mr Trump, nor would he change his voice in the presidential election.
But as a first beneficiary, Mr. Holden said that he was sorry that he had promoted the nature conservation programs on his popular Tiktok account, swearing to “never do anything with a government agency.”
The stopping of international aid extends to raw material producers.
The move to effectively close the American Bureau for International Development and to place most of its staff on leave has left $ 489 million in food aid at docks, in warehouses and in transport with spoilage. Last weekend Senator Jerry Moran, Republican from Kansas and others to find other non -profit organizations to supervise logistics.
But future humanitarian purchases of grains and other foods grown in the United States are unclear. USAID buys around $ 2 billion from farmers per year, and 41 percent of the food aid sent abroad is grown in their own country, according to a report from 2021. The agency estimated that it bought 1.1 million tonnes of food from farmers and farmers in 2023. About 430 large-scale farmers who came washed in almost every state fulfilled direct orders from the desk, data collected by a USAID employee and shared with the Times Shows shows.
Last year the agency bought 161,000 tons of rice from America for $ 126 million, according to Michael Klein, a US Rice spokesperson.
Likewise, the Food for Progress program of the agricultural department had bought no less than a million tons of Tart Tarwe in recent years to distribute with people in need abroad, according to US Wheat Associates, a lobbyist organization for the wheat industry.
Although that is only a piece of the annual American wheat production, the program has the extra benefit of promoting American wheat in foreign markets, said Steven Mercer, a spokesperson for US Wheat Associates.
The termination of millions of dollars in subsidies by USAID also resulted in the possible closure of research programs at universities throughout the country. For example, the University of Nebraska had a five -year subsidy of $ 19 million to develop irrigation techniques in developing countries. Financing for this and other subsidies have been terminated or reduced sharply, so that the investigation has been endangered.
“We are very, very large beneficiaries of government contracts,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gold, the president of the University of Nebraska, who said that the consequences of such breaks in the financing were surprised than many would believe. Elected officials, he added, should “understand that institutions for public land fair as we are directly and considerably influenced by these changes.”
Some branches have been averted for the time being. When moving to close USAID, the Trump administration also issued stop-work orders and subsequently withdrew to some American manufacturers of food that has been sent abroad.
One non-profit in Georgia, Mana, produces ready-made therapeutic food to tackle malnutrition in children. It buys around two million pounds from American farmers monthly, according to the Chief Executive of Mana, Mark Moore.
About $ 12 million in Mana products – 300,000 boxes, each contain 150 bags of food to treat serious malnutrition for six weeks – wait for the port of Savannah. Mr Moore did not expect that this specific shipment would be postponed, but he was also uncertain whether USAID would pay the bill or whether it would deliver future shipments.
“The actual impact of the closure will take place in a month in a month, six weeks from now on, when the supply chain starts crumbling, which will still be a story by that time?” he asked.
Alan Rappeport Report from Washington, and Eli Tan from San Francisco.
