Opinion: Eastern Shore Farmers Suffering Under Trump by Wilson Dean

Farmers throughout the U.S. have historically voted Republican since the 1980s, but many of the party’s positions during Trump’s presidency have bewildered, if not angered, Maryland Eastern Shore farmers. Supported at virtually every step by Representative Andy Harris, Trump has taken actions that have eroded farmers’ markets and raised their costs, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

There are four general areas where Trump has alienated farmers.

First, Trump’s stubborn insistence on pursuing tariffs against friendly countries and adversaries alike, as well as his launching the war against Iran, has raised the cost of important inputs to farming operations.

Trump’s tariffs on a wide range of countries, notably Canada, significantly hurt farmers by raising the cost of farm equipment and fertilizer. In early 2026, the Trump administration announced a “bridge payment” of $12 billion to the nation’s farmers. Yet a spokesperson for a national farm bureau said this amount represented only a small fraction of what farmers lost as a consequence of his tariffs, something reiterated to me by a local farmer from Queen Anne’s County.

On February 20 of this year, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his tariffs. Trump then doubled down, reinstituting the tariffs using a different justification, combatting global forced labor and protecting American workers, that has now been applied to 60 to 80 countries. This month, Trump also directed a new 50 percent tariff against a range of Canadian goods, alleging “unequal treatment” of American goods.

Another source of cost increases felt by farmers has been Trump’s decision to wage war against Iran. The failure of Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth to anticipate the effectiveness of Iran’s disruption of shipping in the Straits of Hormuz has skyrocketed the price of nitrogen-based fertilizer, including urea and ammonia, by some 30 percent, as well as phosphorus and potassium, key ingredients for raising crops.

Just as important, U.S. Congressional reports indicate the price of diesel fuel jumped 63 percent during spring planting season this year. This led to Eastern Shore farmers, as well as those throughout the U.S., paying $1.4 billion more to fuel their tractors and trucks than in 2025.

A second concern of Maryland Eastern Shore farmers has stemmed from Trump’s belligerent approach to dealing with other countries, which in turn is threatening their agricultural markets. Whether negotiating with friend or foe, Trump has seemed incapable of moving beyond the “win or lose” mentality of his past real estate dealings and instead appreciating the advantage of “win-win” negotiations where the U.S. and other countries develop solutions that provide mutual benefits.

The upshot of Trump’s insistence on dominating other countries is a potential loss of markets important to farmers. This has occurred in the form of retaliation to Trump’s tariffs, as when China abruptly halted soybean purchases in early 2025. China renewed those purchases under a three-year deal in November 2025 when Trump backed down, but at a level lower than under President Biden.

In other cases, it is the result of unnecessary, self-aggrandizing proclamations by Trump, such as his relentless references to Canada as the “51st state” or the necessity of taking over Greenland, to the consternation of all of Europe.

Trump’s approach has prompted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to state that “Canada’s economic ties with the U.S. have shifted from a strength to a weakness.” Just a few days ago, Canada broke off trade negotiations with the U.S., ushering in yet another round of tariffs from the U.S. and retaliatory tariffs from Canada. Moreover, Canada is now finalizing plans with Southeast Asian nations for a free trade agreement to reduce reliance on the U.S. Other than Canada and China, other U.S. trading partners have taken a more cautious approach, but that has not stopped Europe from reaching out to India and other nations to reduce reliance on the U.S.

A third source of Trump policies worrying farmers is the aggressive anti-immigrant program being conducted by his administration. The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that nationally 67 to 70 percent of farmworkers are immigrants in the U.S. and that about 40 percent of them are undocumented. Data specific to Maryland is lacking, but one would not anticipate it would differ significantly. Once long-standing immigrant farmworkers are forced to depart, it is an uphill battle for farmers to find native-born replacements who possess either the desire, work ethic, or appreciation for employment evidenced by most immigrants.

Beyond the removal of undocumented immigrants, Trump’s policies have severely restricted the entry of new immigrants into the U.S. who could take their place. Andy Harris has been instrumental in attempting to reduce meaningful protections for imported seasonal workers in order to expand the labor pool, but many people find this program distasteful in light of past abuses and its reputation as an indentured servant equivalent. Moreover, some farmers criticize the loss of efficiency in their operations when year-round workers are replaced by less experienced seasonal transients who may or may not return the next year.

The fourth and final source of farmers’ reservations regarding Trump policies emerges from the appearance that the President and Andy Harris are taking their support for granted. The high level of support from farmers toward Republicans was indicated in an Investigate Midwest report that, of the 444 USDA-designated counties in the U.S. that are “farming dependent,” Trump won all but 11 in the 2024 presidential election.

Yet in spite of this overwhelming show of loyalty, farmers are being subjected to Trump policies that are leading to the market degradation and operational cost increases described in this article. As an example, other industries supporting Trump, such as fossil fuel producers, are being given enormous tangible support through aggressive action by the Trump administration. In the meantime, Derrick Johnson of Common Dreams cites a USDA report that shows family farm bankruptcies rose 46 percent in Trump’s first year compared to 2024, with every indication that they will be even more numerous this year.

It should be noted that Trump policies have further weakened historic federal government support for farmers. Early in his second term, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk cut 24,000 USDA jobs, including many individuals who aided farmers with paperwork at the local level. Close to home, in April 2026, the Trump administration announced it would close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). BARC has operated since 1910 as the world’s largest agricultural research center. Critics claim this will lead to the loss of coverage of topics vital to U.S. farmers, but the administration says, without providing details, it will increase operational efficiency by relocating an undesignated number of jobs elsewhere throughout the country.

As a final note to our fourth “farmer aggravation,” Trump’s legislative priorities are clearly favoring his own political standing over that of farmers. For example, Trump held up pushing for passage of the farm bill under consideration by the Senate in August in favor of his own “Save America” bill that is designed to favor himself and other Republicans. The farm bill is highly beneficial to farmers, as it contains provisions that expand the safety net for farmers and gives them easier access to credit.

The Senate has now missed the opportunity to pass the farm bill before its August recess, leaving it an uphill battle to get it through next month before the expiration of the current extension to the bill. Due in part to the lack of input from President Trump, the major legislative correspondent for PBS, Lisa Desjardins, has indicated it is highly unlikely Congress will now have time to pass the farm bill in the current session of Congress.

In conclusion, these setbacks to farmers from the political party they have so long supported have raised questions as to whether a significant number of farmers could now lean Democratic in the upcoming midterm elections. In fact, some observers have made the case that Democrats have done just as much for farmers as Republicans. For example, in March 2026, President Trump announced “farmers income has soared by 20 percent” in his first year of office, 2025. What he failed to mention was that virtually all of that increase, plus more, was provided by a $31 billion aid package to farmers signed by President Biden under the 2024 American Relief Act.

Separately, a Politico analysis showed that during their first three years in office, both Biden and Trump authorized $57 billion in direct payments to farmers. The significant difference was that a substantial portion of Trump’s payment served only to offset farmers’ losses due to his trade war with China, while Biden’s covered programs of a more structural nature to support farmers in the areas of conservation, rural development, and long-term investments.

To be realistic, however, it is a stretch to predict farmers are going to significantly shift their long-standing support of Republicans over to Democrats. There are many reasons for this. Farmers have long benefited from subsidies, as well as less stringent environmental regulations for farming supported by Republicans.

Non-economic reasons may also explain farmers’ reluctance to shift to Democrats. The USDA Census of Agriculture has concluded that more than 95 percent of American agricultural producers are White. Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, Cornell, and the American National Election Project have found that White rural voters are more likely than the average American voter to believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen; are less likely to support concepts favoring racial diversity; and do not agree that immigrants make the nation stronger, in spite of the high percentage of farmworkers who are immigrants.

The magnitude of rural voters on the Eastern Shore weighs heavily against these more conservative individuals casting votes for Democrats. The Maryland Department of Planning reports that although only 17 percent of the state’s population is rural, almost half, 48.7 percent, of the Eastern Shore resides in rural areas.

So, with the midterm elections rapidly approaching, where does this leave Eastern Shore farmers politically? Could they shift suddenly to Democrats, or do they retain their longstanding support toward Republicans in spite of that party’s policies that have been so damaging to them?

At this particularly polarized point in our country’s politics, farmers may just continue their historic voting pattern and stick with Republicans, although that would seem to send a message they are “OK” with the current situation. Yet there are other approaches farmers may take without taking the improbable step of voting Democratic. For example, it is noteworthy that the Nebraska Farm Union is stepping away from its practice this year of backing Republicans by endorsing an Independent for the Senate.

Where Independents are not running, I find merit in the possibility considered by some political strategists that many farmers may simply “sit out” the upcoming midterm elections and even the 2028 voting. Such an action would be a meaningful way to voice their objections to Republican leaders who have ignored their key concerns and undermined their economic well-being.

Wilson Dean was the Owner/President of a publishing and consulting firm for 34 years, providing economic, energy, and environmental policy and pricing forecasts for global clients. He lives in Talbot County, enjoying kayaking, wildlife, and babysitting his grandchildren with his wife Carol.