Business

How Trump became a death knell for the 85-year relationship between farmers and the federal government

Published

2 hours ago

January 16, 2026

President Donald Trump appears to have upended an 85-year relationship between American farmers and the United States’ global exercise of power. But that link has been fraying since the end of the Cold War, and Trump’s moves are just another big step.

During World War II, the U.S. government tied agriculture to foreign policy by using taxpayer dollars to buy food from American farmers and send it to hungry allies abroad. This agricultural diplomacy continued into the Cold War through programs such as the Marshall Plan to rebuild European agriculture, Food for Peace to send surplus U.S. food to hungry allies, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which aimed to make food aid and agricultural development permanent components of U.S. foreign policy.

During that period, the United States also participated in multinational partnerships to set global production goals and trade guidelines to promote the international movement of food – including the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Wheat Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

When U.S. farmers faced labor shortfalls, the federal government created guest-worker programs that provided critical hands in the fields, most often from Mexico and the Caribbean.

At the end of World War II, the U.S. government recognized that farmers could not just rely on domestic agricultural subsidies, including production limits, price supports and crop insurance, for prosperity. American farmers’ well-being instead depended on the rest of the world.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development. His administration has also aggressively detained and deported suspected noncitizens living and working in the U.S., including farmworkers. And he has imposed tariffs that caused U.S. trading partners to retaliate, slashing international demand for U.S. agricultural products.

Trump’s actions follow diplomatic and agricultural transformations that I research, and which began with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Feed the world, save the farm

Even before the nation’s founding, farmers in what would become the United States staked their livelihood on international networks of labor, plants and animals, and trade.

Cotton was the most prominent early example of these relationships, and by the 19th century wheat farmers depended on expanding transportation networks to move their goods within the country and overseas.

Workers load cattle on a train for shipment to market in the late 19th century. Bettmann via Getty Images

But fears that international trade could create economic uncertainty limited American farmers’ interest in overseas markets. The Great Depression in the 1930s reinforced skepticism of international markets, which many farmers and policymakers saw as the principal cause of the economic downturn.

World War II forced them to change their view. The Lend-Lease Act, passed in March 1941, aimed to keep the United States out of the war by providing supplies, weapons and equipment to Britain and its allies. Importantly for farmers, the act created a surge in demand for food.

And after Congress declared war in December 1941, the need to feed U.S. and allied troops abroad pushed demand for farm products ever higher. Food took on a significance beyond satisfying a wartime need: The Soviet Union, for example, made special requests for butter. U.S. soldiers wrote about the special bond created by seeing milk and eggs from a hometown dairy, and Europeans who received food under the Lend-Lease Act embraced large cans of condensed milk with sky-blue labels as if they were talismans.

Crates of American hams, supplied through the Lend-Lease Act, are loaded on a ship bound for Britain in 1941. Bettmann via Getty Images

Another war ends

But despite their critical contribution to the war, American farmers worried that the familiar pattern of postwar recession would repeat once Germany and Japan had surrendered.

Congress fulfilled farmers’ fears of an economic collapse by sharply reducing its food purchases as soon as the war ended in the summer of 1945. In 1946, Congress responded weakly to mounting overseas food needs.

Bags of Marshall Plan flour wait in New York for shipment to Austria in 1948. Ann Ronan Picture Library/Photo12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

More action waited until 1948, when Congress recognized communism’s growing appeal in Europe amid an underfunded postwar reconstruction effort. The Marshall Plan’s more robust promise of food and other resources was intended to counter Soviet influence.

Sending American food overseas through postwar rehabilitation and development programs caused farm revenue to surge. It proved that foreign markets could create prosperity for American farmers, while food and agriculture’s importance to postwar reconstruction in Europe and Asia cemented their importance in U.S. foreign policy.

Farmers in the modern world

Farmers’ contribution to the Cold War shored up their cultural and political importance in a rapidly industrializing and urbanizing United States. The Midwestern farm became an aspirational symbol used by the State Department to encourage European refugees to emigrate to the U.S. after World War II.

American farmers volunteered to be amateur diplomats, sharing methods and technologies with their agricultural counterparts around the world.

By the 1950s, delegations of Soviet officials were traveling to the Midwest, including Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev’s excursion to Iowa in 1959. U.S. farmers reciprocated with tours of the Soviet Union. Young Americans who had grown up on farms moved abroad to live with host families, working their properties and informally sharing U.S. agricultural methods. Certain that their land and techniques were superior to those of their overseas peers, U.S. farmers felt obligated to share their wisdom with the rest of the world.

The collapse of the Soviet Union undermined the central purpose for the United States’ agricultural diplomacy. But a growing global appetite for meat in the 1990s helped make up some of the difference.

U.S. farmers shifted crops from wheat to corn and soybeans to feed growing numbers of livestock around the world. They used newly available genetically engineered seeds that promised unprecedented yields.

Expecting these transformations to financially benefit American farmers and seeing little need to preserve Cold War-era international cooperation, the U.S. government changed its trade policy from collaborating on global trade to making it more of a competition.

World leaders sign the Marrakesh Agreement, creating the World Trade Organization, in 1994. Jacques Langevin/Sygma/Sygma via Getty Images

The George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations crafted the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization to replace the general agreement on trade and tariffs. They assumed American farmers’ past preeminence would continue to increase farm revenues even as global economic forces shifted.

But U.S. farmers have faced higher costs for seeds and fertilizer, as well as new international competitors such as Brazil. With a diminished competitive advantage and the loss of the Cold War’s cooperative infrastructure, U.S. farmers now face a more volatile global market that will likely require greater government support through subsidies rather than offering prosperity through commerce.

That includes the Trump administration’s December 2025 announcement of a US$12 billion farmer bailout. As Trump’s trade wars continue, they show that the U.S. government is no longer fostering a global agricultural market in which U.S. farmers enjoy a trade advantage or government protection – even if they retain some cultural and political significance in the 21st century.

Peter Simons, Lecturer in History, Hamilton College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Source link

Business

Jamie Dimon says Warren Buffett made peace with him poaching his exec: ‘at least he’s going to you’

Published

17 minutes ago

January 16, 2026

Jace Porter

Jamie Dimon poached a senior figure from Warren Buffett’s inner circle, and the legendary investor was surprisingly OK with it.

The longtime JPMorgan Chase CEO hired former Geico CEO Todd Combs away from Berkshire Hathaway in December, hand-picking him to lead a $10 billion investment group as part of JPMorgan’s Security and Resiliency Initiative aimed at helping companies accelerate manufacturing.

During a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event Thursday, Dimon said he had called Buffett personally to tell him the unwelcome news. He claimed Buffett accepted the outcome, preferring that his former executive land at JPMorgan than elsewhere.

“It’s a free country, and people make their own decisions,” Dimon said. “I did call Warren. He probably wouldn’t have preferred it, but he said, ‘if he’s going anywhere, at least he’s going to you.’”

Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett did not immediately respond to Fortune‘s request for comment.

In a market saturated with executive moves, Dimon’s Combs hire matters because Berkshire Hathaway is a decentralized empire that draws its strength from the long tenures of its leaders with minimal churn at the top. Its executives are often seen as stewards of a culture, built over Buffett’s own six-decade tenure, that prizes patience and discipline.

Combs, a former hedge fund manager, had been at Berkshire since 2010 and was brought on by Buffett to serve as one of two investment managers tasked with picking stocks for Berkshire. During the succession race to replace Buffett, Combs was positioned as a key leader to assist Greg Abel, who took over as CEO officially this month. Yet, he has also served for nine years on JPMorgan’s board, according to his hiring announcement.

In announcing the hiring, Dimon specifically called out Combs’s investment prowess and his work with Buffett.

“Todd Combs is one of the greatest investors and leaders I’ve known, having successfully managed investments alongside the most respected and successful long-term investor of our time, Warren Buffett,” Dimon said in a statement.

Combs’ hiring may have been directly influenced by his respect for Buffett, claimed University of Maryland finance professor David Kass, who runs a Warren Buffett blog, in an interview with Business Insider.

“Dimon may very well have viewed Combs as a close proxy for Buffett himself,” Kass told BI. “Although Dimon could not hire Buffett, he could hire one of his protégés.”

Dimon has long admired the 95- year- old legendary investor. In May, as Buffett announced he was stepping down from the CEO role, Dimon praised him as a friend and said he had learned from him.

“Warren Buffett represents everything that is good about American capitalism and America itself — investing in the growth of our nation and its businesses with integrity, optimism, and common sense,” Dimon said at the time, according to Reuters.

Though a couple decades younger than Buffett, Dimon, 69, has also faced questions about when he will step aside.

Dimon, who has served as CEO of JPMorgan since 2006, has been reluctant to put a clean end date on his tenure. He spent years responding to retirement questions with a rolling horizon, and only changed his tone in 2024 saying the timeframe had shortened and succession plans were “well on the way.”

On Thursday, Dimon changed his mind again, reverting to his past refrain that his retirement is still “at least” five years away.

Source link

Business

China’s population crash is so bad that it’s started taxing condoms and birth control pills

Published

48 minutes ago

January 16, 2026

Jace Porter

Once the world’s most populous nation, China is now among the many Asian countries struggling with anemic fertility rates. In an attempt to double the country’s rate of 1.0 children per woman, Beijing is reaching for a new tool: taxes on condoms, birth control pills and other contraceptives.

As of Jan. 1, such items were subject to a 13% value-added tax. Meanwhile, services such as child care and matchmaking remain duty-free.

The move comes after China last year allocated 90 billion yuan (US$12.7 billion) for a national child care program giving families a one-off payment of around 3,600 yuan (over $500) for every child age three or under.

I have studied China’s demography for almost 40 years and know that past attempts by the country’s communist government to reverse slumping fertility rates through policies encouraging couples to have more children have not worked. I do not expect these new moves to have much, if any, effect on reversing the fertility rate decline to one of the world’s lowest and far below the 2.1 “replacement rate” needed to maintain a stable population.

In many ways, the 13% tax on contraceptives is symbolic. A packet of condoms costs about 50 yuan (about $7), and a month supply of birth control pills averages around 130 yuan ($19). The new tax is not at all a major expense, adding just a few dollars a month.

Compare that to the average cost of raising a child in China – estimated at around 538,000 yuan (over $77,000) to age 18, with the cost in urban areas much higher. One 36-year-old father told the BBC he is not concerned over the price hike. “A box of condoms might cost an extra five yuan, maybe 10, at most 20. Over a year, that’s just a few hundred yuan, completely affordable,” he said.

Pronatalist failings

China is one of many countries to adopt pronatalist policies to address low fertility. But they are rarely effective.

The Singapore government has been concerned about the country’s very low fertility rate for a couple of decades. It tried to devise ways to boost it through programs such as paid maternity leave, child care subsidies, tax relief and one-time cash gifts. Yet, Singapore’s fertility rate – currently at 1.2 – remains one of the lowest in the world.

The government there even started limiting the construction of small, one-bedroom apartments in a bid to encourage more “family-friendly” homes of two bedrooms or more – anyone with children will appreciate the need for more space, right? Yet even that failed to budge the low fertility rate.

The Singaporean government got a helping hand in 2012 from candymaker Mentos. In a viral ad campaign, the brand called on citizens to celebrate “National Night” with some marital boom-boom as they “let their patriotism explode” – with a hoped-for corresponding burst in births in nine months’ time. Even with the assistance from the private sector, it appears, reversing declining fertility rates is a tricky thing.

South Korea, the country with the world’s lowest fertility rate – 0.7 – has been providing financial incentives to couples for at least 20 years to encourage them to have more children.

It boosted the monthly allowance already in place for married couples to become parents. In fact, since 2006 the South Korean government has spent well over $200 billion on programs to increase the Korean birth rate.

But South Korea’s fertility rate has continued to drop from 1.1 in 2006 to 1.0 in 2017, to 0.9 in 2019, to 0.7 in 2024.

Unfavorable headwinds

The plight of China is partly of its own doing. For a couple of decades the country’s one-child policy pushed to get fertility rates down. It worked, going from over 7.0 in the early 1960s to 1.5 in 2015.

That is when the government again stepped in, abandoning the one-child policy and permitting all couples to have two children. In May 2021, the two-child policy was abandoned in favor of a three-child policy.

The hope was that these changes would lead to a baby boom, resulting in sizable increases in the national fertility rate. However, the fertility rate continued to decline – to 1.2 in 2021 and 1.0 in 2024.

While China’s historic programs to push down fertility rates were successful, they were aided by wider societal changes: The policies were in force while China was modernizing and moving toward becoming an industrial and urbanized society.

It’s policies aimed at increasing the birth rate now find unfavorable societal headwinds. Modernization has led to better educational and work opportunities for women – a factor pushing many to put off having children.

In fact, most of China’s fertility reduction, especially since the 1990s, has been voluntary – more a result of modernization than fertility-control policies. Chinese couples are having fewer children due to higher living costs and educational expenses involved in having more than one child.

Plus, China is one of the world’s most expensive countries in which to raise a child, when compared to average income. School fees at all levels are higher than in many other countries.

The ‘low-fertility’ trap

Another factor to take into consideration is what demographers refer to as the “low-fertility trap.” This hypothesis, advanced by demographers in the 2000s, holds that once a country’s fertility rate drops below 1.5 or 1.4 – far higher than China’s now stands – it is very difficult to increase it by 0.3 or more.

The argument goes that fertility declines to these low levels are largely the result of changes in living standards and increasing opportunities for women.

Accordingly, it is most unlikely that China’s three-child policy will have any influence at all on raising the fertility rate. And all my years of studying China’s demographic trends lead me to believe that making contraceptives marginally more expensive will also have very little effect.

Dudley L. Poston Jr., Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Source link

Business

Community college enrollment rates are rising as traditional schools struggle

Published

1 hour ago

January 16, 2026

Jace Porter

New enrollments at American colleges and universities hit their highest level in a decade last fall, but a closer look at the type of institution high schoolers are opting for says a lot about what students’ priorities are nowadays.

Over 16 million students enrolled in an undergraduate degree, a 1.2% increase from the year before, according to a survey released Thursday by the National Student Clearinghouse, an education data provider.

But that growth came down almost entirely to rising interest in community colleges and undergraduate certificates, where enrollment massively outnumbered that at traditional four-year universities. While the number of new students seeking two-year associate’s degrees rose 2.2%, interest in bachelor’s degrees grew less than 1%.

Overall, community colleges added 173,000 undergraduate students last fall, nearly double the number of new students at public four-year colleges. Private nonprofit universities actually suffered a decline in enrollment, losing nearly 60,000 students.

The report, which covers 97% of post-secondary enrollment across the country, illustrates traditional universities’ ongoing identity crisis while students rethink the validity of a four-year degree. As young Americans grow disillusioned by tales of crushing student debt loads, a tight labor market for entry-level jobs, and the threatening possibility that artificial intelligence might usurp some of those roles in the near future anyway, many are looking into other educational pathways.

One factor behind the divergence is cost. Average in-district tuition at public two-year institutions costs a little over $4,000 this year, while public four-year colleges tend to run in-state students around $12,000, according to the College Board. Universities and colleges tout rising tuition costs as investments into students’ futures, but while most data still suggests bachelor’s degree holders will earn more and face less unemployment over the course of their career, fresh grads are now facing a tough job market to navigate. In September, the unemployment rate for new college grads hit 9.5%, its highest since 2021.

The difficult labor market for entry-level roles has pushed more young people to low-cost alternatives, including community colleges and trade schools, which also surged in popularity last year. High-paying jobs that do not require degrees, such as escalator installation and electrical power-line repair, have gone viral among Gen Z audiences, and associate’s degrees and certificates are often functional pipelines for students interested in exploring skilled trades.

While the National Student Clearinghouse report did not say which areas of study community college-goers tend to opt for, other surveys have found that most students who are not planning on transferring directly to a four-year school favor degrees that will grant them quick entry to the workforce. These include nursing, engineering and information technology.

To be sure, earning a bachelor’s degree is still seen as a prerequisite for most knowledge work sectors. In addition to imparting social and creative problem-solving skills, recruiters still rank GPA and degrees highly in their search for new talent, although recent evidence suggests many companies are doubling down on hiring from top colleges. And alternative hiring pathways to white-collar work might have a harder time gaining traction than advocates claim. A Harvard study last year tracked hiring across hundreds of companies, finding that even when employers tout non-degree requirements in their job postings, only one in 700 new hires without a degree actually benefit from these programs.

For traditional colleges, slowing or declining enrollment adds to a list of financial pressures. Falling birth rates in the U.S. have contributed to a so-called enrollment cliff, a shrinking pool of eligible students that could lead to budget cuts and mergers or closures for less secure institutions. Another headache has been the sudden decline in international enrollment as the Trump administration has enforced strict visa requirements for students coming from abroad.

International students are a significant revenue stream for schools, but the National Student Clearinghouse data suggests the U.S. has already become a less attractive destination. Graduate international student enrollment last fall declined nearly 6%, while the number of undergraduates from abroad grew 3.2%, less than half last year’s rate.

Source link