Connect with us

Business

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

Published

on


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.

Ropes hoist large boxes aboard a ship.

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.

Large bags are stacked in a pile, each with a tag on it saying it came from the U.S. to help Europe.

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.

In a large auditorium, people sit at a long table on a stage and sign papers.

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.

The Conversation



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump says he’ll make tech firms pay for power. They’d love to

Published

on



US President Donald Trump is calling for an emergency wholesale electricity auction that, his administration says, will force technology companies to pay for the new power they need to run massive AI data centers under construction across the country.

The truth is Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., OpenAI and all the other major tech firms behind the AI data center boom are more than happy to shell out for more electricity generation. And they have been.  

“They have no shortage of money,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Anurag Rana of the tech giants powering the global artificial intelligence race. “They really don’t have a problem with funding this thing.” Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta collectively spend hundreds of billions of dollars on capital investments annually, far exceeding the budgets of the entire utility segment.

Data center developers have in fact already said they’d like to buy electricity off the nation’s power grids as opposed to signing contracts directly with power generators. That’s because grid rates can be cheaper, grids are equipped with backup resources and such systems can help stabilize supplies during extreme weather events. Hyperscalers have also been signing contracts to help bring back nuclear or build new nuclear.

Either way, the reality is tech companies have been trying to secure power from every source they can find — both on and off the grids — with data center power demand set to triple by 2035. 

Read More: AI Data Center Energy Needs Are Straining Global Power Systems

“We agree data centers should pay their own way,” a Google spokesperson told Bloomberg. “For us, it is table stakes. When built responsibly, data centers can provide long-term, reliable demand that stimulates new investments in energy production and transmission in a way that helps all consumers.”

In calling for an auction, Trump may be solving a public relations problem for tech companies, according to analysts. The industry and their power suppliers have drawn criticism over rising electricity bills and the potential environmental impacts of new plants. An auction like the one Trump’s proposing would allow them to circumvent the political headwinds facing individual projects. 

“This could be a more expeditious way to simply address the issue, as opposed to dealing with all this resistance and problems that are associated with it,” said Paul Patterson, a utility analyst at Glenrock Associates LLC. 

Under Trump’s plan, grid operator PJM Interconnection LLC will hold an auction for tech companies to bid on 15-year contracts for new electricity generation capacity. Such contracts are exactly what data center developers are after, offering “more stability, more certainty and more predictability about what the price is going to be,” Patterson said. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

As Trump helps Gen Z on student debt, watchdog calls it an ‘incoherent political giveaway’

Published

on



The Trump administration’s announcement on Friday of an indefinite pause on the collection of defaulted federal student loan debt, including through the Treasury Offset Program, at least temporarily extends a program that began more than half a decade ago, as a temporary pandemic measure under the first Trump Administration. It has since been extended through both bipartisan legislation and administrative action during the Biden administration.  

The student-debt relief will likely come as relief to many members of Gen Z, who, as Fortune‘s Jacqueline Munis recently reported, average $94,000 in student-loan debt, driving them into “disillusionomics.” Other pundits, notably Kyla Scanlon, have riffed on the concept of “financial nihilism,” as coined by entrepreneur Demetri Kofinas, to describe how Gen Z’s crushing anxiety over their own futures—be it artificial intelligence, the $38 trillion national debt, or any other long-running financial emergency—drive them to destructive behaviors.

Trump, for his part, has been scrambling to address voter concerns about “affordability,” and has been reportedly in close contact, even texting back and forth in what the New York Post calls a “bromance,” with the bard of affordability himself: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

In the opinion of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, though, the nonpartisan watchdog that stresses sustainability in fiscal policy, there is no excuse for this development.

CRFB President Maya MacGuineas called the decision “beyond ridiculous,” coming six years removed from the Covid pandemic that first put a stop to student-debt collections.

“This is an incoherent political giveaway, doubling down on the debt cancelation from the Biden era,” she wrote. “We’re not in a pandemic or financial crisis or deep recession. There’s no justification for emergency action on student debt, and no good reason the for the President to back down on efforts to actually begin collecting debt payments again.”

CRFB estimated that Trump’s pivot away from collections would cost about $5 billion a year in lost revenue.

A new pause, old playbook

Until now, Trump’s second-term team had been moving in the opposite direction, restarting the Treasury Offset Program in May 2025 and preparing to resume wage garnishment for borrowers in default. The new policy abruptly reverses that trajectory by restoring and extending a freeze that critics say was supposed to be temporary and tied to the COVID crisis, not a permanent fixture of higher-education finance.

MacGuineas argued that by blocking collections, the administration risks undermining “historic cost-saving reforms” to the federal student loan program that Congress approved this year to put the system on a more sustainable footing with a “fair repayment system.” She warned that taxpayers will end up paying more while borrowers could ultimately face larger balances, and the wider economy could feel upward pressure on interest rates and inflation.

Clash over Congress’s role

At the heart of the fight is who should shape the future of student lending: Congress or the president acting alone. Lawmakers this year enacted significant reforms meant to trim long-term costs and cement a more predictable repayment framework, and the CRFB credits the Trump administration with implementing those changes “with fiscal costs in mind” until now.

“The student loan program isn’t supposed to be a tool to stimulate the economy or buy votes,” MacGuineas argued, “it’s a way to help millions of students access college.” The White House should work with Congress to reform the collection of defaulted loans if that’s what it really wants to do, “But loans are supposed to be repaid, and the Administration should start collecting,” she added.

The action came just days after Trump took another page out of Mamdani’s democratic socialist playbook, suggesting a 10% cap on credit card interest rates. His former communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, suggested that this “hard-left” move could only have come from one place: his text message bromance with the princeling of Gotham.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

ChatGPT tests ads as a new era of AI begins

Published

on



Two days after Google insisted there are no current plans for ads in its Gemini AI app, OpenAI announced Friday that it is starting to test ads in ChatGPT.

OpenAI CEO of applications Fidji Simo said in a blog post that ads will begin appearing at the bottom of the chatbot’s answers for free users and for Go subscribers (who pay $8 a month) in the U.S. in the coming weeks, opening an important new source of revenue for the high-flying startup which has been valued by investors at $500 billion.

It’s a moment many in tech have long viewed as inevitable: Running frontier AI models is brutally expensive, burning through staggering amounts of computing power, electricity, and GPUs. Advertising’s revenue stream is hard to resist. OpenAI expects to generate “low billions” of dollars in revenue this year, and more each year thereafter, the FT reported on Friday citing an unnamed person “close to the company.”

While Google has so far held back from putting ads in its standalone Gemini chatbot app, the company has incorporated ads into the AI Overviews that appear in its online search results, a move viewed as essential as the company seeks to extend its $265 billion a year advertising business into the AI age.

OpenAI said in its blog post that the forthcoming ads will be clearly labeled, and that users’ conversations with ChatGPT would be kept private. “You need to know that your data and conversations are protected and never sold to advertisers,” the company said. “We need to keep a high bar and give you control over your experience so you see truly relevant, high-quality ads—and can turn off personalization if you want.” In addition, it said that ads will not influence ChatGPT’s answers, which it said “are optimized based on what’s most helpful to you.”

OpenAI emphasized that subscriptions remain its long-term priority, and said that the $20 per month Plus and $200 per month Pro subscriptions, as well as the Business Enterprise version of the product, will remain ad-free. “Our enterprise and subscription businesses are already strong, and we believe in having a diverse revenue model where ads can play a part in making intelligence more accessible to everyone,” the company wrote.

Still, the company doubled down on tying the introduction of ads with its overall mission to ensure that advanced general intelligence, or AGI, “benefits all of humanity,” Simo wrote.

In a separate blog post on Friday, OpenAI said that “ads support our commitment to making AI accessible to everyone by helping us keep ChatGPT available at free and affordable price points.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.