From Tariffs to MAHA to Farm Bill Aid, Ag Faces High-Stakes Fall Decisions

The Make America Healthy Again Commission unveiled a final report which suggests easing some regulations on farms, increasing research on precision agriculture technology and removing restrictions on whole milk sales in schools. Agri-Pulse Newsmakers asked Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall about the report and how MAHA could expand through states in the future.

Then, T.A. Hawks with Monument Advocacy and Mike Stranz with the National Farmers Union discuss trade, concerns about brain drain at USDA and the prospects for emergency farm assistance as well as a skinny farm bill this fall.

Watch the Episode

Want to receive Newsmakers in your inbox every week? Sign up!

Read the Transcript

Lydia Johnson: Welcome to Agri-pulse Newsmakers, where we aim to take you to the heart of ag policy. I’m your host, Lydia Johnson. Our guest this week is Kansas Senator Roger Marshall, who joins us to discuss the newly released Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy.

But first, here’s this week’s headlines.

Farmers with cotton, rice, and peanut based acreage will receive the biggest subsidy increases are the changes Congress made to farm bill commodity programs in budget reconciliation. The legislation, enacted in July, increases reference prices and the price loss coverage program, and also makes enhancements to the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program. All farmers with eligible base acres will see bigger payments, according to a new analysis from the University of Missouri’s Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute. However, the average increases are estimated to vary widely, from 62% for corn, 65% for sorghum, and nearly 72% for soybeans. Cotton payments are expected to increase by 177%, with peanuts and rice each surpassing 200% payment increases.

The Supreme Court has agreed to an expedited schedule for considering two cases challenging the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Both cases challenge Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact sweeping, retaliatory tariffs on countries around the world. Oral arguments will begin the first week of November. A federal appeals court last month upheld a May Court of International Trade decision, finding that Trump overstepped his authority in enacting tariffs on all countries.

The Make America Healthy Again Commission released the long-awaited final strategy report, recommending continued research on the role of pesticides and plastics play in the development of chronic disease. The Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy, unveiled Tuesday, also suggested easing some regulations on farms, increasing research and precision agriculture technology and removing restrictions on whole milk sales in schools. The report is almost identical to the draft that was leaked in August, which avoids any mention of specific pesticides. The first major report, released in May highlighted the potential health impacts of glyphosate and atrazine.

Senator Roger Marshall is a Republican representing the state of Kansas. We asked him about his major takeaways from the MAHA Commission’s final report.

Roger Marshall: Well, I’m just ecstatic to see this one. And certainly, as we see reports from our farm groups out there, they sure appear to be happy with this as well. And I hope your listeners are communicating that to you. I would just to point out that over 250 groups, farm groups, ag groups went to the white House and talked to the MAHA writers of this about what agriculture is doing, what we’re doing, regenerative agriculture, how we’re going more with less. We had a big hearing here as well on soil health. Maybe we’ll talk about that in a second. But I just there’s like one page of this 20 page report that really focuses on agriculture. And I want to read just one highlight from it. It’s and this is I’m quoting it: “Empowering farmers and keeping solutions voluntary by expanding programs.” So I think that we’ve effectively communicated to the MAHA group that we are going more with less, that we’re using less chemicals than ever. But we still need those herbicides and pesticides and fertilizers, unless you want groceries to go up ten. So I think ag did an incredible job of communicating our story to the White House. So and thanks to Agri-Pulse for all you did to help get that story out as well.

Lydia Johnson: And Senator, I want to talk about the Capitol Hill MAHA roundtable that you hosted earlier this summer that you mentioned. Secretary Kennedy described you as one of the best partners in the MAHA movement. You know, the focal point of that hearing was soil health and precision ag technology. You began to mention that specific part in the report, but do you think the report does enough to put focus on soil health and the role that farmers play in being a solution for so many of the things that the MAHA movement’s trying to address?

Roger Marshall: Yeah, I think I think it’s a great first step and maybe a second and third step. You know what? What I’ve believed is that healthy soil is where agriculture meets MAHA, that if we have healthy soil, it’s going to lead to healthy, nutrient rich food. But let’s not micromanage the farmers and tell them what we can’t do. Let’s stay focused on the goal here of healthy soil. And again, 10–20% of farmers are embracing these, these modern day regenerative ag practices. I hope that more and more do. We’re going to try to supply money out of the farm bill to help them with these transitions as well. So I think it’s great that everyone really understands just the importance of healthy soil. And now we got to get there. So I think this is an incredible first step.

Lydia Johnson: Senator, you hosted the Capitol Hill MAHA roundtable that you were discussing. And after that, you said, quote, “Secretary Kennedy’s goal and my goal would be to use no pesticides. But until we get there, until you give us the technology, he understands that a farmer needs to make a living.” So I’m curious. The final report avoided the mention of specific pesticides, but do you think that is that something that you’re concerned that the MAHA movement could crack down on in the future?

Roger Marshall: Well, listen, I think what we’ve successfully communicated through the 12 farming groups that were represented there is that we are using 60% less chemicals than we were a decade ago, that we can decrease the drift, from these fields, from from 90%. And all that being said, you know, I think that unfortunately our waters do have, significant chemicals in them, different, different chemicals in different places. So we need to target, our conservation programs to be better filters. So specifically lining the creeks with more CRP and why we’re doing that, why don’t we make it pollinator friendly? And there’s other type of buffer systems that we can use within row crop agriculture as well. So, listen, well, I don’t know that we’ll ever get to zero chemicals, in this world, right, right now. But I think that we understand that we need to get used as least amount possible, by the way, with input costs. Why wouldn’t we? So I think that more and more, if, if only 10 or 20% of people are embracing precision agriculture, how do we help them move them along in this process? And that means that I understand buying expensive equipment, maybe for a year or two your output goes down. So what do I need to do in DC to help the farmer through those transitions?

Lydia Johnson: The commission’s final Make our Children Healthy Again strategy removed restrictions on whole milk sales in schools. We asked Kansas Senator Roger Marshall about the opportunity that recommendation presents.

Roger Marshall: So I’ve been fighting for this for about five years. Most of our listeners don’t realize the thing was back in 2011 that Congress took whole milk out of schools. And because of that, we have a generation of youngsters now, young adults, that never drink milk. They’re going to have osteoporosis 10 or 20 years sooner because of because of that. So not only are we trying to get whole milk back in schools, we’re trying to add milk to the Healthy Choices list and give some type of a reward when we when we use food stamps that they buy, a whole a milk product, whether it’s cheese or yogurt, and you can choose your milk if you want whole milk. Great. But I think that’s what tastes the best. That’s what I was raised on as well. So I’m just tickled pink that the administration, the MAHA report acknowledges the importance of whole milk, just like we acknowledge the importance of whole foods as well, as opposed to ultra processed foods out there.

Lydia Johnson: And I want to get your thoughts. A leader in the Maha movement, Casey Means has been nominated for Surgeon General. She’s a strong critic of, you know, widely use pesticides and seed oils. Are you concerned about her nomination? What are your thoughts on her being nominated for that role?

Roger Marshall: Yeah, you know, I think the jury’s still out. I’ve read several of her books, and I would encourage everybody, you know, if you’re really interested, to read some of her books to get the information firsthand from her. I’ve never met her, never sit down and talk to her, either, as well. So I’m looking forward to that meeting. And, and we’ll, we’ll see where that ends up.

Lydia Johnson: And one of the interesting components of the MAHA movement has been all the ways it has trickled into states through, you know, snap food restriction waivers, preventing the purchase of junk food and soda and various other state laws. How do you see this MAHA movement, you know, changing as we look into the future and specifically in states across the nation?

Roger Marshall: Look, one of my signature bills that we hope to have in the farm bill is a preemption, a piece of this so that we would have consistent standards. So whether you’re going where, you know, a big issue with proposition 12 out of California, trying to tell Iowa farmers how to how to grow pigs, right. So we’re trying to have preemption, where we have one standard by the federal government for ingredients as well. On the other hand, I’m holding the FDA accountable that we want to make sure the ingredients in our food R&D need safe. And we can’t rely on science from the 1940s. And so I certainly appreciate FDA picking up that pace, going back and reviewing these ingredients more often. And look, my models, the doctor is always, above all, do no harm. And if we don’t know, let’s leave it out of there.

Lydia Johnson: And as we wrap up here, there’s a lot of uncertainty about the future of international food aid with this administration. Are you confident that programs that have benefited farmers in the past, like food for peace, are going to continue at their current levels?

Roger Marshall: Yeah, I think they will. And I you know, I spoke with, with the Secretary Rubio recently about this. I think that we all and many of us agree up here that moving these food programs from, from, the State Department over to USDA, who’s already administering some of these, that it makes a lot more sense. You know, unfortunately, there’s been so much fraud and abuse in all of our aid programs, including this food, that that no one likes that either. So I think that the last thing a farmer back home wants to know is that the food that the federal government paid for and sent overseas and so on, is stealing it and then reselling it as well. So I think we it’s a good time for us to catch our breath and go back and do that. I think the bigger opportunities in agriculture, though, remain turning, whether it’s corner soybeans or sorghum, turning, turning that into some type of protein like beef for turning it into biofuels or ethanol. That’s really where the real opportunities are in American agriculture.

Lydia Johnson: We’ll be back with more agriculture newsmakers. But first, Andrew Huneke looks at the crops projected to see the biggest average payment increases from budget reconciliation in this week’s Ag by the Numbers.

Andrew Huneke: Farmers with cotton, rice and peanut based acreage will get the biggest subsidy increases under the changes Congress made to farm bill commodity programs through the One Big Beautiful Bill act. That’s according to new analysis from the University of Missouri Food and Agricultural Research Institute. The bill increases reference prices in the price loss program and makes enhancements to the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program. This chart shows the average difference in Arc and PFC payments per base acre for commodities, and the One Big Beautiful Bill act. As you can see, those average increases are projected to be anywhere from more than 62% for corn, all the way up to 222% for rice. It is important to note that the actual payments could be higher or lower, depending on what happens with commodity markets for Agri-Pulse, I’m Andrew Huneke

Lydia Johnson: This fall, the Supreme Court will take up the legality of the Trump administration’s tariffs. We’re joined in our panel today by T.A. Hawks with Monument Advocacy and Mike Stranz with the National Farmers Union. Harvest is beginning in the southern U.S., and it’s still unclear where this year’s crop may be sold. To get started, T.A., what’s at stake for agriculture in the Supreme Court case?

T.A. Hawks: Yeah, it’s a it’s a big case. Obviously, the administration will make their arguments before the Supreme Court and try to, ensure that the tariffs collected are able to be used, in government. And that could be, as we’ve seen in previous years, done through, tariff, payments to farmers if they are needed or they’ll be used, for other purposes. But I think, you’re right, their markets are not looking great for, commodities today. And I think as, as harvest come in and thank goodness, that the harvest looks good, but it also means that if the prices are lower, it’s a bigger impact on farmers. So I think the tariff case has a big impact on what’s going to happen this fall for and across the U.S.

Lydia Johnson: And talking about, you know, prices, cash prices in North Dakota have fallen lower than the 2018 trade war. Do you think that this sets the stage for ag committee leadership to advocate for farm aid payments in the farm bill this fall? I mean, what do you think are the prospects for some emergency assistance?

T.A. Hawks: Yeah, I mean, I think you saw in the OBBBA there was a focus on farmers because, prices were already so low. So I think if the economy for in the farm economy is, continues to decline, then I think very well, leaders of the ag committees and leaders in the House and Senate will try to address that through whether that’s through a CR or through a farm bill, skinny farm bill this fall or early next year. But I think it can’t drag on too, too much longer. I mean, you’ll hear probably Mike say, through their fly-in, members are hearing directly from farmers they heard throughout August. And now, especially as the harvest begins, it’s people are concerned about, the viability of farms. And you’re seeing that even through, what we’ve understand. You know, bankruptcies have already been declared across farm country.

Lydia Johnson: And, Mike, I want to pull you in on the conversation as well. I mean, you mentioned you’ve had lots of farmer leaders in town for a fly in this week. You know, I want to know your thoughts with so much else on Congress’s schedule this fall, how soon can we see action on the farm bill and the prospect for farm aid payments being included?

Mike Stranz: I think the lights are more than flashing on the dashboard right now. And that was certainly the message when farmers came to town this week through the National Farmers Union fly-in. We’ve seen the economic indicators all pointing in the wrong direction. With commodity prices down just about 50% in the last few years, farm bankruptcies way up this year, last year. And, all the while, corporate monopolies continue to do really well. So I think there’s a and there is a building, amount of momentum pushing towards getting a farm bill 2.0 or some additional action done this year. Now, we also want to be very careful when there is some sort of aid provided here. Because of this trade war situation we’re entering that it’s not just a short-term solution. We need to think about the long-term implications of these trade deals, or the lack thereof, and how that sort of the demand destruction for, export markets is going to impact our commodity prices for years going forward. So we want to make sure there’s help in the short term, certainly, but we need to be mindful when we’re opening a farm bill and taking a look at these sorts of programs that we’re directing benefit to family farmers and ranchers to make sure it works — the safety net works for them.

Lydia Johnson: The final Make America Healthy Again Commission report was released this week. We asked Mike Stranz with the National Farmers Union for his thoughts on the report.

Mike Stranz: There was some interesting material in that 18-page MAHA report that covered a lot of ground, certainly on health and vaccines and all sorts of different parts of the American health system, but also in agriculture. And there was a lot of emphasis in that report on local foods. And I think that’s a great opportunity for this administration and for Congress to take action, to put in place some programs that are lasting and will continue to help out with connecting farmers with local markets. Part of our plan this week was talking about the opportunities that are there for Congress to take action on local food procurement bills, and there’s a couple of bipartisan efforts out there in the House and the Senate to do just that.

Lydia Johnson: And T.A., I want to get your thoughts as well. I mean, broadly, how did the food and ag sector react to this report? And as we look ahead, a futuristic view, you know, how could those recommendations impact broader ag policy decisions and things that impact it, like the Dietary Guidelines?

T.A. Hawks: Overall, you know, the chairs of the House and Senate committees put out a positive statement when the report was released the other day. And I think, you know, there’s a lot that is yet to be determined. I think there are recommendations. But, you know, many things weren’t addressed, in a fulsome way. So I think it’ll be up for debate. I mean, that’s what Congress does. They debate, recommendations. Some of the things that the administration has the authority, like dietary guidelines, we could see some changes to what they recommend for Americans. So some administrative, action and some legislative action. But there’s plenty of ways to interpret the report.

Lydia Johnson: And Mike, I want to get your thoughts. The Agriculture Department has experienced major staff reductions this year and has now extended the comment period for the USDA reorganization until September 30th. You know, I’m curious, do you have concerns about brain drain at the agency and in your conversations this week, you know, what did you hear from the administration, from the USDA on on staffing at the agency or the department?

Mike Stranz: Farmers union members have deep concerns about the brain drain at USDA and with the loss, of course, of the USDA workforce just this year already, that is going to create a huge hole for future, USDA staff to work their way out. And I think that there needs to be, a lot of caution followed in this reorganization effort. We saw what happened when agents these are out of D.C. to different parts of the country. In 2018 and 2019, when the, National Institute for Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service were moved to Kansas City. So a huge, high, huge rate of attrition for how many people left. As a result of that. And those roles weren’t, weren’t refilled any time quickly, ever. Really. So I think we’re at a point where, moving a lot of agencies out of the DC area, is going to have a pretty harmful effect on overall staffing levels and the farm safety net, which we spent so much time talking about, is farmers union members. And it’s, organizations across the country. The farm safety net only works as well as those administering it. And if we keep, you know, holding back to USDA, its ability to move forward and implement these programs, it’s going to have an effect.

Lydia Johnson: And T.A., as we wrap up, I want to get your thoughts as well. I mean, with all the staff reductions and reorganization, are you concerned about brain during at USDA?

T.A. Hawks: Yeah, I think the biggest concern is, you know, these are farmer focused programs that are in many ways, you know, hampered if a lot of people are taking voluntary buyouts or having reductions in staff. And I think that’s why you saw after the, the initial announcement of, of the the removal of folks to different parts of the country, the Senate, our committee, under Chairman Bozeman and ranking member Klobuchar had a quick hearing with the deputy secretary just to examine what the impacts could be. So I think plenty of people on the Hill are paying attention and want to make sure that farmers and landowners and ranchers have the, the, the resources available to them in the profession and staffing that, you know, there they become accustomed to in the county offices and even in the state offices. So I think there, plenty of ways that folks on the Hill and, and, and DC are paying attention and want to make sure that the impacts aren’t overly, burdensome on farmers and ranchers. And I think that’s part of the reason why you saw the comment, period, extended.

Lydia Johnson: We’ll be back with more agriculture newsmakers. But first, Andrew Huneke looks at the number of employees by state that have left the Interior Department through deferred resignation program. And this week’s map it out.

Andrew Huneke: Nearly 6900 employees have left the Interior Department due to downsizing, according to data obtained by agriculture through a Freedom of Information Act request. That amounts to roughly 9.9% of the agency’s overall workforce. When paired with the Office of Personnel Management stats from this time last year, this map shows the number of employees that have left the Interior Department by state through one of the two deferred resignation programs offered by the Trump administration. The National Park Service has lost over 1000 employees and three other offices. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation have lost more than 900. It is important to note that this only includes those who left voluntarily. It does not include the number of employees who have left without participating in a DRP, which means there are even more losses. The department has sustained this year. For Agri-Pulse, I’m Andrew Huneke

Lydia Johnson: Thanks for joining us for another episode of Agri Pulse Newsmakers. Next week, both the House and Senate will be in session, and there’s still time to register for the Kansas City AG Outlook Forum. You won’t want to miss conversations with Deputy Secretary Steven Vadin, USDA Chief economist Seth Meyer and other leaders on September 25th. Tune in next week and check our website any time for the latest developments on all things food, farm and fuel policy for Agri-Pulse, I’m Lydia Johnson. Thanks for watching.

Agri-Pulse is a trusted source in Washington, D.C., with the largest editorial team focused on food and farm policy coverage.