The 2024 presidential election cycle has been a doozy: Amid an assassination attempt on GOP candidate Donald Trump, the ascendance of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket after Joe Biden stepped down, and the frenzy over the selections of Ohio U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as the Republican and Democratic vice presidential candidates, respectively, it has been hard to look away — even for a moment. But with the broad swath of the nation still under the label of rural America, it’s vital to keep an eye on how the policies coming from Trump and Harris would shape our farming and ranching industries, as well as life in many smaller U.S. communities.
Somewhere off in the distance, I can almost hear the voice of Waylon Jennings sign, “And that’s how things work in Hazzard County.” But unlike the iconic Dukes of Hazzard TV series, where Uncle Jesse’s farm had just one goat, the farms of Uncle Sam contain millions of producers left to wonder what either side will do when it comes to the agricultural sector.
Given how starkly different the worldviews of Trump and Harris are, we know that big changes could be ahead for farms and ranches starting in January 2025. As we attempt to forecast the affect this election could have for the agricultural sector, a myriad of related issues linger in the mix: Interest rates, the wars in Ukraine and Israel, as well as ongoing strife with China. And of course, the farm bill, which was supposed to have been renewed last year and is currently being fueled off of vapors.
These two major party candidates, Harris and Trump, are so different in all respects that it’s tough to avoid reducing a comparison of any sort down to a zero/sum scenario. Further complicating a comparison is the fact that without Biden running for re-election, we really must consider Harris a brand new candidate in her own right. All political analysts agree that Biden’s decision to step out of the race mid-July was due to concerns he couldn’t defeat Trump in their re-match from 2020, which means Harris’ primary reason for running is to keep the GOP from regaining the White House. That’s although Biden himself technically clinched the Democratic nomination through party member votes, not Harris.
That said, Trump returns to the top of the Republican ticket with nearly every member of his past cabinet in opposition to him. Party leaders have been leaving the GOP for years due to his presence. If one didn’t know better, they might predict that Republicans might vote for Harris and some Democrats might just stay home.
Harris’ side: Blue sky on the farm
If you’re looking for a boil-down it’s this: A second Trump administration would usher in a restructuring of agriculture policy aimed at radical shrinkage. A Harris administration will most likely continue the trend toward using agricultural policy as part of a larger plan designed around renewable energy, minority inclusion, healthcare, and food subsidies for challenged populations. A Harris administration will expand programming, while Trump’s plan will focus on what it sees as removing barriers and regulations that have inhibited agricultural production.
Unfortunately, due to the timing of the Biden’s decision to step down from the ticket in mid-July, not much has been reported about Harris’ agenda (let alone her views toward U.S. agriculture specifically), and so news outlets from one end of the spectrum to the other are working to get that lined out while looking to her past to predict her future.
Prior to her service as vice president, Harris was the U.S. Senator from California, and prior to that, the state’s attorney general. California happens to be one of the world’s largest producers of agricultural products, and number one in America. But Harris’ role in those discussions wasn’t as deep as her work in civil rights and criminal law. That said, there is some thought that a Harris Administration might drift away from Biden’s centrism when it comes to agricultural policy.
Harris does have the full-throated support of the United Farm Workers, the nation’s largest agricultural union whose contract agreements include thousands of vegetable, berry, winery, tomato, and dairy workers in California, Oregon, and Washington state. UFW enthusiastically endorsed Harris in July, citing the adage, “Dime con quien andas, y te digo quien eres. (Tell me who you are with, and I’ll tell you who you are.)
“President Joseph R. Biden has been the greatest friend the United Farm Workers has had in the Oval Office. The Biden-Harris administration has worked tirelessly on behalf of farm workers, from championing state legislation to strengthen farm workers’ right to join a union, to ensuring undocumented essential workers were eligible for COVID vaccines and relief payments, to working to raise wages and increase legal protections in the exploitative H2A agricultural guest worker system, to proposing the nation’s first ever federal standards to protect farm workers from dying during extreme temperatures,” the organization said. “President Biden deserves the gratitude and respect of all Americans for his lifelong service to our country and his fierce dedication to working people across America.”
Large agriculture corporations on the other hand might have mixed opinions on this. As a California senator, Harris introduced legislation to increase farmworker protections and co-sponsored the Agricultural Worker Program Act, which would help provide paths to U.S. citizenship for undocumented workers. She was also among those U.S. senators in 2019 who co-sponsored the contentious Green New Deal resolution that supported sweeping change in the agricultural sector where greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.
Harris’ campaign has also ruffled the feathers of the agricultural organizations. The Meat Institute, for example, dubbed Harris’ proposal to place a federal ban on price gouging as being misguided and sidestepping “the real causes of inflation.” Elsewhere, the Texas Department of Agriculture has accused Harris of a “land grab” by wanting to snatch up farm- and ranchland to expand existing national parks and refuges.
As an attorney general, Harris’ office defended California’s Assembly Bill 1437, which prevented the sale and consumption in that state of eggs coming from hens not kept in enclosures. Her defense was made in the face of industry complaints as well challenges from six other states’ attorneys general. Her office also appealed a federal judge’s ruling that struck down California’s ban on foi gras due to the forced feeding of ducks. Although the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the arguments her office made give us an idea of the direction in which she leans when it comes to agricultural policy.
Trump’s side: A red dawn in the field
Most people have, by now, heard that the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation has authored a massive policy initiative, Project 2025, which will likely be the underlying platform of Trump should he retake the White House, complete with a 180-day playbook. Be forewarned, reading through the 919-page document titled, Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise, will take a bit longer than a perusal of the good old Farmer’s Almanac. AGDAILY has previously offered up an analysis of the farm-related portions of that document you can read here.
But whereas the Harris campaign is quite fuzzy about its plans for agriculture, the GOP is offering incredibly detailed initiatives.
The bottom line is that the Trump administration would radically alter the present vision statement of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from its present being to a much simpler, more conservative model. At present, the Biden administration’s USDA vision statement is:
“To serve all Americans by providing effective, innovative, science-based public policy leadership in agriculture, food and nutrition, natural resource protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.”
Per the Project 2025 missive, a new GOP administration would change that so it aligns with the the idea that: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can and should play a limited role, with much of its focus on removing governmental barriers that hinder food production or otherwise undermine efforts to meet consumer demand. The USDA should recognize what should be self-evident: Agricultural production should first and foremost be focused on efficiently producing safe food.”
The mandate would seek to remove issues involving social equity among racial and minority groups, as well as climate change, from the USDA’s programming.
“A proper mission would clarify that the department’s primary focus is on agriculture and that the USDA serves all Americans. The USDA’s ‘client’ is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc.,” the document says.
As is keeping with most Republican initiatives, the underlying idea is that agriculture is a private sector enterprise, and enterprise flourishes when regulations are limited. Other key points of the Project 2025 as they pertain to agriculture include:
- To move food and nutrition programs: “All means-tested antipoverty programs should be overseen by one department — specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs.” This means the Department of Health and Human Services would oversee the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP).
- To defend American agriculture: “One of the important lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain — not to increase them.” One goal is to distance U.S. farmers and ranchers from the U.N. and its policies.
- To address abuses in the $30 billion annual farm-bill programs: “Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended,” most notably the climate-change policies.
- To overhaul the farm subsidy program: “The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence.” One of the key points presented is that many farmers receive few to no subsidies, with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities representing only 28% of farm receipts. The plan calls for a full repeal of the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program because most of those participants already have access to federal crop insurance.
- To reform conservation programs: “Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land.”
- Overhauling or eliminating marketing orders and checkoff programs: Changes against this “tax — a means to compel speech — and government-blessed cartels” would shift instead to being handled at a private level if collaboration by both sides is sought.
- Remove obstacles to agricultural biotechnology: “The USDA should strongly counter scare tactics regarding agricultural biotechnology and adopt policies to remove unnecessary barriers to approvals and the adoption of biotechnology.”
While Trump’s opponent has largely been behind the scenes in the current administration, we have four years of presidential service from Trump to know how he approaches policy. Trump has generally aligned himself with larger-scale production farms, trying to keep supply lines and funding open for agriculture during the COVID-19 pandemic, nurturing international trade through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (even as his trade wars with China became increasingly complex), and rolling back some barriers to agriculture that were present in the Endangered Species Act.
A fog of independents
As with every presidential election, there are in fact more than two candidates running for the presidency. The rules governing candidacy are incredibly complicated and require ballot access at the state level. At present, only two candidates have sufficient ballot access to potentially achieve the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the race: Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party, and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Meanwhile, other third-party candidates include Dr. Cornel West and, until recently, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., both running as independents. Kennedy removed himself from the race in August, threw his support behind Trump, and is expected to have a spot on Trump’s transition team.
Oliver’s Libertarian platform is somewhat unique as he portends to be one of the first openly gay candidates to run for the U.S. presidency. In terms of agricultural policy, Oliver’s platform doesn’t address it specifically, but rather outlines the traditional Libertarian principles of limited government regulations. He supports nuclear power over fossil fuels and a decentralization of federal authority in favor of states’ rights. To that extent, his platform reads like he would support much of the Project 2025 approach.
Stein on the other hand has, over the years, developed a Green Party platform that addresses agriculture from tip to top.
“We need a rural reconstruction program that revitalizes agriculture and reintegrates town and country, with a just transition to organic agriculture and green manufacturing. We support sustainable agroecological practices and Food Sovereignty — the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.”
Among her initiatives which would interest agriculture producers:
- Pass a $25 minimum wage indexed to cost inflation and productivity growth.
- Expand rights to unionize agricultural workers.
- Extend the time for zero emissions by 15 to 20 years to 2050.
- Ban pesticides, herbicides, neonicotinoids, and all known carcinogens or neurotoxins from public use.
- Socialize big agribusiness and dismantle the corporate “oligopolies” that control the farm input industry (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, machinery) and the food and fiber processing industry into cooperatives and public enterprises democratically owned by and serving consumers and working farmers.
Based on readings of past Harris speeches, she would be more inclined to support Stein’s initiatives than perhaps her predecessors’, Biden and Obama.
Storms amid the harvest
You don’t have to be a politics-watcher to know this November’s election will be a barn burner. Trump has four years’ worth of a record from his time in office between 2017 and 2021, and now a 919-page platform that, while authored by the Heritage Foundation, is fair to attribute to his campaign given their mutual allegiance. In the other corner is a relative national-scale newcomer in Harris, who is not necessarily bound to the policies of her Democrat Party predecessors, Biden and former President Barack Obama, and has in past speeches indicated a more progressive taken on policies compared to their center-left approach.
Meanwhile, 2024 remains a big year for all things ag. Because the farm bill extension was passed in 2023, Congress will have to decide whether it’s continued or denied in September, just a month before early voting begins. That means the present farm bill will certainly be a hot topic as the candidates vie for votes in the election.
As usual, agricultural issues might not be explicitly discussed on the campaign trail, but you’ll notice the election hinges on swing state voters, and inevitably those swing states are rural in nature and serve as the nation’s primary agricultural producers. From healthcare policy to inflation, the price of food is a key issue, as is inflation and fuel prices. There should be plenty of dust in the air as these two teams race toward the finish line, and all involved expect a few crashes along the way.
Brian Boyce is an award-winning writer living on a farm in west-central Indiana.
