Tariff battles, both domestic and international, have dominated President Trump’s second term. Left-wing pundits have cried economic wolf over inflation pressures that have yet to arise, while the president has championed the resulting billions in tariff revenue pouring into federal coffers. US farmers are suffering, prompting the administration to pledge imminent rescue funds drawn from the tariff revenue. The Supreme Court has fast-tracked a determination of whether Trump’s tariffs are constitutional, which may determine whether affected farmers and businesses get help.
US Farmers Struggling
US farmers are struggling due to several factors, including high borrowing rates and equipment costs. Higher production and strong crop yields, combined with trade battles with China, have pushed commodity prices lower. According to September estimates from the USDA, American corn production is expected to increase by 13% above 2024 levels. Corn is currently selling for $4.12 per bushel, slightly higher than 2024’s low of $3.77 but far below historic highs.
Soybean farmers are in a particularly difficult situation. Though US soybean production is down about 2% from last year, per-acre yields in many states “will be record highs” according to the USDA. The September soybean price of $10.24 is down substantially from highs of $16.22 in June 2022. Higher supply levels of soybeans, the nation’s top agricultural export, have driven down prices. At the same time, farmers have been deprived of traditional robust export markets as China has diverted soybean purchasing to Brazil in retaliation for US tariff policies imposed to curtail fentanyl trafficking.
President Trump recently promised to divert tariff revenues to provide short-term relief to struggling US crop farmers, but this poses several hurdles. A number of state attorneys general from blue states have filed suit in federal court to challenge the administration’s authority to impose these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The US Supreme Court may hear the federal government’s appeal within weeks, and an adverse outcome could compel the return of tariff collections to businesses instead of farmers.
The Tariff Angle
The Trump administration has argued that an adverse SCOTUS tariff decision could crush the US economy not just due to lost revenues but because America would be left open to continuing retaliatory tariffs and other actions (including boycotts of US goods, including agricultural commodities) by foreign nations. The president’s economic efforts are being combated by tariff enemies both foreign and domestic.
Additional pushback comes from Congress, where wrangling over the pending government shutdown may encourage Democratic lawmakers to demand concessions in return for budgetary agreement: If red-state farmers are to get a tariff windfall, the argument goes, why not money for PBS, NPR, abortion clinics, gender affirming care, or free healthcare for illegal aliens?
The president could seek farmer funding from USDA discretionary funding (as in the past), but Democratic lawmakers may still seek tit for tat, and this would not allow the president to earmark tariff receipts for soy and corn farmers. However, uncertainty looms over Donald Trump’s options as a Supreme Court decision approaches.
A “Wafer-thin Reed”
The August 29, 2025, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that President Trump lacked authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs to counter fentanyl trafficking. The Court concluded that “Reading the phrase 'regulate . . . importation' to include imposing these tariffs is 'a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.’”
The dissenting opinion, though, firmly supported the president’s authority under the act to counter fentanyl trafficking using tariffs, noting that it is uncontested that the tariffs, though broad, target the “introduction of opioids or precursors and other criminal activity.” The dissent noted that these tariffs were only challenged by the state plaintiffs, who “focuse[d] on the fact that the tariff measures adopted (then paused and modified) apply to a large variety of imports that themselves are not the source of the problem, i.e., are not illegal drugs or precursors and do not involve criminal activity.” That is, the states seek to interpret the IEEPA to limit President Trump’s tariff power to fentanyl, not other imported products! That’s a wafer-thin reed of its own.
Monetary relief for America’s soybean farmers may depend on the US Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on whether Democratic states can prevent the president from trying to stop China from “not merely … failing to stem the ultimate source of many illicit drugs distributed in the United States, but by actively sustaining and expanding the business of poisoning our citizens,” to quote dissenting justices. President Trump seeks to support US farmers so that he can continue to fight a fentanyl and gang trafficking enterprise that Democrats are indirectly enabling by filing suit to prevent the imposition of tariffs.
Americans can expect Donald Trump to stand firm against China regardless of how SCOTUS rules on the states’ tariff battle, and to support US farmers through other funding sources if necessary.
