'Punch our customers in the face.' Farm concerns about Trump tariffs could fuel 2026 races
Caleb Ragland, a ninth-generation farmer in Magnolia, Kentucky, took a break from the fall harvest to describe howPresident Donald Trump'stariffsslammed the door to his largest soybean customer: China. Soybeans were the country's largest agricultural export last year, worthmore than $24 billion. Half the crop went to China. But Ragland told USA TODAY that China hasn't bought any of this year's U.S. crop after their retaliatory taxes to Trump's tariffs drove the price too high. "We need to not punch our customers in the face with tariffs," said Ragland, 39, who has a 4,500 farm down the road from where Abraham Lincoln was born. "Throwing rocks at each other isn't good for either one of us." Trumpand congressional leadershave acknowledged tariffs are hurting farmers, and they've offered to cut a slice off the billions the taxes are generating to pay farmers. Even before thefull tariffs went into effect in August, the U.S. Agriculture Department projected the country willimport nearly $50 billion more farm productsthis year than it exports. "We're going to give it to our farmers, who are for a little while going to be hurt, until it kicks in," Trump told reporters Sept. 25 in the Oval Office. "Ultimately the farmers are going to be making a fortune. But it's a process. It has to kick in." Trump said on social mediahe would meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a trip to Asia in late October. "Soybeans will be a major topic of discussion," Trump wrote. Six monthsafter Trump announced worldwide tariffs on what he called "Liberation Day" April 2, the taxes on foreign imports are among the most controversial issues of his second term. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Nov. 5 to decide the fate of Trump'sworldwide tariffs, in what legal experts said could be thebiggest blockbuster case of the year. Other hot-button items include hismajor tax-cut billthat slashed healthcare spending,tougher immigration enforcementandNational Guard deployments. But the political implications of tariffs remain uncertain as lawmakers approach the2026 midterm electionswithout Trump on the ballot. More:Why is Donald Trump referring to April 2 as 'Liberation Day'? Here's what we know. Jessica Taylor, who tracks Senate races for the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, told USA TODAY "there is a lot of concern" about tariffs but it's too early to tell how much impact they could have. "Is the potential there?" she asked. "Absolutely." A 61% majority of Americans disapprove of the Trump administration increasing tariffs on goods imported from most countries that trade with the United States, while 38% approve, according to aPew Research Center poll in August. These views are largely unchanged since April, when Trump unveiled his global tariffs. A 55% majority of Americans say the long-term effects of the administration's tariff policies will be mostly negative for the country and for themselves and their families, according to the poll. Republicans express mixed views of the impacts of the tariffs, while Democrats are largely negative. The poll of 3,554 adults was conducted Aug. 4 to 10 and had a margin of error of 1.8%. Trump promoted tariffs for generating trillions of dollars for the Treasury, forcing other countries to negotiate fairer trade deals and opening up new markets to U.S. producers. TheCongressional Budget Officein August estimated tariffs would reduce the country's debt $4 trillion over the next decade. Leaders of other countries have vowed to invest trillions in U.S. manufacturing in exchange for lower tariffs. The deals includeJapan committing $550 billion in investment.Companies moving jobs to the U.S. include Eli Lilly & Co. announcing Sept. 23a $6.5 billion pharmaceuticals plant in Texas. More:Art of the tariff deal: Trump's end game brings strategy and chaos into focus "It's our declaration of economic independence," Trump said April 2 in announcing the tariffs. "Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country." But Democrats such as Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon called tariffs "economic poison" because consumers will eventually pay the tariffs through higher prices. "It's a tax on almost everything families buy, so Trump can give his billionaire friends a tax cut,"Wyden said in a statement. Charting the cost of tariffs has been tricky business. Afterreports in April that Amazon planned to list the costsof tariffs next to the total prices of online products, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called it "a hostile and political act by Amazon." Trump called the company's founder, Jeff Bezos, and Amazon denied the report and hasn't listed tariff prices. Carmakers estimated the tariffs will cost them billions of dollars this year but so far have shielded customers from huge price hikes. Yet statewide polls in Michigan have found concerns about tariffs and inflation could discourage car buying and lead to cutbacks on jobs. General Motors said it will faceup to $5 billion in tariff-related costs this yearand Ford cited $3 billion. Those costs added nearly $2,300 to the cost of producing each vehicle, according to independent analysts. But the average cost of a new car is already $49,000, so experts said carmakers have been reluctant to boost prices. TheDetroit Regional Chamber released a statewide poll in Maythat found a slim majority of Michiganders opposed tariffs and raised concerns about a potential recession and inflation. "It's very clear that Michiganders are concerned about tariffs and inflation," Sandy Baruah, CEO of the Detroit Regional Chamber, told USA TODAY. Glenn Stevens Jr., executive director of MichAuto, an industry advocacy group, told USA TODAY that manufacturers are absorbing costs by delaying capital expenses and hiring, and reducing staffing. But higher car prices are looming. "The fear is that will happen soon," Stevens said. The president's party traditionally loses ground in midterm House elections, as happened in 20 of the last 22 contests dating to 1938, according toan August report by the Brookings Institution. The two exceptions were Republican President George W. Bush, whose approval soared during his first term upon his response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and Democratic President Bill Clinton after a failed second-term impeachment attempt to remove him from office. More:Trump vs. the midterm blues: Can he get MAGA voters excited (and voting) in 2026? More common were reversals, sometimes after major legislative debates. In 1994, the House flipped from Democratic to Republican control for the first time in 40 years under Clinton after debates on trade and energy. Republicans gained control of the House – and picked up six seats in the Senate – in 2010 after the adoption of Democrat Barack Obama's signature healthcare initiative. Trump lost the Republican House to Democrats in 2018,which analysts blamedon his first-term tariffs and unsuccessful attempts to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Democrat Joe Biden lost the House majority in 2022 after approval of his infrastructure bill. A series of recent polls found greater support for Democrats over Republicans, according toa summary by Real Clear Politics. While waiting for the Supreme Court ruling, political experts said it's too early to tell how much tariffs might affect the2026 congressional races, let alone the 2028 presidential contest. But there are plenty of states to watch for races where tariffs could play a role. Iowa, Michigan and North Carolina each rely heavily on trade and have open Senate seats in 2026. California, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida each counted China as their largest source for imports in 2024,according to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, China is the biggest recipient of exports from Louisiana, Massachusetts and Washington. Maine and New Hampshire have reported drops in tourism from neighboring Canada because of tariffs. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina asked Jamieson Greer, who was nominated to become U.S. trade representative, whom lawmakers should blame if the tariff strategy doesn't work. "It just seems like we've decided to begin a trade war on all fronts,"Tillis, who later decided to retire, said at an April hearing. "I'm just trying to figure out whose throat I get to choke if it's wrong and who I put up on a platform and thank them for the novel approach that was successful, if they were right." Tariffs could loom as a political issue for months while waiting for a ruling from theSupreme Court. The case will help set guidelines for Trump'saggressive assertion of presidential powers. Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law historically used to impose economic sanctions and other penalties on foreign enemies, to set tariffs worldwide. But two lower courtsruled that he overstepped his authority. "The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in its7-4 decisionon Aug. 29. More:If Supreme Court rules against Trump tariffs, here's what you can expect Trump said Sept. 2 the United Statesfaces an "economic disaster"unless the tariffs remain in place. "If we win the Supreme Court case, which is the finalization of tariffs, we will be by far the richest country anywhere in the world, and we'll be able to help our people more and we'll be able to help other countries when we want to,"Trump told reporters at the White Houseon Sept. 16. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has saidthe administration has other ways to tax imports if the high court rules against using the emergency law. But he said refunding tariffs, which he estimated in a court filing would total $1 trillion by next June, "would be terrible for the Treasury." The Constitution gave Congress the power to set tariffs like other taxes and regulate commerce with other countries, which is why lawmakers have traditionally voted on trade deals. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,"the Constitution said. Congress shared that responsibility with the president, rather than having 535 lawmakers negotiating with another country. Off and on for the last 50 years, Congress grantedso-called fast-track authorityto ease approval of trade deals. When in force, lawmakers set objectives for trade deals but then limited them to voting up or down on whole agreements rather than offering amendments. More:Dismantling agencies and firing workers: How Trump is redefining relations with Congress and courts "You want the rule of law in trade," Susan Ariel Aaronson, a research professor of international affairs at George Washington University, told USA TODAY. "That is just not an argument that policymakers make today." The lack of congressional votes on Trump's trade deals – or in some cases even receiving written descriptions of what the deals entail – departs from congressional tradition. "It's very unusual what is happening," Mohammad Elahee, a professor of international business at Quinnipiac University, told USA TODAY. "What is happening is unprecedented." More:How Trump's litany of executive orders test 250 years of American government Scott McLean, a political-science professor at Quinnipiac University, said it's no surprise presidents prefer to operate without interference because submitting trade agreements to lawmakers would open them to scrutiny and criticism. "They will question why President Trump should have this kind of unilateral power over raising taxes through tariffs," McLean told USA TODAY. "That's embarrassing for the president's party because they will have to defend the president against their own institutional powers." Midterm voters should have a clear choice if the economy matters to their picks. The debate over tariffs breaks sharply along party lines. House Republicans have narrowly approved a series of measures since March 11 that block lawmakers from terminating the tariffs. The latest provision extended the blockade against tariff legislation to March 31. "The President has to work with Congress on tariffs," Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, one of two Republicans to vote with Democrats against the resolution,wrote Sept. 16 on social media. "Further, tariffs are a tax on the American consumer." But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, called the tariffs "disastrous"during House debate Sept. 16and said Republicans weren't just ignoring the economy but "making it worse." "According to independent estimates, Trump's current tariff regime is resulting in a $2,300 tax increase in 2025 alone for the average American household," McGovern said. "The American people paid $30 billion in new tariff taxes in August alone, and Republicans are continuing to hide their heads in the sand." Rep. Nicholas Langworthy, R-New York, countered that access to the American economy is a privilege, not a right, and Trump is using tariffs to negotiate better trade deals with other countries. "These aren't trade wars," Langworthy said. "They are trade wins that deliver more jobs, higher wages, and greater opportunities for American families and American products around the world." The Senate voted 51-48 on April 2 to terminate the emergency Trump declared to justify his 25% tariffs on most Canadian imports. Four Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure. But the House hasn't acted on it and the president could veto it. The Senate voted 49-49 on April 30 to terminate the emergency that Trump declared to justify 10% tariffs on most products from around the globe, with higher rates for specific countries. The tie killed the measure. "Donald Trumpis giving America a crash course on why the founders gave Congress, not the president, power over taxes and trade," Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, told USA TODAY. "The fact that most of the details of Trump's so-called trade deals have not even been written down or made public opens the door to massive corruption and insider dealing, ensures uncertainty for investors and farmers, and disaster for people who want to see prices go down." Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, said Sept. 18 he would force voteson ending tariffs on Canada and Brazil. But even if approved, the House could ignore it like the previous measure dealing with Canada. Farmers, manufacturers and importers describe three major problems from tariffs. Tariffs drive up the price of foreign imports. When other countries impose retaliatory tariffs, they don't buy as many U.S. products. And U.S. trade disputes encourage other countries to buy from competitors. Soybeans illustrate the concerns. China bought 61% of the world's soybean exports last year, including 25 million metric tons from the U.S. But China's retaliatory taxes added 34% to the price of U.S. soybeans, compared to 14% for those from a major competitor, Brazil. "Right now, they haven't purchased a single soybean of this crop that's being harvested," Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association, said of China. "We're looking at 25% of sales – poof – it's gone." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Trump tariffs hit 6-month mark. They're primed to shadow 2026 races
'Punch our customers in the face.' Farm concerns about Trump tariffs could fuel 2026 races Caleb Ragland, a ninth-generation farmer ...
