Will Trump’s Opposition to NAFTA Lose Him the Support of Farmers?

President Donald Trump began his first week in office by announcing plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. The announcement itself is unsurprising. Trump railed against NAFTA throughout his campaign claiming it and other free trade agreements threatened American firms and workers. However, in fulfilling his campaign promise Trump runs the risk of alienating a support base that was particularly reliable during the election: farmers.

Farmers overwhelmingly favored Trump to Clinton in the run-up to the election. An October poll by AgriPulse revealed 55.4 percent of farmers supported Donald Trump while only 17.8 percent favored Clinton; the rest were either split between third party candidates, undecided, or chose not to answer. Respondents from battleground states reflected national numbers. Farmer and farm towns were undoubtedly key in ensuring Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Post-election maps show Trump won in part because he was able to win rural counties in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan that had supported Barack Obama in 2012, while also maintaining support in rural counties that voted for Mitt Romney. Now that Trump is in office, farmers will be waiting to see what his vow to renegotiate NAFTA will mean for them.

Over the past several decades, domestic agricultural policies have encouraged farmers to scale up or risk bankruptcy. The emphasis on production has plagued the U.S. market with surplus produce. To compensate for this, the U.S. heavily subsidizes farmers. Nonetheless, prices are so low that profits are only really attainable for large-scale corporate farms. Smaller operations have been squeezed out.

Though NAFTA has undeniably contributed to the corporatization of the agricultural industry, it has allowed farmers to avoid depressed prices in U.S. markets and seek fortune by exporting surplus goods north and south of the border tariff free. Famously, NAFTA created the conditions in which American farmers are able to dump their surplus, heavily subsidized produce in Mexico. U.S. producers sell corn and other staples at prices well below the cost of production, which cannot be matched by Mexican producers. This dynamic decimated many sectors of the Mexican agricultural industry and forced a Mexican reliance on cheap U.S. imports. However, the state of the Mexican industry is likely of little concern to the president who promised to put “America first.” Therefore, before negotiating with his North American counterparts, Trump may want to consider the fact that NAFTA has created a release valve for surplus U.S. goods on which American farmers rely.

Both Canada and Mexico are leading buyers of U.S. agricultural exports. Unable to rely on profiting from the U.S. market, smaller farmers would most certainly be hurt most were Canada and Mexico to place tariffs on U.S. goods. Notwithstanding the uncertain fate of NAFTA, the future of the agricultural industry has long been in question. As with many other industries, agriculture is increasingly mechanized. This means there will likely be fewer future job opportunities on both small and large farms in the future. Corporations are able to purchase, implement, and often create new technologies. However, small-scale farmers with limited capital who are already struggling to compete with corporate prices face an uncertain future.

The promise to bring blue-collar employment back to the United States grounds Trump’s trade stance. While renegotiating or terminating NAFTA could arguably help him achieve this goal, it is by no means the only facet of his emerging trade policy. Tariffs are likely to be imposed on U.S. exports assuming Trump follows through with his campaign promise of establishing more protectionist agreements with Canada and Mexico. If small-scale farmers are no longer able to sell their goods in Canadian and Mexican markets tariff-free, already slender profit margins might shrink further. Without making major changes to the U.S. agricultural market, Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA could have adverse effects on a major line of agricultural income and alienate one of his most important bases of support. To do make these changes and protect small-scale farmers, Trump would have to address corporate dominance of the industry. However, though claiming to be for the worker, his business dealings and cabinet appointees suggest he sees little issue with corporatization.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.