Are Rural Farm Regions Finally Realizing That Republicans Don't Care and Don't Keep Promises?

American farmers are facing an unprecedented challenge as proposed Republican policies threaten the very foundations of rural economies. Under the guise of tax cuts for the wealthy, these policies aim to slash vital agricultural support programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which not only feeds millions of Americans but also sustains the livelihoods of countless farmers. This article explores the deepening political divide between farmers and a party they’ve historically supported, questioning how long this loyalty can endure amid economic hardship and political betrayal.

Despite a sixty-year history of steadfast loyalty, this administration and Republican lawmakers are now pushing policies that could devastate small farms and the agricultural industry as a whole, for the purpose of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. As one pundit wrote, this is “a betrayal that’s as bold as it is baffling, leaving many to wonder how long farmers will continue to support a party willing to sacrifice their livelihoods for the benefit of the rich.”

Just as Project 2025 promised, immediately following the election that returned drumpf to the White House, it became abundantly clear that what he intended to do would meet no opposition from either chamber of Congress. He intended to fund tax cuts for the wealthy by slashing or eliminating social safety net programs that are critical to poor and vulnerable Americans.

The first target is that iconic product of the New Deal that fed a starving population and helped America gain her footing following the Great Depression and an expensive war―supplemental food assistance programs, AKA Food Stamps. The program that replaced food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP just took a hit with the Republicans proposed tax bill. I’m not sure many tears would be shed on the right side of the aisles if poor people were the only ones affected, but it’s our farmers who grow the food that feeds them. Has Congress considered that?

The House bill proposes cutting SNAP funding by 21%, amounting to $230 billion—a staggering figure that directly impacts farmers who rely on the income to keep their operations afloat. According to the House Agricultural Committee, “In 2020 alone, spending for SNAP created nearly 45,000 jobs in supporting industries including agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and municipal services, and nearly 200,000 U.S. grocery industry jobs earning more than $6.7 billion in wages.”

I’ve had recent dialog with my Representative and both Senators about this and other topics. This is a state heavily dependent on agriculture, but my Congress-critter represents a wide swath of mostly exurban counties with some, but not a lot of agriculture. He lives in a Dallas exurb, and he won’t even talk about what this will do to farmers and ranchers. Not enough of them are voters in his district, so why should he care? One of my Senators is known as the turd in the punchbowl who reads Dr. Suess from the Senate dais. Nobody, not even farmers who vote for him matter. All he cares about is chaos. My other Senator doesn’t have a spine.

Most Red states are in the same boat, and their farmers are sure to suffer. As reporter Jason Easley writes, “consider a statistic from the House Agricultural Committee. In 2020 alone, spending for SNAP created nearly 45,000 jobs in supporting industries including agriculture, manufacturing, transportation and municipal services, and nearly 200,000 U.S. grocery industry jobs earning more than $6.7 billion in wages.” That is a lot to not be concerned about.

Since the days of the New Deal, a bipartisan farm bill has been a coalition between the farmers who produce the food and Americans who need a helping hand. Today, it appears House Republicans are proposing to cut funding for hungry children, seniors and veterans to help pay for their tax bill―a bill that will do nothing for the farmers or the bottom ninety-nine percent of taxpayers, but it will certainly make the rich, richer.

“Taking $230 billion out of the food economy hurts the farmers who grow our food, the truckers who move it, the processors who package it and the grocery stores that sell it,” Easley writes. “Cutting farm bill nutrition programs does not make life affordable for everyday people.”

Instead of cutting SNAP to pay for handouts to wealthy donors, Republicans should prioritize helping working people and rural economies. Farmers and families are tightening their belts to make ends meet and cutting critical aid to our neighbors during a time of increased prices is not the answer, yet despite the harm these cuts will bring, Republican lawmakers are moving forward with their cuts.

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), ranking member of the House Agricultural Committee, criticized the proposal, stating, “Taking $230 billion out of the food economy hurts the farmers who grow our food, the truckers who move it, the processors who package it, and the grocery stores that sell it. Cutting farm bill nutrition programs does not make life affordable for everyday people. Instead of cutting SNAP to pay for handouts to wealthy donors, Republicans should prioritize helping working people and rural economies.”

This isn’t just political rhetoric; the numbers back it up. SNAP is a vital program that supports domestic agriculture by ensuring a steady demand for food products. Without this support, farmers will be left with fewer buyers and lower prices for their goods. Yet, Republicans seem willing to sacrifice this stability.

This isn’t the first time farmers have been asked to bear the brunt of Republican tax policy. It’s been happening in one form or another since Ronald Reagan was in office. And just recently, in 2017. the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” was touted as a win for small businesses and farmers, but the primary beneficiaries were the wealthiest individuals and corporations. While some provisions, like the lower tax rate on business income, did provide temporary relief to farmers, these benefits were temporary and dwarfed by the gains made by the top 1%. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, the act included reduced tax rates and increased estate tax exemptions, which were beneficial to some farmers. But these provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025, potentially increasing federal tax liabilities for farmers by billions of dollars. The tax cuts for the rich were not included in that expiration.

To offset the cost of tax cuts, Republicans have targeted programs that are crucial for rural communities, including agricultural subsidies and SNAP. According to AgWeb, the House Republican budget with its call for $230 billion in spending cuts, directly impacts programs that support farmers. This approach is nothing new—Republicans have long sought to balance budgets on the backs of the poor and middle class while protecting the wealthy.

One of the most harmful proposals before the House involves limiting updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines SNAP benefit levels. By capping these updates, Republicans aim to reduce SNAP spending while ignoring the impact on farmers. As Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) admitted, “Ag has been required to and will be required to come up with their fair share [of reconciliation cuts].” But the question remains: Why should farmers be the ones to pay for tax breaks for the rich? Why should children go hungry so Elon can get even richer.

The impact of these cuts isn’t hypothetical; it’s already being felt across the country. At Mastodon Farm in Michigan, the farm owners are worried about the proposed Farm Bill. A small group of lobbyists pushed for language in the bill that would nullify state agriculture laws, harming farmers who have invested in animal welfare and environmental protections. As one farmer put it, “The House version of the Farm Bill takes a step backward and goes against a growing market for responsibly sourced products.”

This pattern of putting corporate interests above farmers is not limited to SNAP cuts. The drumpf administration’s trade wars, particularly with China, devastated agricultural exports. Despite losing billions in revenue, many farmers continued to support the man that robbed them, hoping that his “America First” policies would ultimately benefit them. Instead, they found themselves at the mercy of foreign markets, with no safety net. As the Wall Street Journal reported, farmers were left holding the bag as tariffs reduced demand for U.S. products.

The betrayal didn’t stop there. The drumpf administration also shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting off a critical market for American crops. According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, the Food for Peace program alone accounted for $2 billion in U.S.-grown crop purchases. By shutting down USAID, Trump not only hurt farmers but also jeopardized America’s role as a global food provider.

Despite these betrayals, many farmers remain loyal to the Republican Party. Part of this loyalty stems from sixty years of voting for the party, and part from cultural identity and shared values, but it also reflects a hope that Republicans will eventually come to their senses. However, this hope is fading fast.

As Rep. Angie Craig warned, “If Republicans want to start the year by cutting SNAP for tax breaks for people who are already rich, then that is going to be very troublesome to any sort of bipartisan farm bill discussion.”

Patrick Madden of Mastodon Farm, a 60-acre regenerative farm in southeast Michigan, writing in a guest editorial for the Detroit Daily News, says “The proposed Farm Bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee would hurt small farmers like us, who prioritize feeding our community, taking care of rural land and ensuring that our animals receive proper care. A small faction of lobbyists in the pork industry pressured some members of Congress to include language in the Farm Bill that would nullify animal welfare and state agriculture laws, meaning the version of the Farm Bill they’ve urged the House Agriculture Committee to adopt has the potential to invalidate hundreds of other state laws, including a state's ability to regulate the sale of goods within its borders.”

Like the King Amendment, the House’s draft of the Farm Bill language is dangerous and would have grave consequences for farmers everywhere. It undermines existing animal welfare regulations that producers have invested millions of dollars to comply with. Nullifying state laws would not only roll back progress on animal welfare, but it would also severely hurt rural economies and farmers who have made financial commitments to meet state standards.

SNAP is a great program because it helps our domestic farm industry while providing assistance to those who need nutritional support. drumpf got nearly 78% of the vote from farming communities in 2024, and the president is thanking them for their support by shutting down USAID and backing a massive cut to SNAP.

Like the King Amendment, the House’s draft of the Farm Bill language is dangerous and would have grave consequences for Michigan farmers. It undermines existing animal welfare regulations that producers have invested millions of dollars to comply with. Nullifying state laws would not only roll back progress on animal welfare, but it would also severely hurt rural economies and farmers who have made financial commitments to meet state standards.

The bill also would erode states' ability to enact laws and ballot measures related to food safety, disease and other substantive matters of public health and welfare. By dismantling the ability of state and local authorities to set agricultural standards within their borders, this legislation jeopardizes the safety and well-being of citizens across our state.

Malcolm Braud is a rancher from Amite, Louisiana. In an interview he said, “[a]s a rancher, it means everything to me that decisions regarding agricultural policy are made locally, not by people in Washington, D.C. But a provision in the Farm Bill being considered in the United States House of Representatives right now threatens to take that power away, stripping states of their ability to pass and enforce standards on food safety, environmental protection or animal welfare for products sold within their borders. Take my word for it, none of us can afford this folly.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, offered an alternative bill that does not contain this same harmful language. It did not make it out of committee. Stabenow led the fight to keep the notorious “King Amendment” out of previous Farm Bills―a measure that would threaten states’ authority to set agriculture policy.

“Humane treatment of animals is not only the right thing to do, but it’s also good for business,” Braud continued. “The House version of the Farm Bill takes a step backward and goes against a growing market for responsibly sourced products. Stabenow’s version shows a commitment to responsible agriculture and animal welfare essential for the future of American farming.”

Groups like Family Farm Defenders, National Family Farm Coalition, Farm Action, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and the American Grassfed Association have all voiced opposition to including this sort of language in the Farm Bill.

State laws across the country are reflective of these same expectations and standards. As one example, California voters passed Proposition 12 to require that pigs, chickens and calves must be able to have minimum space to move around. Whether or not you agree with California’s rules, they were decided democratically by its citizens. And the same thing has played out in about a dozen states across the country, red, blue and purple, that have approved laws concerning animal welfare, public health and the emerging market for higher welfare products.

Rural voters are suffering from other aspects of this new administration’s actions. Kentucky farmers got a lesson recently when they learned that, as part of drumpf’s order to freeze federal funding, the Department of Agriculture was pausing funding for various conservation programs that helped them install water lines, plant ground cover and move to no-till operations―projects they were already invested in.

MAGA’s willingness to harm farmers for the sake of tax cuts is a betrayal of the very people who helped put them in power. Empty promises and budget cuts are what they got, and they deserve better. If MAGAts continue down this path, they will soon find that the backbone of their political base has finally had enough. They’re finding out that America First really means farmers last, and many of those farmers are experiencing buyer’s remorse. Some are so invested in MAGA that they may never let go, but the intelligent among them see the writing on the wall.

As the realization dawns on them and they figure out that their loyalty is being exploited, they are going to be looking to Democrats for rescue. They were promised prosperity but were handed tariffs, foreign aid cuts, and SNAP reductions instead. It’s way past time for farmers to start questioning whether a party willing to jeopardize their livelihoods for the benefit of the rich truly represents their interests.

Hint: Republicans don’t. With them it’s always, “the check in in the mail.” At least some of those farmers are waking up to that.

Small farming and ranching operations are still the lifeblood of American agriculture and the beating heart of rural communities. They thrive by responding to local consumer demands including those for ethically and sustainably raised products. They have been imposed on for decades and remained loyal to the Republican Party, but now, for the first time, there are grumblings of discontent. If the election were held today, drumpf might still take the lions share of the farm vote, but I doubt that it would even be within 20 points of what it was. He and his MAGAts have pissed off that many people.

So, Republicans are screwing up and doing real damage to the rural and farming communities who have supported them for at least 45 years. How many of them prove to be the dumb farmers that MAGA thinks them to be is yet to be seen, but I know farmers. I know that to be successful in farming you cannot be stupid… or foolish. For that reason, I suspect we may be seeing a reverse defection in coming years. All we can hope for is that it comes in time.

---

This is the last in a series of four articles exploring the historical shifts in the political allegiance of rural Americans and farmers. From FDR's New Deal policies that solidified Democratic support in the 1940s to Carter's market-driven approach that alienated rural voters, the narrative reflects a complex relationship shaped by changing economic and political landscapes. We are at the tipping point now. Will the deluded awake to the realities that the MAGAt have exposed? Will the awakening come in time?

---