By Olivia Herken for the Wisconsin Independent.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Wisconsin Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

On his farm in Maribel, a small town in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin farmer Michael Slattery grows cash crops such as corn, soybeans and canning vegetables, along with hosting a fleet of honeybees and about 50 fruit trees.

He’s run his farm for about 25 years, and he sells his crops to canning companies, corporations and farming cooperatives to make a living. But in 2018, when President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on goods imported from China, it cost him. 

Trump’s tariffs prompted the Chinese government to place retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products. Slattery told the Wisconsin Independent he lost 60% of his revenue from soybean sales because China was one of the biggest importers of U.S. soybeans at the time. Farmers were left with a surplus of product with nowhere to go, Slattery said, adding that it’s not easy for them to quickly pivot to new buyers because it takes years or decades to develop trade relationships.

“We can’t turn around and just go simply someplace else,” he said.

Now, just a few weeks into his second term, Trump again plans to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico — the United States’ largest trade partners. This could hurt Wisconsin farmers again, Slattery and experts say, as well as raise prices for consumers and have negative ripple effects on other businesses and industries in Wisconsin.

Trump announced on Feb. 1 that he would impose 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada and 10% on imports from China. Initially, both Canada and Mexico responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Canadians not to buy American-made products, but later Trump claimed he won concessions from the leaders and announced he had agreed to pause the tariffs for 30 days. Trump’s tariffs on imports from China went into effect on Feb. 4, and the Chinese government imposed 15% counter tariffs on U.S. goods that morning.

Tariffs are taxes one country imposes on goods imported from another country. Trump issued tariffs in his first term with the promise of increasing the number of factory jobs in the United States, which he didn’t do. This time, his tariffs on goods from the country’s largest trading partners are, he claims, part of his efforts to curb immigration and the importation of drugs into the United States.

The potential imposition of tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China, and the trade war with all three that could ensue, could have significant effects on Wisconsinites’ wallets, according to University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire economics professor Thomas Kemp.

“If all three of those were to be implemented, Wisconsin consumers would see a pretty substantial increase in costs in general, because those are our three largest trading partners as a state, and as a nation,” Kemp said.

Prices could be raised for groceries, fuel, cars, machinery, appliances, electronics, toys and clothing. Specifically, the U.S. imports a lot of fruit and vegetables from Mexico; lumber, oil and vehicles from Canada; and machinery and computer equipment from China.

Kemp said that often when tariffs affect the prices of consumer goods, there are sometimes cheaper substitutions to be found at the store. But because these tariffs will be placed on goods imported from America’s three main trade partners, and some of them are simply not produced domestically, it will be impossible for consumers to avoid some imported goods, Wisconsinites’ access to a range of products could be limited.

“There’s a reason why we trade, and there’s a reason why we specialize, and that allows us to consume a variety of goods and services. It’s unlikely that we’re going to produce mangoes in Wisconsin, because it’s just too cold. It’s unlikely they’re going to produce soybeans in the south of China because it’s just too hot and wet,” he said.

Retaliatory tariffs on American exported goods such as the ones China implemented and the leaders of Mexico and Canada have threatened, are also likely to hurt Wisconsin businesses and workers, especially those who rely on specific markets.

Producing more in the U.S. isn’t as desirable as people might think, Kemp said. Since manufacturing and agriculture have gotten more efficient and productive with fewer workers, producing more domestically wouldn’t necessarily result in many additional jobs. Kemp also noted that some specialized jobs are dependent on trade relationships.

“I don’t know if we think of things like the very specialized machinist in Wisconsin only can exist because of the very generalist manufacturing plant in China,” Kemp said.

Kemp said Trump’s promise that tariffs will shore up production and jobs in America is unlikely to be fulfilled immediately.

“The simple reason why it’s unlikely to happen in the short term is you just don’t start up an automobile factory overnight,” Kemp said. “You’re talking years, almost certainly, and perhaps even decades, before you start to see those effects.”

Many businesses, from mom-and-pop shops to big corporations, rely on equipment that comes from overseas, Kemp said, meaning their production and supply chains could be slowed by Trump’s tariffs.

In Wisconsin, many farmers use fertilizer and equipment, such as tractors, that are imported from other countries, Slattery said.

“This adversely affects us as farmers,” he said. “It affects us as both the lack of markets for us to sell our produce into, our products into, as well as increases our cost of doing business.”

All of this, he said, could lead to more small and mid-sized farms across Wisconsin being squeezed out by larger farms at a time when they’re already shuttering at rapid rates.

“We’re in a bad position,” Slattery said.


Olivia Herken wrote this article for the Wisconsin Independent.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio's food and agriculture industry contributes $124 billion to the state's economy annually.

Some farmers, however, argue that government policies need to be revised to support farmers nationwide in cultivating healthier foods for Americans.

A report from President Donald Trump's Make America Healthy Again Commission blames a poor diet as one of the leading causes of childhood chronic diseases.

But Joe Maxwell, president of the nonpartisan ag watchdog group Farm Action Fund, said the government's policies are a major contributor to the problem.

"They could shift government food procurement towards healthier foods," said Maxwell, "using government dollars and purchasing power to shift the agriculture and food system."

The MAHA report also lists toxic materials, medical treatments, lifestyle, environment, government policies, and food-production techniques as potential contributors to chronic childhood illnesses.

Ohio farmers produce more than 200 different crops and livestock, according to the state's Department of Agriculture.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture reports there are over 76,000 farms in the state. And 95% of them are family-owned.

Maxwell said he wants the Trump administration to confront the current system, which he said routinely prioritizes profits of foreign-owned conglomerates over the interests of American farmers and families.

"The president could renegotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement," he said, "and make sure that all beef and pork is labeled as Product of the USA."

Farm Action is also asking the government to shift subsidies toward healthier crops that grow fruits, vegetables and whole grains and to invest in local and regional food systems to strengthen rural economies and improve access to fresh food.



get more stories like this via email

A group of farmers says government policies need to change to support farms in West Virginia and elsewhere in cultivating foods that will improve Americans' health.

A report from President Donald Trump's "Make America Healthy Again" Commission blames a poor diet as one of the leading causes of childhood chronic disease. However, Joe Maxwell, president of the nonpartisan ag watchdog group Farm Action Fund, said the government's policies are a major contributor to the problem.

"They could shift government food procurement towards healthier foods," he said, "using government dollars and purchasing power to shift the agriculture and food system."

The "MAHA" report cites toxic materials, medical treatments, lifestyle, environment, government policies and food-production techniques as some of the many possible factors that cause chronic childhood diseases.

Farm Action believes ending support for big, corporate agriculture would help other farmers produce healthier foods.

Maxwell said he wants the Trump administration to confront the current system -- in which he said the profits of foreign-owned conglomerates are routinely prioritized over the interests of American farmers and families.

"The president could renegotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement," he said, "and make sure that all beef and pork is labeled as 'Product of the USA.'"

Farm Action is also asking the government to shift subsidies toward healthy food crops such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains and to invest in local and regional food systems to strengthen rural economies and improve access to fresh food.


get more stories like this via email

By Olivia Herken for the Wisconsin Independent.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Wisconsin Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

Every spring, Kat Becker is busy at her farm in north-central Wisconsin, delivering radishes and preparing for the busy vegetable-harvesting months ahead. But ever since President Donald Trump cut funding for a program that connected local farmers with food pantries across the state, she and other Wisconsin farmers have spent this spring being advocates as well.

In March, the Trump administration cut funding for the Wisconsin Local Food Purchase Assistance Program. Launched in 2021 as part of a nationwide effort to support local farmers and address hunger, the program was administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Wisconsin Farmers Union, the Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative, and the organic farming nonprofit Marbleseed were partners in the program.

Wisconsin farmers and community leaders said the program was a win-win for all participants, providing stable income to farmers and connecting residents in need with fresh, local produce. It also helped ignite a plan to improve food deserts around the state. Now that the program has been cut, however, it’s leaving farmers and community members who were banking on the funding and food in the lurch.

“It does feel like the momentum around this program is so important to keep going, because everything is planned, and the idea that we would be starting over in a year or two or four is frustrating,” Becker told the Wisconsin Independent.

Terry Parisi runs a small family farm in Stoughton where she raises cattle, grows vegetables, milks goats, and has a flock of chickens, plus a few helpful farm cats and a reliable dog named Joe. Since her husband died, Parisi and her son Franco run the farm. They work hard, but they still need off-farm jobs to make ends meet.

Last year, she received a $10,000 grant from the Local Food Purchase Assistance program in exchange for grass-fed beef. Parisi said selling beef usually involves a lot of hustle and marketing, but this program gave her peace of mind that they had already sold at least half of their herd before the season even started.

“It was very, very sweet to just rest, knowing that I had $10,000 worth of beef sold up front, ordered up front. Because I don’t have a big website and a big marketing tool to sell all of that beef, but we certainly have space to raise it,” Parisi told the Wisconsin Independent.

She was excited about the program because she knows organic food can be expensive, and she felt that it helped their farm connect with the community. “We are so gifted by having this property and feel a really huge responsibility to take care of it in a way that’s going to benefit the environment as well as feed people. So being able to be connected with, even then, just programs that are reaching the kind of community that we want to reach with our beef was really beneficial,” she said.

This year, Parisi couldn’t afford to buy as many cattle, but, after talking with the program partners, she decided to grow and sell sweet potatoes for the food pantries instead. She doubled her order of sweet potato slips over the winter. Then they found out the program had been cancelled.

Parisi was able to cancel her order of seedlings, but not every farmer involved in the program was able to adjust as quickly.

In rural Viola, Rufus Haucke was ready to plant winter squash, kale and peppers, just as he did in 2024 for the LFPA program. Keewaydin Farms, his family’s farm, which he converted from a dairy operation into an organic vegetable farm about 21 years ago, received a $20,000 grant from the program last year that he said contributed to his farm’s growth.

He said he expected the program to be cut after Trump was reelected, so he had been trying to prepare and find ways to pivot.

“We’re still planting some of those same crops, and there’s other markets we can send them into, probably. But we’re just not as certain, I guess. There’s just a level of uncertainty related to where those sales are going to come from,” Haucke said while picking asparagus during a phone interview with the Wisconsin Independent.

Becker had been planning to hire another staff member this year, but decided not to because of the unpredictability. Other farms, she said, planned to invest their grant money in infrastructure projects. Federal policy can be volatile for farmers, Becker said, and it can be hard to run a business and make confident decisions.

While the program provided farmers with stable income, it also benefited their communities, especially rural ones where there is often less access to fresh and healthy food. This year, the LFPA program was about to spark a stronger initiative to improve those food deserts. In previous years, the Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative distributed all of the produce for the LFPA across the state, but this year, it was going to have local farmers help distribute in their communities, which it hoped would strengthen local relationships between farmers and food banks, schools and grocery stores.

Haucke was slated to be one of the distributors in southwest Wisconsin; between that work and the money he was set to receive for his vegetables, he expected to receive roughly $50,000 from the program, which would have equaled roughly a quarter of his 2024 sales. Without the delivery trucks the groups running the program had rented to distribute produce, he said, farms too small to do their own distribution will be at risk of closing.

“I think it’s hard to describe how significant it is, but this was a major shift in how food pantries were preparing food, and it was a direct economic benefit to these small farms that were in these neighborhoods,” Haucke said. “Even if it was just $20,000 from my farm, I’m still spending that $20,000 in La Farge, in Viola, in these small areas. You can’t state how important that is. Every single penny is important out here.”

Juneau County ranks third in the state in food insecurity, according to Dustin Ladd, a conservationist for the county. He helped the county apply for an LFPA grant, and last year, it received $180,000 to purchase food from 13 local farms, which it distributed to residents at pop-up markets and through at-home meal delivery services.

The program was helping, Ladd said. Over 70% of the food recipients were over 50, and some of their events would draw over 100 families. The program also provided a less-stigmatized option for residents to access free food and gave them more options for fresh foods over the nonperishable options that often fill food pantry shelves.

“It’s a pretty big deal for those families to not have that option,” Ladd said. Testimonials from residents that Gina Laack, director of the Juneau County Aging and Disability Resource Center, shared with the Wisconsin Independent detailed how families used the program to stretch their monthly budgets and include more vegetables and quality meats in their meals.

Farmers and advocates are pushing for other funding to keep the program running. Becker said there are efforts to try to fund it locally or at the state level. She was recently in Washington advocating for food security programs, and Haucke said he’s been reaching out to his representatives. Gov. Tony Evers included funding for a version of the program in his 2025-27 state budget proposal, but Republican state lawmakers cut it in May. 

Parisi said programs like LFPA have shown her how important it is to feed people, and without them, families will be left hurting.

“The little tiny bit of money compared to all the rest of the money that gets spent on so much stuff, I feel like it’s a huge disservice to a certain population in our culture that is really going to lose out on this,” she said.


Olivia Herken wrote this article for the Wisconsin Independent.


get more stories like this via email