In northeast Iowa, Mark Mueller watched fertilizer prices spiral out of control. Two days after Trump ordered strikes on Iran, his supplier called with news: the price had jumped from $795 to $850 per ton. The Strait of Hormuz closure disrupted shipments, and Mueller's biggest operating expense kept climbing. By late March, it hit $1,050 a ton, nearly a third higher than before the conflict.
Mueller is a corn and soybean farmer who dreams of passing the operation to his two adult daughters. He is not alone in facing a squeeze that feels existential.
Across Iowa's farm country, the picture is grim. Diesel fuel, essential for planting and harvest, jumped from $3.75 to more than $5.50 per gallon since the Iran conflict began. Equipment costs remain punishing. A new combine or tractor runs a million dollars or more. Repair bills climb. And then there are the trade wars, which create uncertainty that makes planning nearly impossible.
"Scary," said Steve Rehder, 62, a family farmer in northwest Iowa, when asked to describe the farm economy. "Volatile," said Jason Orr, a northeastern Iowa farmer who serves on the state's Corn Promotion Board. "Miserable," said Lance Lillibridge, 56, who raises corn and cattle in eastern Iowa.
Yet these men voted for Trump, and most say they would again. That paradox defines the moment for Republicans heading into November's midterm elections, when Iowa has become a Senate battleground with Democrat hopes of flipping the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Joni Ernst.
Interviews with 13 Iowa farmers reveal a population caught between faith in Trump and fear about survival. Eleven had voted for him in past elections. Most acknowledge that operating margins are so thin they teeter between profit and bankruptcy. They have watched fellow farmers go bankrupt or take their own lives, a trend that grows darker each year. Back in 2021, farmers were three and a half times more likely to die by suicide than the general population, according to David Brown, a behavior health specialist at Iowa State University.
Stu Swanson, who raises corn and soybeans in Galt, voted for Trump in the first two general elections. In 2024, he wrote in Nikki Haley's name instead. He remains haunted by the mental health crisis unfolding quietly across rural America. "I know of five farmers across this state that have taken their lives since last fall," said Orr. "I would assume that finances play a part in that."
Most of the farmers didn't regret their support. They appreciate Trump's directness. "He tells it the way it is," said Rehder. "You may not like it, and you might not agree with it, but he tells it the way he wants it."
Trump has cultivated farmers aggressively. He invited hundreds to the White House in March, where he stood before a gold tractor and reminded them they "once again have a true friend and champion in the Oval Office." He highlighted a $12 billion aid package and a tax break allowing farmers to write off 100% of equipment costs. "I just gave you $12 billion," Trump said. "You think Biden would have done that?"
Mueller was present at that event, invited as president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association. When he left the White House grounds, he overheard farmers making pointed comments. One stuck with him: "Funny, I kind of remember making money during the Biden administration."
The observation reflects reality. According to Chad Hart, a crop market specialist at Iowa State University, 2021 and 2022, the first half of Biden's term, were "some of the best years U.S. agriculture has seen in terms of net farm income." Market conditions, not government policy, had fueled those gains.
The $12 billion payment troubles farmers more than it helps. Government subsidies don't address systemic problems, they argue, and the quick cash often backfires. Suppliers know farmers just received a check and line up to claim a share. "I look at these programs where the government keeps wanting to write farmers checks, and to me, this is more medicine that's making us sick," said Elliott Henderson, a farmer in northeast Iowa. "I never get to keep that money."
Recent polling shows the mood darkening. A Fox News survey found that 68% of white rural voters disapproved of Trump's economic stewardship, compared with only 32% who approved. In January, those same voters had approved 52% to 47%.
Trump's trade strategy offers another source of uncertainty. He returned from a China summit claiming Beijing would purchase more than $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products through 2028, a potential breakthrough. But farmers remember the last promise. During Trump's first term, China pledged to buy an additional $32 billion in U.S. agricultural products in 2020-21 but delivered only about 83% of that commitment. More recently, Trump's new tariffs on China sparked retaliatory duties that slashed U.S. farm exports to China by nearly $15 billion from March 2025 to February, according to a North Dakota State University report.
Some farmers defend Trump anyway, believing he is the first president willing to confront China. "It's going to get ugly for a while, but in the long run, it's going to help us," said Loren Van Regenmorter, a 69-year-old farmer in northwest Iowa. "Trump is the first president we've had in a long time that will stand up to China."
Yet the future of family farming hangs in doubt. Loren and his wife, Arda, 67, operate approximately 6,000 acres. Their son, Travis, spent 12 years working the farm before leaving for a job at John Deere, driven partly by stress. The Van Regenmorters have no clear successor. "That's what we don't know," said Loren when asked the farm's fate. "We're waiting to see how God has this planned out for us."
When pressed on whether Trump's presidency has been good for farmers so far, Orr paused for several seconds. "The jury is still out on that one," he said. "He started something in his first presidency that didn't get finished. And I hope to God that he follows through by the time this one is over with."
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Iowa farmers remain loyal to Trump despite real pain, which suggests that economic anger alone won't shift rural politics, at least not yet."
Comments