While nearly 85 percent of agricultural bankers favor the Trump Administration’s proposed $10-$12 billion in aid to farmers hurt by the president’s tariff policy, not all believe one-time payouts are the solution. Among the dissenting voices are Creighton University’s Dr. Ernie Goss, and agricultural lender Nicholas Felder, who chairs the ag committee for the Wisconsin Bankers Association. Both prefer farmers and ranchers retain access to functioning markets.
While temporary aid packages can be useful after weather-related disasters, “using checks for long-term problems like trade retaliation doesn’t solve the underlying issue,” Goss said. He characterized the approach as “using food as a weapon.”
“Farmers would rather sell products that end up on peoples’ tables across the globe than have products dumped somewhere and get paid indirectly,” said Goss, regional economist and professor in the College of Business at Creighton University, where he conducts the Rural Mainstreet Index. This survey provides comprehensive data regarding the rural and agricultural economy. The October 2025 survey revealed what farmers and lenders were anticipating in government aid, and reported seven out of 10 bankers support President Trump’s China trade steps.
The Trump Administration’s proposed aid package this winter is reminiscent of a similar bailout program during Trump’s first presidential term in 2018-19, the Market Facilitation Program. The package included $23 billion across the two years for farmers affected by foreign tariffs.
Goss sees three reasons for implementing tariffs: To protect infant industries, to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, and to negotiate with other countries to lower their tariffs. “Farmers and bankers believe the last element is what’s going to happen,” Goss said. “I’m not as confident.”
Felder, vice president and commercial lender with MidWestOne Bank, agrees. “The worst thing we could do is give farmers single-use checks,” said Felder, who is based in Lancaster, Wis. “Policies need to be longer-term: [things like] sustainable aviation fuel, credits to use more soybeans or alternative uses for corn. We also need to continue to find new trade partners. We can’t rely on China forever.”
Felder emphasized the importance of modernizing the systems through which farmers receive government relief checks. Some farmers were receiving payments this past fall for poor crop production during the 2024 growing season. “That doesn’t help their operating funds,” he said.
So why do so many ag bankers support this trade policy? Goss explained this comes down to one’s perspective on trade.
“I think the president views trade as having a winner and a loser,” Goss said. Yet from an economist’s standpoint, this isn’t true. “There are two winners with opening trade and two losers with closing trade,” he said. “China has been punished, but the U.S. has been punished. We’ve both been losers in this trade skirmish.”
Goss takes things back to the basics of why we trade: Comparative advantage. “You’re not going to grow hothouse bananas or hothouse coffee in Nebraska,” he said. “It makes sense to grow what you have a comparative advantage in and trade for the rest.”
When interventions via tariffs and trade policy come into play, direct government-aid to farmers becomes necessary. “You have the administration punishing farmers via retaliation from our trading partners,” Goss said. “If you’re going to do that, then there has to be some offset, or you’ll end up with no farming or certainly less farming in the United States.”
Instead of one-time payouts to farmers, Goss suggests other ways that the federal government can support the U.S. agricultural economy. Maintaining open waterways like the Mississippi, protecting major ports for U.S. imports and exports, funding university research for agriculture technology, and quickly repairing transportation routes like the bridge collapse in Baltimore are all crucial for agriculture. Goss also cited monetary policy as important: Farmers suffer depending on the value of the dollar, so a stable currency would help minimize volatility.
“Farmers are already subject to the whims of weather,” Goss said. “They don't want to be subject to the whims of Congress and the administration ... As economists, we believe markets solve problems better than politicians.”
