Big Ag continues to advocate for the agricultural trade policies that have failed farmers for decades.
Even major U.S. agricultural surplus products like corn and wheat have had stagnant or declining export volume.
Meanwhile the total agricultural trade deficit has flipped negative to the tune of $38 billion in 2024.
Family farms have suffered (over 312,000 lost family farms since 1997)
Large-scale agribusiness has taken over extensive agricultural market share (38.3% share in 1987 to 66.4% by 2012) and cropland percentage.
Consumers have also suffered as long-distance supply chains have substantially lowered the nutritional value of produce.
The U.S. critically needs a Section 232 investigation on agriculture.
In April 2025, a coalition of 30 Big Ag industry groups sent a letter urging Congress to “maintain U.S. leadership in the World Trade Organization (WTO)”. The letter argues that the global trading system is essential for American agriculture to “feed the world” and that WTO membership has benefitted the U.S.. However, these toted benefits are extremely misleading and entirely based on nominal value changes, not actual increased export volume.
In reality, these same globalization policies have gutted U.S. farms, empowered foreign suppliers, and handed us the largest agricultural trade deficit in American history. More of the same open trade policies will only worsen this trend and continue hollowing out family farms across the country. Family farms aren’t feeding the world—they’re fighting to survive.
Export Growth is a Mirage
Big Ag proponents of the WTO often tout the rising total value of U.S. agricultural exports as a success story. The WTO Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) substantially lowered global trade barriers for agriculture and increased wide-ranging market access effective starting in 1995. However, this agreement did not truly benefit U.S. agriculture.
U.S. agricultural export value did hit near-record levels in recent years for some products. However, these gains have been very concentrated in particular products, and even then, are largely a mirage of price inflation and commodity market swings – not sustained growth in true export volume.
Adjusting for inflation reveals a sobering fact: U.S. agricultural exports have plateaued.
At first glance, it seems U.S. agricultural exports are up substantially. In 1995, the U.S. had $62.31 billion in total agricultural exports, and in 2024, total agricultural exports were $175.98 billion (an increase of 182%). However, the 1995 value of $62.31 billion in exports is actually $130.74 billion in today’s prices due to inflation (lower the total gains to 34.6%).
These supposed export gains are further diminished when taking into account increasing commodity prices. U.S. agricultural exports are dominated by Grains & Oilseeds such as wheat, corn, and soybeans. These three products alone account for about 95% of the U.S.’s total trade surplus in 2024. And many of these products have seen substantial price increases (far above total inflation), artificially inflating their export value. For example, global corn prices have risen 94.3% since 1995, substantially inflating the export value of one the few major U.S. agricultural surplus products.
This price inflation distortion can be clearly seen when looking at export volume, rather than value. As shown in Figure 1, while U.S. corn export value has risen substantially, total volume (the amount of corn we actually sold) is flat. In 2024, the U.S. exported only 4.1% more corn than it did in 1995, despite global population increasing by 41.7% during the same time (hardly “feeding the world” as the Big Ag letter puts it). Moreover, 1995 U.S. corn export volume was actually higher than total export volume in both 2022 and 2023.
FIGURE 1:
The trend is even worse for products such as wheat (another one of the few major U.S. agricultural surplus products). Total U.S. wheat export volume is down 33.3% since 1995 when the WTO agricultural agreement measures began to take effect. After adjusting for inflation and rising commodity prices, real U.S. export growth is anemic at best—and nonexistent in volume terms.
This shows how inflation and higher commodity prices masked a lack of real growth in U.S. agricultural exports. The promised export growth from “free trade” simply never materialized in volume terms, and a continuation of the same failed policy will only get the same results.
Record Trade Deficit, Eroding Food Sovereignty
The lack of export growth is not the primary danger that trade globalization has posed. As always the domestic U.S. market is a far bigger prize than chasing export growth, and this is where the vast majority of U.S. farmers have suffered greatly.
The United States has historically been known as the world’s “breadbasket,” running decades-long surpluses in agricultural trade. However, because of completely unregulated global trade policy, this is no longer the case. America’s farm trade balance has flipped deep into the red, completely burying the rosy narrative of endless export growth.
As shown in Figure 2, the U.S. agricultural trade surplus was slowly deteriorated over decades of WTO deals and other free trade agreements. By 2019, the U.S. posted it’s first agricultural trade deficit in nearly 60 years. In 2024, this deficit ballooned to over $38 billion, nearly as much as our highest trade surplus year on record.
FIGURE 2:
Our agricultural trade balance has completely flipped due to decades of failed trade policies that open the U.S. market up to underpriced imports and run family farms out of business.
U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts show this trend worsening. The USDA’s outlook for fiscal year 2025 projects U.S. agricultural exports at $170.5 billion versus imports of $219.5 billion, pushing the annual agricultural trade deficit to about $49 billion.
These numbers are alarming. They show a growing U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers for our food supply. Despite Big Ag’s insistence that WTO-led trade makes America “safe and prosperous,” the data shows that free trade policies have dismantled U.S. food independence. A record trade deficit in food is not a sign of strength – it is a flashing warning light that our agricultural sector’s health is in jeopardy under the free trade status quo.
Family Farms: Collateral Damage of Globalization
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the pro-WTO Big Ag letter is any recognition of how trade liberalization has affected America’s small and family-owned farms. While big agribusiness exporters and food processing giants may have profited from globalization, family farmers have borne the brunt of import competition and industry consolidation. Decades of “cheap food” trade policies opened the floodgates to heavily subsidized foreign imports that undercut U.S. farmers in their own market and made the United States dangerously reliant on foreign food supply and unstable global supply chains.
The result of the agriculture import surge has been devastating for many small and mid-sized farms. These producers rarely have the volume or capital to export globally; instead they depend on local and domestic markets. But they’ve been squeezed out of those markets by surging imports and have been abandoned by Washington.
The only winners from this open agricultural trade have been the same multinational agribusiness players lobbying for more of it. These big producers have stood to gain an increasing market share while regular family farms are run out of business.
Big Ag Wins, Farmers Lose
A 2018 USDAEconomic Research Service study outlines the extensive consolidation in U.S. agricultural industry and how small- and medium-sized farmers have suffered. In 1987, small farms accounted for 37.2% of market value of agricultural products sold, and just 14.5% in 2012. Meanwhile, large-scale farming operations increased their total market share from 38.3% in 1987 to 66.4% by 2012.
In addition to market share, total farmland has also been consolidated by Big Ag. As shown in Figure 3, USDA Economic Research Service data illustrates the concentration of U.S. cropland into large-scale agribusiness and the shift away from small and medium sized farms.
In 1987, 57% of all U.S. cropland was held by midsize farms with 100-999 acres of cropland. 15% of cropland was controlled by agribusiness producers with at least 2,000 acres.
By 2012, medium-sized farms only held 33% of U.S. cropland, while large-scale agribusiness’s cropland share grew to 41%.
It is completely clear who is benefiting from agricultural free trade and who is losing. U.S. trade policy over the past decades has hollowed out of the middle of American agriculture by prioritizing global export markets over local and domestic economic viability. Any serious policy for U.S. food security must address the needs of these family farms, not just the agribusiness exporters, and not make the same mistakes again.
Long-Distance Food Systems Hurt Nutrition and Communities
This globalized food system is not only bad for U.S. farmers, it is also bad for consumers. Increased access to agriculture trade does not automatically equal better nutrition or food security. In reality, globalized food supply chains often degrade nutritional value and undermine local food systems.
Food that is shipped thousands of miles is typically harvested before peak ripeness and bred for shelf-life over flavor or nutrition. As distance and transit time increase, freshness declines and essential nutrients are lost. The result is that consumers may receive produce that looks fresh in the supermarket, but is actually lower in vitamins and antioxidants than truly fresh, local produce.
Long-distance food trade might give consumers year-round variety, but it should not come at the cost of local farmers and fresh, nutritious, and local food options. Local food systems and the farmers who supply them have been undermined by the prevalence of imported foods. In the early 1980s, only about 30% of the fresh fruit consumed in the U.S. was imported; today, nearly 60% of America’s “fresh” fruit is supplied by imports.
Section 232: Next Steps for Saving U.S. Agriculture
It is increasingly clear that America’s current agricultural trade policy is failing to deliver for family farms, consumers, and long-term national interests. The trends of stagnant export volumes, record trade deficits, loss of small farms, and deteriorating nutrition all point to the need for a course correction.
Food is not just another commodity; it is a strategic resource tied directly to national security. The COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical conflicts have underscored the importance of resilient domestic supply chains, none more critical than food supply.
The United States needs a Section 232 investigation covering all five major agricultural chapters of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). A Section 232 investigation is triggered by a clear national security risk, which our agriculture situation has clearly become. A globalized U.S. food supply is more volatile and completely vulnerable to supply disruptions, shortages, and instability anywhere in the world.
Food supply is just as critical if not more critical to national security compared to other industries that have already received Section 232 investigations such as steel, aluminum, copper, timber, lumber, and more.
A robust Section 232 investigation can address these issues, protect U.S. consumers, and revitalize American farms. Such a probe would be able to outline the most critical product import surges weakening our nation’s food security and identify the necessary support for U.S. farmers and consumers. These targeted safeguards could include tariffs, absolute quotas, and prohibitive tariff-rate quotas tailored to current U.S. production and agricultural needs. Section 232 measures would allow local American farmers across the country to recapture market share and provide Americans with more local and nutritious food choices.
Conclusion
The April 2025 letter from Big Ag groups praising the WTO trading system reflects a status quo mindset at the exact time U.S. family farms are on their backfoot.
The U.S. cannot afford to continue focusing on agricultural export markets and retaliation. The current policies have already allowed other nations to capture our home market and allowed imports to force over 312,000 family farms out of business.
By launching a Section 232 investigation and enacting strategic tariffs or quotas, the U.S. can revitalize U.S. farming and local food production. In fact, many of our trade partners already aggressively protect their own farmers through subsidies and import restrictions, even as they benefit from access to U.S. consumers. Agriculture should be local and every country needs to have its own food supply.
Feeding America with abundant, healthy, locally-produced food is as important as any trade or industrial goal. Reinforcing our capacity to feed ourselves makes the nation stronger, safer, and more prosperous, whole the Big Ag status quo blindly follows a globalized model that has left far too many American farms behind.
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
Big Ag is Dead Wrong on Trade
America's Family Farms Are Paying the Price
KEY POINTS
In April 2025, a coalition of 30 Big Ag industry groups sent a letter urging Congress to “maintain U.S. leadership in the World Trade Organization (WTO)”. The letter argues that the global trading system is essential for American agriculture to “feed the world” and that WTO membership has benefitted the U.S.. However, these toted benefits are extremely misleading and entirely based on nominal value changes, not actual increased export volume.
In reality, these same globalization policies have gutted U.S. farms, empowered foreign suppliers, and handed us the largest agricultural trade deficit in American history. More of the same open trade policies will only worsen this trend and continue hollowing out family farms across the country. Family farms aren’t feeding the world—they’re fighting to survive.
Export Growth is a Mirage
Big Ag proponents of the WTO often tout the rising total value of U.S. agricultural exports as a success story. The WTO Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) substantially lowered global trade barriers for agriculture and increased wide-ranging market access effective starting in 1995. However, this agreement did not truly benefit U.S. agriculture.
U.S. agricultural export value did hit near-record levels in recent years for some products. However, these gains have been very concentrated in particular products, and even then, are largely a mirage of price inflation and commodity market swings – not sustained growth in true export volume.
Adjusting for inflation reveals a sobering fact: U.S. agricultural exports have plateaued.
At first glance, it seems U.S. agricultural exports are up substantially. In 1995, the U.S. had $62.31 billion in total agricultural exports, and in 2024, total agricultural exports were $175.98 billion (an increase of 182%). However, the 1995 value of $62.31 billion in exports is actually $130.74 billion in today’s prices due to inflation (lower the total gains to 34.6%).
These supposed export gains are further diminished when taking into account increasing commodity prices. U.S. agricultural exports are dominated by Grains & Oilseeds such as wheat, corn, and soybeans. These three products alone account for about 95% of the U.S.’s total trade surplus in 2024. And many of these products have seen substantial price increases (far above total inflation), artificially inflating their export value. For example, global corn prices have risen 94.3% since 1995, substantially inflating the export value of one the few major U.S. agricultural surplus products.
This price inflation distortion can be clearly seen when looking at export volume, rather than value. As shown in Figure 1, while U.S. corn export value has risen substantially, total volume (the amount of corn we actually sold) is flat. In 2024, the U.S. exported only 4.1% more corn than it did in 1995, despite global population increasing by 41.7% during the same time (hardly “feeding the world” as the Big Ag letter puts it). Moreover, 1995 U.S. corn export volume was actually higher than total export volume in both 2022 and 2023.
FIGURE 1:
The trend is even worse for products such as wheat (another one of the few major U.S. agricultural surplus products). Total U.S. wheat export volume is down 33.3% since 1995 when the WTO agricultural agreement measures began to take effect. After adjusting for inflation and rising commodity prices, real U.S. export growth is anemic at best—and nonexistent in volume terms.
This shows how inflation and higher commodity prices masked a lack of real growth in U.S. agricultural exports. The promised export growth from “free trade” simply never materialized in volume terms, and a continuation of the same failed policy will only get the same results.
Record Trade Deficit, Eroding Food Sovereignty
The lack of export growth is not the primary danger that trade globalization has posed. As always the domestic U.S. market is a far bigger prize than chasing export growth, and this is where the vast majority of U.S. farmers have suffered greatly.
The United States has historically been known as the world’s “breadbasket,” running decades-long surpluses in agricultural trade. However, because of completely unregulated global trade policy, this is no longer the case. America’s farm trade balance has flipped deep into the red, completely burying the rosy narrative of endless export growth.
As shown in Figure 2, the U.S. agricultural trade surplus was slowly deteriorated over decades of WTO deals and other free trade agreements. By 2019, the U.S. posted it’s first agricultural trade deficit in nearly 60 years. In 2024, this deficit ballooned to over $38 billion, nearly as much as our highest trade surplus year on record.
FIGURE 2:
Our agricultural trade balance has completely flipped due to decades of failed trade policies that open the U.S. market up to underpriced imports and run family farms out of business.
U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts show this trend worsening. The USDA’s outlook for fiscal year 2025 projects U.S. agricultural exports at $170.5 billion versus imports of $219.5 billion, pushing the annual agricultural trade deficit to about $49 billion.
These numbers are alarming. They show a growing U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers for our food supply. Despite Big Ag’s insistence that WTO-led trade makes America “safe and prosperous,” the data shows that free trade policies have dismantled U.S. food independence. A record trade deficit in food is not a sign of strength – it is a flashing warning light that our agricultural sector’s health is in jeopardy under the free trade status quo.
Family Farms: Collateral Damage of Globalization
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the pro-WTO Big Ag letter is any recognition of how trade liberalization has affected America’s small and family-owned farms. While big agribusiness exporters and food processing giants may have profited from globalization, family farmers have borne the brunt of import competition and industry consolidation. Decades of “cheap food” trade policies opened the floodgates to heavily subsidized foreign imports that undercut U.S. farmers in their own market and made the United States dangerously reliant on foreign food supply and unstable global supply chains.
The result of the agriculture import surge has been devastating for many small and mid-sized farms. These producers rarely have the volume or capital to export globally; instead they depend on local and domestic markets. But they’ve been squeezed out of those markets by surging imports and have been abandoned by Washington.
(USDA Census of Agriculture: 1997-2022)
The only winners from this open agricultural trade have been the same multinational agribusiness players lobbying for more of it. These big producers have stood to gain an increasing market share while regular family farms are run out of business.
Big Ag Wins, Farmers Lose
A 2018 USDA Economic Research Service study outlines the extensive consolidation in U.S. agricultural industry and how small- and medium-sized farmers have suffered. In 1987, small farms accounted for 37.2% of market value of agricultural products sold, and just 14.5% in 2012. Meanwhile, large-scale farming operations increased their total market share from 38.3% in 1987 to 66.4% by 2012.
In addition to market share, total farmland has also been consolidated by Big Ag. As shown in Figure 3, USDA Economic Research Service data illustrates the concentration of U.S. cropland into large-scale agribusiness and the shift away from small and medium sized farms.
FIGURE 3:
*Chart from USDA Economic Research Service
It is completely clear who is benefiting from agricultural free trade and who is losing. U.S. trade policy over the past decades has hollowed out of the middle of American agriculture by prioritizing global export markets over local and domestic economic viability. Any serious policy for U.S. food security must address the needs of these family farms, not just the agribusiness exporters, and not make the same mistakes again.
Long-Distance Food Systems Hurt Nutrition and Communities
This globalized food system is not only bad for U.S. farmers, it is also bad for consumers. Increased access to agriculture trade does not automatically equal better nutrition or food security. In reality, globalized food supply chains often degrade nutritional value and undermine local food systems.
Food that is shipped thousands of miles is typically harvested before peak ripeness and bred for shelf-life over flavor or nutrition. As distance and transit time increase, freshness declines and essential nutrients are lost. The result is that consumers may receive produce that looks fresh in the supermarket, but is actually lower in vitamins and antioxidants than truly fresh, local produce.
Long-distance food trade might give consumers year-round variety, but it should not come at the cost of local farmers and fresh, nutritious, and local food options. Local food systems and the farmers who supply them have been undermined by the prevalence of imported foods. In the early 1980s, only about 30% of the fresh fruit consumed in the U.S. was imported; today, nearly 60% of America’s “fresh” fruit is supplied by imports.
Section 232: Next Steps for Saving U.S. Agriculture
It is increasingly clear that America’s current agricultural trade policy is failing to deliver for family farms, consumers, and long-term national interests. The trends of stagnant export volumes, record trade deficits, loss of small farms, and deteriorating nutrition all point to the need for a course correction.
Food is not just another commodity; it is a strategic resource tied directly to national security. The COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical conflicts have underscored the importance of resilient domestic supply chains, none more critical than food supply.
The United States needs a Section 232 investigation covering all five major agricultural chapters of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). A Section 232 investigation is triggered by a clear national security risk, which our agriculture situation has clearly become. A globalized U.S. food supply is more volatile and completely vulnerable to supply disruptions, shortages, and instability anywhere in the world.
Food supply is just as critical if not more critical to national security compared to other industries that have already received Section 232 investigations such as steel, aluminum, copper, timber, lumber, and more.
A robust Section 232 investigation can address these issues, protect U.S. consumers, and revitalize American farms. Such a probe would be able to outline the most critical product import surges weakening our nation’s food security and identify the necessary support for U.S. farmers and consumers. These targeted safeguards could include tariffs, absolute quotas, and prohibitive tariff-rate quotas tailored to current U.S. production and agricultural needs. Section 232 measures would allow local American farmers across the country to recapture market share and provide Americans with more local and nutritious food choices.
Conclusion
The April 2025 letter from Big Ag groups praising the WTO trading system reflects a status quo mindset at the exact time U.S. family farms are on their backfoot.
The U.S. cannot afford to continue focusing on agricultural export markets and retaliation. The current policies have already allowed other nations to capture our home market and allowed imports to force over 312,000 family farms out of business.
By launching a Section 232 investigation and enacting strategic tariffs or quotas, the U.S. can revitalize U.S. farming and local food production. In fact, many of our trade partners already aggressively protect their own farmers through subsidies and import restrictions, even as they benefit from access to U.S. consumers. Agriculture should be local and every country needs to have its own food supply.
Feeding America with abundant, healthy, locally-produced food is as important as any trade or industrial goal. Reinforcing our capacity to feed ourselves makes the nation stronger, safer, and more prosperous, whole the Big Ag status quo blindly follows a globalized model that has left far too many American farms behind.
MADE IN AMERICA.
CPA is the leading national, bipartisan organization exclusively representing domestic producers and workers across many industries and sectors of the U.S. economy.
TRENDING
CPA Expresses Concern over U.S.-UK Trade Framework’s Impact on U.S. Steel Industry
CPA Applauds Trump Administration for Prioritizing Revenue and Protection in New U.S.-UK Trade Deal
India’s Zero-for-Zero Reciprocal Tariff Offer Must be a Non-Starter
Tariff Fears Drive 14% Spike in U.S. Trade Deficit Ahead of April ‘Liberation Day’
CPA Applauds President Trump’s Executive Order to Restore U.S. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
The latest CPA news and updates, delivered every Friday.
WATCH: WE ARE CPA
Get the latest in CPA news, industry analysis, opinion, and updates from Team CPA.
CHECK OUT THE NEWSROOM ➔