President Donald Trump’s proposal to use tariff revenue to bail out farmers experiencing harm from his administration’s trade policies is putting Democrats in the crosshairs of a sticky policy fight: support relief for working-class voters or continue battling the Trump administration’s economic agenda that they say is harmful to those Americans.

The president on Thursday floated using cash bailouts to ease the burden on farmers, a significant pro-Trump voting bloc, indicating that he is aware of the consequences of the trade war he is waging against other countries.

Recommended Stories

• Elon Musk and Steve Bannon mentioned in third batch of Epstein files received by House Oversight
• House Republicans move to end mail delivery of abortion pill
• Jeffries backs criminal investigation into 'illegal’ release of Mikie Sherrill’s records

TRUMP SAYS ‘SOME’ TARIFF REVENUE WILL GO TOWARD FARMER RELIEF PROGRAM

But Democrats are not jumping at the chance to help provide Republicans or Trump with any assistance, particularly as the 2026 midterm elections approach and the GOP defends the work of the trifecta since it took effect in January.

House Agriculture Committee ranking member Angie Craig (D-MN), who is running for Senate, said in a statement that the solution to alleviate the tariff’s effects on farmers is to “stop the trade wars.” 

“President Trump is desperately trying to find a way out of the mess he’s made with his trade war against the world,” Craig said. “Trump’s tariffs hurt farmers, but they also hurt small businesses, manufacturers and working families by making everything cost more.… stop pushing our largest trading partners into the arms of our competitors, stop the chaos in farm country.”

Several House Agriculture Democrats echoed Craig’s sentiments in statements to the Washington Examiner. Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-MD) said Trump’s tariffs have made life worse for farmers “already facing incredible uncertainty under this administration’s trade policies.”

“The President’s proposal sets a dangerous precedent, both for Congress’ power of the purse, and for our farmers who deserve real accountability, not temporary fixes tied to unpredictable and unsettled trade decisions,” McClain Delaney said.

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI) echoed McClain Delaney’s comments, arguing the relief is just a “band aid on a bullet wound; not nearly sufficient.”

Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), another committee Democrat, argued that future legislation should focus on preventive measures rather than fixing the consequences of the administration’s “reckless tariffs.” 

“Talk of bailouts is proof the administration knows its reckless tariffs are driving up input costs and crushing farmers and rural America in the process,” Vasquez said. “Farmers want stable prices, access to markets, and predictability — we need policy changes that could prevent farmer bankruptcies from happening in the first place.”

Democrats seem united against plans to funnel revenue in the name of removing the tariffs altogether. But strategists argue that feeling could be short-sighted. 

A vote on a farm aid package — or an appropriations omnibus package before Nov. 21 that includes relief for farmers — would put Democrats between a rock and a hard place, said William Reinsch, senior adviser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Reinsch told the Washington Examiner that he doesn’t blame farmland Democrats for sharing Craig’s sentiments. He added that he believed a separate vote on using tariff revenue for farmer aid relief, which does require congressional approval, would get Democratic support. 

But anything tucked into a larger bill, like a continuing resolution to fund the government, would likely be a party-line vote.

“And then [Trump] will say, you know, ‘The Democrats want to starve all the farmers,’” Reinsch said. “It’s a very clever strategy, and the Democrats are not in a good spot on any of this stuff.”

Trump’s remarks come as a government shutdown looms on Oct. 1. As of Friday, Democrats and Republicans are still unable to agree on a short-term spending deal that would punt the funding deadline and allow appropriators to work on the remaining appropriations bills. The proposed deal is a seven-week CR until Nov. 21, but Democrats are demanding healthcare concessions for their votes on the “clean” spending bill.

Whether farm aid could be used as a bargaining chip in this CR fight or in the battle leading up to the Nov. 21 deadline remains to be seen. Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) office did not respond to a request for comment on whether there have been any discussions with Trump on a legislative path forward on the farmer aid relief, or if they have a timeline for bringing bills on the subject to the floor.

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, told the Washington Examiner that “we would not get ahead of the President on any support for pending legislation.”

“President Trump and [Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins] are always in touch with the needs of our farmers, who played a crucial role in the President’s November victory,” Kelly said. “President Trump is delivering on his promise to cool inflation, which will lower input costs, and negotiate fairer trade deals that are opening new markets for America’s agriculture industry.”

Democrats in Congress, as well as some Republicans, have criticized the Trump administration’s use of tariffs, arguing they undermine the legislative branch’s power of the purse as set in the Constitution. House GOP leadership has largely insulated the president against any votes against his tariff policies, with a recent vote on a procedural rule successfully blocking any effort to terminate the tariffs until the end of January. In the interim, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the legality of Trump’s tariffs on Nov. 5.

Providing farm relief to offset his policies is not a new move for Trump. During his first term, relief was sent out to farmers through a series of aid packages between 2018 and 2020 that totaled more than $23 billion. The funds were funneled through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation, rather than being appropriated by Congress.

However, Reinsch, who served as the undersecretary of commerce for export administration during the Clinton administration, pointed out that using the CCC’s money to bail out farmers during the first term “really depleted the fund.” 

Because of this, he said, Trump will be forced to go to Congress for additional funding.

“The irony of it is, he’s spending a lot of money to solve a problem that he created,” Reinsch said. “The farmers are in bad shape because of the tariffs. So his solution, rather than undoing the policies, is to basically pay them off, which is exactly what he did in the first term.” 

Republicans, including House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA), have praised Trump’s comments and plans to direct portions of the tariff revenue to farmers. Thompson and Rollins have floated a farm aid package or redirecting tariff revenue to farmers in some capacity for months.

“Years of Biden’s broken promises, from failing to enforce the Phase 1 agreement to letting inflation run wild while foreign governments use our farmers as pawns, have devastated American agriculture,” Thompson said in a statement. “President Trump is right to support them and step in to provide a bridge to the enhanced farm safety net policies in H.R. 1, which will kick in next year. I’m committed to working with the Trump Administration to support farmers and rural America during critical economic times.”

H.R. 1, or the “big, beautiful bill,” signed into law in July, is set to provide $56 billion to increase agriculture programs over the next decade. But Reinsch noted that farmers won’t feel the effect of that law now.

“That’s in the next crop year,” the strategist said. “That won’t help them.” 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has legislation to provide stimulus checks to working-class Americans, said in a post to X that he agrees with the president’s plan. When asked for comment, his office pointed the Washington Examiner to an interview with Punchbowl News, in which he criticized Democrats who would oppose the proposal.

“I’d just say to my Democrat colleagues — they always say they’re the party of the working class,” Hawley said. “Well, fantastic, you know what, let’s compromise and let’s agree to give working people relief. We can start with farmers and go from there.”

Farmers have always traditionally leaned toward Republicans. The most farming-dependent counties in the United States overwhelmingly voted for Trump by an average of 77.7% in the 2024 election, and a similar but slightly smaller percentage in 2020. 

Then came Trump’s decision to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, which purchased roughly $2 billion in products from farmers every year, causing significant ramifications for farmers dependent on that income. Farming aid groups have raised the alarm, and Democrats from farming communities have been quick to blast the administration over harmful policies to a large sector of the U.S. economy. 

But Democrats shouldn’t expect farmers to shift blue suddenly, Reinsch said. Even in the aftermath of Trump’s policies, Reinsch does not anticipate the 2025 tariffs will affect farmers’ support of the president and Republicans.

TRUMP GETS AD SUPPORT FOR CHINA TARIFF WAR AS FARMERS PUSH FOR ECONOMIC RELIEF

“If you talk to farmers, they’ll take the money partly because a growing number of them are underwater,” Reinsch said, citing reports that farmers are projecting they may lose $100 to $200 an acre. 

“If somebody comes in and offers them money, that’s fine, but if you ask them what they want, what they’ll really say is, ‘What we want is to be able to sell our products. We don’t really want government handouts. We want markets.’ And what [Trump’s] doing is limiting the markets rather than creating them,” Reinsch said.

Mabinty Quarshie contributed to this report.