The chickens are coming home to roost. As harvest season approaches, American soybean farmers are discovering what happens when politicians prioritize trade wars over agricultural reality – and it's not pretty.
When Politics Meets Reality
The Guardian reported on August 16 that American farmers are caught in what can only be described as a perfect storm: climate disasters, soaring costs, and plummeting international demand thanks to Washington's brilliant tariff strategy. But it's the loss of the Chinese market that really got farmers sweating. Virginia Houston, the US Soy Association's government affairs director, didn't mince words: "No market can compare to China's demand for soybeans."
And she's absolutely right. Soybeans are America's agricultural export crown jewel, and China has been the biggest customer by a country mile. The numbers don't lie: in 2024, China imported roughly 105 million tonnes of soybeans, with the US supplying 22.13 million tonnes. Compare that to Mexico – America's second-largest buyer – which purchased less than 6 million tonnes. You don't need a PhD in economics to see there's no replacing that kind of demand.
The Tariff Trap
Here's where things get interesting. Ever since Trump slapped tariffs on China back in 2017, Beijing has been quietly but systematically pivoting toward South America. It's almost as if they saw this coming and decided to play the long game while Washington was busy making grand political gestures.
According to analyst Karen Braun's numbers, US exporters managed to sell just 3 million tonnes of soybeans in late July – a 20-year low. Meanwhile, Brazilian soybeans are flowing into China like there's no tomorrow. Brazilian consulting firm Safras & Mercado reports that China has already locked in about 8 million tonnes for September and 4 million tonnes for October, mostly from Brazil. South China Morning Post points out that's America's traditional "golden export window" from September to January getting squeezed out of existence.
Houston's admission says it all: "Under tariff barriers, we simply cannot compete with Brazil." The reality is stark – China hasn't purchased a single order of US soybeans this year. Not one.
Mother Nature Joins the Party
But wait, there's more! As if trade wars weren't enough, Mother Nature decided to pile on. This year's been a disaster for the American Midwest – frequent rainfall has left fields waterlogged and triggered pest outbreaks, decimating corn and soybean crops.
Take Brian Harbage, a seventh-generation farm owner in Ohio. His family barely managed to finish planting in June – half a month late. That means crops won't mature properly, quality will suffer, and he's had to spend extra cash on propane just to dry out waterlogged corn. His message to Trump? Simple: "Exports are the top priority."
"China, Mexico, and Canada – we export $83 billion worth of goods to them annually," Harbage explained. "Therefore, if they don't buy, we'll be stuck with our crops." It's basic economics, really.
The Politics of Empty Promises
America’s farm economy has been stuck in a rut for three years—commodity prices stay low, cattle herds shrink, and input costs only rise. Houston says today’s conditions are even worse than during the 2018 trade war peak. Farmers vent their frustrations to politicians, only to get the same old “we support you” platitudes.
Trump’s most recent pronouncement on Truth Social—demanding China quadruple orders—felt detached from realities, especially with China and Brazil deepening their cooperation through traceable, certified supply chains. Critics blast Washington’s $60 billion subsidy pledge as patchwork favouring agribusiness, rather than real relief for family farms.
Brutal Truth: US Farmers Left Behind
For farmers like Harbage, this isn't just market volatility anymore – it's an existential crisis. "If we can't export, prices will collapse; if the harvest is also poor, that's a double blow," he said. "I understand what the government wants to do, but it's hurting me in the short term."
The brutal truth? In today's reshaping global supply chains, America can't just rely on political bluster to win back markets but has to face the reality that the dominance of the Chinese market is no longer easy to recover.
Mao Paishou
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The New Year barely begins, and Washington drops a flashbang on global diplomacy. A sitting president is forcibly detained and taken out of his own country — a move that blows past diplomatic convention and rams straight into international law’s red lines. On Taiwan, the chatter instantly turns into self-projection, as some people try to shoehorn a faraway conflict into the island’s own storyline. Anxiety spreads fast.
Maduro in cuffs, in a US federal courtroom — the raid’s image problem. (AP)
The South China Morning Post says the US action against Venezuela ignites a fierce debate on the island. Some commentary links the raid to the PLA’s recent encirclement drills around Taiwan, arguing parts of those exercises look, at least in form, like the US’s so-called “decapitation operations”: essentially a leadership-targeting operation. Some American scholars also warn this kind of play could set a dangerous precedent and invite copycats.
“Justice Mission-2025” rolls on as the Eastern Theater Command drills.
That debate doesn’t stay academic for long. It pumps up the island’s unease, with some people asking whether the same kind of military method could one day be copied and pasted into the Taiwan Strait. Even if it mostly lives in public talk, a high-tension political environment turns speculation into something that feels like risk.
People on the island don’t read the US move the same way. A small minority treats it as a US power flex, packed with intel integration, precision strike, and long-range reach. But the more clear-eyed view is harsher: such action chips away at the basic consensus of international order — because if major powers can raid at will and topple other countries’ leaders for their own aims, “rules” stop acting like rules.
Anxiety turns into politics
That worry quickly lands in Taiwan’s political arena. On Jan 5, multiple Taiwan legislators pressed Deputy Defense Minister Hsu Szu-chien at the legislature, asking how he views the US action against Venezuela and whether the PLA might replicate a similar model in the Taiwan Strait. Hsu doesn’t answer head-on. Rather, he merely mentioned preparing and drilling for all kinds of sudden contingencies.
Then he pivots to money. He urges the legislature to pass military budget appropriations quickly and plays up the urgency of delays eating into “preparation time.”
That kind of sidestep, unsurprisingly, only deepened public unease.
SCMP, citing multiple security experts, says the DPP authorities try to play down the association — but outsiders don’t fully rule it out. The reason, those experts argue, is the PLA’s continuing push to improve its ability to shift from exercises to real combat. On the island, that alone works like an anxiety amplifier.
Back in the real world, the PLA Eastern Theater Command has been running “Justice Mission-2025” exercises since Dec 29 last year. Official statements spell out the purpose: a stern warning to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces and external interference, and a move aimed at safeguarding national sovereignty and unification. The message is public and clear, there’s no gray area.
Some US think-tank voices pull a more confrontational takeaway from the US action. American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Hal Brands warns the US raid on Venezuela could create a “demonstration effect,” and he speculates China would watch those tactics closely. Some military commentators on the island seized the moment to hype fears, claiming the mainland might act during a “window” when US power is stretched thin.
That line of talk sounds like analysis, but it functions like a panic pump. US scholar Lev Nachman even says bluntly on social media that if a sudden military action hits the Taiwan Strait, the island could suffer “instant collapse” — not just militarily, but as a psychological shock to society.
KMT Chairperson Cheng Li-wun, in an interview, points to Donald Trump repeatedly stressing a shift of strategic focus toward affairs in the Americas. She says the Venezuela incident should be examined through the framework of international law, and she calls for disputes in any region to be resolved by peaceful means rather than force.
Cheng also reiterates the KMT position: uphold the “1992 Consensus,” oppose “Taiwan independence,” and urge Lai Ching-te to clearly oppose “Taiwan independence,” not touch legal red lines, and avoid continuously raising cross-strait conflict risks.
Rules talk meets reality
International reaction also turns critical of Washington’s approach. Multiple governments and regional organizations speak up quickly, condemning the action as a violation of the UN Charter, which explicitly prohibits using force to threaten or violate another nation’s territorial integrity and political independence. The telling part is the silence: the Western countries that often talk about “international rules” either zipped their mouths, or danced around the question this time.
Reuters says that even though China, Russia, and others clearly condemn the US behavior, the Trump administration is unlikely to face strong pressure from allies as a result. That selective muteness, by itself, drains the credibility of the international order.
On Jan. 5, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian commented again, saying the US actions clearly violate international law and the basic norms of international relations, and violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China calls on the US to ensure the personal safety of President Maduro and his wife, immediately release them, stop subverting the Venezuelan government, and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.
