Trump’s trade stance to test US farmers

Mr Trump was rated a clear outsider to win the presidential race over Democratic Hillary Clinton who was forced to concede defeat late in the evening after her rival stole key agricultural battleground States like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.

Mr Trump also won the critical rust-belt State of Pennsylvania and claimed victory in Florida which was seen as vital to passing the 270 electoral votes needed to claim office.

National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Gordon Stoner is based in Outlook, Montana and told Fairfax agricultural Media he was not overly shocked by the end result.

Mr Stoner said during the 18-month election cycle the pollsters had struggled to accurately predict what was going on within the electorate and determine voter mood.

“I commented to some of my friends a few weeks ago that I thought the polls were meaningless,” he said.

“There were multiple times when the press suggested that Donald Trump was gone and something he said or did would be the end of the Trump campaign and invariably they were wrong.

“And so coming down to election day and election night I suggested that everything was up for grabs and indeed it was.”

Asked why Mr Trump won the controversial election, Mr Stoner said US voters had grown weary of accepting “more of the same” and had rejected being dictated to political insiders and the political elite.

“People were tired and just ready for a change,” he said.

“On a second level I suspect a number of votes were cast that were not so much for Trump but a vote against Secretary Clinton and the controversy that has followed the Clintons; be it the emails, or the Clinton foundation, or whatever you might point to.

“It wasn’t so much a vote in support of Trump but to prevent Secretary Clinton occupying office.”

But Mr Stoner said there was now a “certain amount of uncertainty” about future farm policy and in particular trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) or North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that farmers have supported.

Mr Stoner said he had reviewed the list of 61 names on Mr Trump’s agricultural advisory council that was unveiled during the campaign and proved to be the Republican candidate’s only real policy announcement.

“Quite honestly agriculture was not a point of discussion anywhere in the election campaign,” he said.

“With less than 2 per cent of the US population involved in ag production and really, if you drill down, under 1pc producing something like 80pc of the food, fibre, feed and fuel we’re not a large voting block and as a result we were not on the candidates’ radars.”

Mr Stoner said he knew about five individuals on the advisory council “personally” which gave him “some comfort” about sensible policy outcomes.

“NAWG are not bipartisan - we are non-partisan – and we choose to work with whoever may be in the White House or in the congress, advocating for wheat,” he said.

“As I look at the names of President-elect Trump’s ag-advisers there are lots of long-term ag advisers who’ve been involved in the system so in that regard I suspect that we will not see any radical proposals.

“The names I recognise are long-time advocates for agriculture like former State secretaries of agriculture and John Block a former secretary of agriculture for the US, some farmers I know personally and academics who are well versed in farm policy.

“There’s no doubt President-elect Trump has put together a well-qualified agricultural advisory council that will serve him well and NAWG will reach out to those folks and I will reach out to the individuals I know personally and I have no doubt President-elect Trump will receive sound policy advice.”

Mr Stoner said NAWG had been advocates for the TPP and the current “political reconnaissance” suggested there were enough votes in the congress to ratify it during the lame duck season.

But he said the “road block” was leadership having said, “fairly firmly” that they won’t bring forward the TPP for final approval.

“From my perspective the farm organisations are very much focussing on seeing if we can sway leadership to bring the TPP forward,” he said.

“In terms of the administration, President-elect Trump has clearly made his position known on what he thinks of the free trade agreements that have been negotiated in the past and the TPP is one that’s still under consideration at this point.

“My hope would be, that in a moment of calm, with sound advisors around him, that Mr Trump will be able to pivot and say, ‘you know after I’ve really looked at these deals, and based on counsel from groups, I’ve decided that we need to bring it forward for consideration’.

“In the heat of the campaign positions are taken to gain votes in the short term so I’m hoping that he can take a long term view and say, ‘you know, with an economy as large as ours that’s bound to trade, we need to reconsider here’.

“I clearly believed Secretary Clinton would do a pivot on trade once she cleared the final hurdle, if she’d been successful (at winning the election), but I cannot say I have a feeling for where President-elect Trump will be.”

Corn and soybean farmer Rob Sharkey from Bradford, Illinois, said he believed most farmers backed the TPP and the NAFTA but now faced a tense time waiting to see what the new administration would do.

Mr Sharkey said there was “some fear” Mr Trump would now open up trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA - that also benefit other farmers like beef and dairy producers - causing negative outcomes for the sector.

“When you open them up, you never know what’s going to happen,” he said.

“I’d go out on a limb and say most farmers are pretty happy with NAFTA and want TPP so to have (Mr Trump) want to go in and renegotiate, does make us pause.”

Mr Sharkey said US farmers would now need to let Mr Trump know their views on trade deals, or risk returning to higher tariffs.

“We need to be talking to our local politicians, writing the USDA letters and writing letters to President-elect Trump letting them know our concerns about how that will affect us,” he said.

“I’m sure when he’s negotiating these deals, agriculture might not be top of his mind but we need to let him know how it would affect us.

“If NAFTA was repealed that could put a lot of tariffs in place for our grains going to other countries and we’ve enjoyed a lot of successful trade because of NAFTA so if it’s going to be renegotiated hopefully it can be done by keeping the agricultural parts in place.”

Mr Sharkey said he did however have confidence in Mr Trump’s farm policy council which had some smart people on it but he wanted to know more details on how it’ll operate.

He said he expected Hillary Clinton to win the election but was surprised Mr Trump was able to claim key States like Wisconsin.

Mr Sharkey said agriculture played little role at this year’s election but he believed farmers had supported the Trump campaign based on other core policy issues outside of farming.

“I think the rural areas seem to be happy with the result but it wasn’t really an election about rural and agricultural issues,” he said.

Mr Sharkey said he believed the “voter mentality” that influenced the election result, more than anything else, was a desire to rid Washington DC of long-term political corruption and send a clear message about the need to reform the overall system.

Washington DC based agricultural lobbyist Tim Cansler - chief strategist for Cansler consulting - said the political tea leaves were predicting a Clinton win the day before the election but in the end Mr Trump and the Republicans claimed an unlikely and historic victory.

“We were like everybody else and looking at the facts and the data and information out there, coming in from the polls,” he said.

“What we did not count on was what President-elect Trump was able to tap into which was this emotion that’s out there amongst the electorate and that’s what carried the day for him.

“Among the electorates, some folks are very discouraged with the government and they don’t think the government is working for them.

“That emotion is what Donald Trump capitalised on and that’s what all of the data, information and polling did not capture.”

Mr Cansler said the focus now for the farm lobby in Washington DC would be on core election campaign issues like trade and immigration and the next Farm Bill that will need to be reauthorised by September 30, 2018.

He said they would be the top three issues for US agriculture post-election but “regulatory relief” would also be a strong focus.

“Now that you have a congress in Republican hands and an administration controlled by the Republicans, I think they’ll be very successful in bringing about favourable regulatory reforms for agriculture in the US,” he said.

Mr Cansler said Waters of the United States had been on the priority list for a couple of years in Washington DC and he expected it would now face “favourable resolution” by a new government, with red and green tape in its sights.

He said the environmental regulations that inscribe how the Environmental Protection Agency defines US waterways - which has been bitterly opposed by the farm sector and other industries as a Washington power grab - would be resolved in the first few months of the new administration.

Mr Cansler said the most telling States that influenced the election were those in the upper mid-west of the US like Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa that President Obama won in 2012.

“This is where President-elect Trump tapped into that emotion about the economy and his stance on trade,” he said.

“I think that’s what played well in those States and what carried the day for him in States like Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa.

“I think it’s extraordinary that without any large amount of detail in what he would support in farm policy he was able to carry the day and win the rural vote.

“Illinois has the large city of Chicago and the suburbs of Chicago and then pretty much the remainder of the State is heavily rural but even in this election Illinois went to the Democrats, and they voted Clinton.

“But if you look at other rural States like Ohio or Indiana, Trump carried those States without a problem and the rural voters were the leaders and everybody followed their lead.”

Mr Stoner said the 2014 Farm Bill would continue through to 2018 and did not see any potentially significant changes under the Trump regime.

“Certainly there are detractors and groups that would tear down crop insurance and tear down the direct farm support programs,” he said.

“But at the end of the day, I take some comfort in knowing any one individual can say ‘I’m going to do this and I’m going to do that’ but they’ve also got a congress to work with and a Supreme Court to deal with, which provides the very basis of the American political system with its division of power and checks and balances.

“I would say, and most economists would agree, agriculture historically has done better under a Democratic administration and that’s not to take away from his administration but we’ll see where we land.

“Any policy change takes an extended period of time to be formulated and to work its way through congress and to then be implemented so in the short term I do not see dramatic changes.

“Long term I look at the advisors President-elect Trump has surrounded himself with and I cannot say I see radical change coming.”

National Farmers’ Federation President Brent Finlay said with the US Presidential election now called for Donald Trump, any move by the new administration to implement protectionist measures would be of concern to Australian farmers.

“More trade liberalisation of markets means more growth, innovation and investment and that is consistent with the future of agriculture,” he said.

“We do however understand that voting trends around the world suggest that governments must do more to better manage the impacts of trade liberalisation and technological transformation - particularly where people are challenged by or do not fairly share in the outcomes of that change.”