What will Trump mean for agriculture?

After 18 months of fierce campaigning, debating, polling, analysis through the media and political in-fighting, Donald Trump surprised everybody by, almost single-handedly, dragging this election over the line.

In what was the most divisive US political campaign in modern history, Hillary Clinton was still expected to win, despite the last-minute involvement of the FBI.

While Trump and his team appear cool and collected post-election, by all reports, they are as surprised as anybody by the groundswell that pushed him over the line.

I’ve spoken with many friends and colleagues who voted for Donald Trump, and a consistent thread soon appeared in their rationale for doing so.

There is definitely a strong feeling that this was a “rejection election”, with many saying that they couldn’t support another Clinton administration.

The term “drain the swamp” often echoing around the water cooler as many voters grew tired of Washington DC politics, with a belief by some that Trump was their “political chemotherapy”.

However, despite Trump’s historic and unprecedented upset to become the 45th President of the United States, not all the cards fell his way.

Clinton won the popular vote by around 700,000 with 47.8 per cent of voters compared to Trump with 47.3pc.

In the US political system, winning the popular vote is somewhat of a consolation prize as the only goal is to reach the required 270 electoral college votes.

This is where Trump smashed the Clinton campaign, amassing an impressive 290 electoral votes compared to Clinton with 232.

Insiders from both political parties spent months preparing for Hillary Clinton to win the White House and the Democrats to take control of the Senate, and they overwhelming missed the mark.

So, moving on from all the political white noise and shock factor that is currently consuming Washington DC, what does all of this mean for agriculture?

More importantly, what implications does a Trump Presidency have for Australian farmers?

Given the strong support Trump received from rural America, agricultural issues are expected to receive specific consideration.

Trump has promised to appoint a pro-farmer administrator of the Environmental Protection Authority, a sentiment he will no doubt replicate when appointing the Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture.

Fixing the economy was one of Trump’s key platforms, with trade being a notable element to his election campaign pitch.

He has often referred to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as the "worst trade deal ever”.

Trump has even threatened to “entirely renegotiate NAFTA” or even “terminate it” given he believes that NAFTA has contributed to destroying America.

This narrative is a central element to Trump’s catchphrase of “Make America Great Again!”, of which he now has an unshackled mandate to get things done, his way.

Similar challenges are likely to be ahead for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The US Trade Representative was working over the pre-election congressional recess to encourage Congress to take a vote on the TPP before the end of the year.

In the short term, there is no path forward for the TPP in the US as Trump has clearly communicated his opposition to free trade, and more specifically the TPP.

This is likely to be the one point of difference between Trump and his rural supporters, as there is strong and widespread support for the TPP within American agriculture.

No doubt the Australian government is closely watching this debate unfold, in the context of Australia’s 2005 Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

With two out every three acres of food and fibre grown in Australia being exported, trade is an important cornerstone for many of our agricultural industries.

The US has long been a critically important market, and it is imperative that this continues, uninterrupted.

Only time will tell whether Australia, a friend and ally to the United States, is swept up in the historical “pivot” that has occurred in the US political system.