Trump’s climate policy shift could save American farmers from disaster

While news about President Trump’s tariffs and crackdowns on the questionable financial management of federal agencies has dominated media reports in recent weeks, a quiet transformation has been under way in agricultural policy.

An order to remove climate change references from U.S. Department of Agriculture websites signals a departure from the red tape of climate regulations on domestic farming practices and strings attached to U.S. support of agriculture abroad.

Programs that seek to lower carbon dioxide levels are destructive — period.

Through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government poured millions of dollars into climate-focused programs that could have no positive effect on the climate — promoting “green” orthodoxy over agricultural productivity.

Wasted climate dollars

Some of these programs have been intertwined with other activities in rural agrarian communities. USAID and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, for example, joined in a “$55 million credit guarantee to address the economic impact of COVID-19 by supporting loans to farmer producer organizations, ag-tech companies, and companies engaged in clean energy solutions for the agriculture sector.” A $1.5 million program aimed at "empowering" female climate activists in northern Kenya.

USAID also partnered with organizations like the Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, which operates in developing countries and focuses on so-called research themes that include “low-emissions” development, climate services and safety nets, scaling “climate-smart” agriculture, and gender and social inclusion.

All these expenditures came under the umbrella of USAID’s 2022-2030 climate strategy, a $150 billion "whole-of-agency approach" to establish an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.’

Climate mandates stifle farming

USAID's financial support for farmers and businesses has been contingent on adherence to an absurd climate agenda and perverse views of human nature that have nothing to do with feeding hungry people.

The administration’s freeze on this funding cuts off money to hundreds of such programs that interfered with the employment of sensible farming practices in places like Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

It’s not just farmers abroad who will benefit from the dismantlement of USAID’s climate initiatives. Among the first casualties of the current policy shift will be the unscientific $3.1 billion program to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on farms across 55 U.S. states and territories through 135 projects.

Imagine a program intended to help crops grow but that robs them of the carbon dioxide that enables photosynthesis. CO2 is necessary for plant life — and ultimately all life.

NASA credits the greening of much of the planet over the past 100 years to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Programs that seek to lower carbon dioxide levels are destructive — period.

Worldwide impact

Without President Trump’s bold moves, U.S. farmers likely would have fallen under the constraints of externally imposed climate frameworks that have, in many cases, stifled innovation and reduced U.S. farmers' competitiveness on the world stage.

The USDA targets greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry program. These initiatives include forcing U.S. farmers to employ lower-pressure irrigation systems to decrease fossil fuel energy use. Other measures are aimed at manipulating the quantity and quality of dietary nutrients to reduce methane emissions from animal digestive tracts. It was probably just a matter of time before critically important nitrogen fertilizers were targeted as a source of greenhouse gas emissions — as they have been in some other countries.

By contrast, countries such as China and India have prioritized productivity and food security over such practices. They have invested heavily in fossil fuel-based agricultural technologies and products, achieving record crop yields for their massive populations.

Adding insult to injury, the climate money these nations received purportedly for “climate justice” may have financed fossil fuel projects. Too often, American taxpayers have paid the bill for overseas projects that do little if any good.

The highly politicized, fabricated climate crisis, which is based on erroneous climate models and exaggerations of a so-called greenhouse effect, should not overshadow the immediate economic and operational concerns of farmers in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Trump’s withdrawal from international climate initiatives, including the U.N.’s Paris Climate Accords, marked a win for American farmers and taxpayers. His decision ended U.S. participation in costly and unrealistic mandates — such as the Net Zero agenda — that have strained global economies and fueled unrest among farmers and the broader public.