Fact Check: Trump Blames Biden For Agricultural Trade Deficit — The Full Story Is More Complex

President Donald Trump announced a $12 billion farm aid package and blamed former President Joe Biden for turning a long-running U.S. agricultural trade surplus into a large deficit. While the trade balance has indeed shifted, experts and data show the reality involves actions by multiple administrations and global factors beyond any single president's control.

Claim

Trump said the United States had a substantial agricultural trade surplus during his first term and that Biden "ruined it," turning it into a "gaping agricultural deficit."

The Facts

The claim oversimplifies a complicated picture. Historical U.S. Department of Agriculture data confirm the U.S. ran an agricultural trade surplus at the end of 2016 (about $16.3 billion). That surplus narrowed in 2017 (roughly $13.66 billion) and then fell further, briefly turning into a small deficit by 2019 (about $481 million). The balance returned to surplus in 2020 (around $3.39 billion) and increased in 2021, then flipped back into a growing deficit in 2022 that reached roughly $36.45 billion by the end of 2024. As of the most recent USDA data through August, the agricultural trade deficit stood near $36.3 billion.

“I don't want to let U.S. trade policy off the hook here, but it's one element of a broader, more complicated kind of story,” said Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Key Drivers Beyond One President

Experts point to several key factors that together explain the swing from surplus to deficit:

• U.S.-China Trade War: The tariff dispute that began under the Trump administration in 2018 prompted retaliatory measures that reduced Chinese purchases of U.S. farm exports. A Phase One deal in January 2020 pledged additional Chinese purchases, but analyses by institutions such as the Peterson Institute found China did not follow through on most promised buys.
• Tariff Actions Since 2025: The Trump administration’s reintroduction and expansion of tariffs after returning to office has led to fresh Chinese retaliatory measures affecting agricultural sales.
• Currency and Global Prices: A relatively strong U.S. dollar makes American exports more expensive for foreign buyers. Global commodity prices and supply conditions play a major role in whether the U.S. runs an agricultural surplus or deficit.
• Rising Competition: Brazil and Argentina have expanded exports of soy, corn and beef, putting downward pressure on world prices and eroding some U.S. market share.
• Global Shocks: Events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate variability and the Russia–Ukraine war have disrupted production, logistics and demand in ways U.S. policy alone cannot fully control.

Soybeans And Promised Purchases

After a recent meeting between President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the White House said Beijing had promised large soybean purchases (at least 12 million metric tons by year-end plus 25 million metric tons annually for the next three years). AP reporting showed China had purchased more than 2.8 million metric tons of soybeans since the announcement — about one-quarter of the administration's initial claim. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said China was on track to meet its goal by the end of February, two months later than originally stated.

“China's been refusing large U.S. purchases in favor of other trade partners,” Hendrix said, noting that partners diversify suppliers both as self-insurance and as a response to changing U.S. trade policy.

What This Means For Farmers

Tariffs and trade disputes can exacerbate market challenges for U.S. farmers, particularly those producing soybeans and sorghum. But economists emphasize that shifting global demand, currency movements and competition from other exporters are often the primary forces shaping whether the U.S. runs a farm trade surplus or deficit. Joseph Glauber, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former USDA chief economist, said tariffs can make situations worse but global commodity prices are typically the dominant driver.

Bottom Line

It is misleading to pin the agricultural trade deficit solely on President Biden. The deficit reflects a mix of policy choices made under multiple administrations, retaliatory measures by trade partners, global market shifts and large external events. Assigning exclusive blame to one president ignores that broader context.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reporting from the Associated Press, analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and comments from trade economists cited above.