Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Weighs In: The Agricultural Crisis Letter Gets the Diagnosis Right but Misses the Cure

By Policy Fellow Dr. Success Okafor

Two months ago, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute raised concerns about how 12 billion dollars in emergency farm payments were being distributed by the federal government. We warned that funneling roughly 11 billion dollars to commodity crops while allocating just 1 billion dollars to specialty crops was treating symptoms rather than addressing the structural vulnerabilities that make American agriculture so fragile.

Last week, twenty-seven former leaders of major agricultural organizations, including past presidents of the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council, sent a stark letter to Congress warning of a potential “widespread collapse of American agriculture.” Their concerns are real and urgent. Farm bankruptcies increased by 55% in 2024 compared to 2023, with filings accelerating even faster in 2025. Barely half of United States farms are expected to be profitable this year, and the country is running a historic agricultural trade deficit.

But here is the problem. While their diagnosis is largely accurate, their prescription mostly seeks to restore the very system that produced this fragility.

The Real Crisis Is Not Just About Tariffs

The letter correctly identifies multiple pressures crushing farmers today. These include tariffs driving up input costs, lost export markets to Brazil and other competitors, labor shortages, and devastating cuts to USDA research and staffing. These are genuine emergencies that demand immediate action.

Yet the proposed remedies – rolling back tariffs, securing new trade agreements, and restoring previous funding levels – implicitly assume that returning to the conditions of 2018 will stabilize the system. That assumption misreads what is actually failing.

The data cited in the letter tell a deeper story. United States soybean market share fell from 47 percent in 2018 to 24.4 percent today, while Brazil gained more than 20 percentage points. Over the same period, Brazilian soybean acreage expanded from 83 million to 119 million acres, while United States acreage declined by more than 7 million.

This is not merely a trade war problem. It is a structural competitiveness problem that trade deals alone cannot fix.

Why the Current System Is Built to Fail

Through our more than forty years of working directly with farmers across the Upper Midwest, we have seen how the industrial commodity model creates cascading vulnerabilities.

Input dependency equals tariff vulnerability.

When farm profitability depends on affordable imported fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery parts, one trade dispute can trigger a financial crisis. Operations heavily reliant on synthetic inputs saw costs spike sharply when tariffs hit. Farms with lower input regenerative systems were better able to absorb the shock.

Monoculture equals market vulnerability.

Producing the same narrow set of commodity crops on millions of acres in Brazil, Argentina, and Ukraine forces farmers into a global race to the bottom on price. Diversified farms with direct market relationships, value-added enterprises, and ecosystem service revenue streams have more options when one market collapses.

Soil degradation equals climate vulnerability.

Extractive practices that mine soil organic matter leave farms increasingly exposed to droughts and floods, and these are the very climate extremes that are becoming more frequent. Soil health is not a luxury. It is agricultural infrastructure.

Concentration equals system vulnerability.

When the food system depends on a handful of mega processors and international commodity buyers, disruption anywhere cascades everywhere.

The former agricultural leaders write that there are “few tragedies greater than the loss of a family farm.” We agree. But preserving family farms cannot mean doubling down on a system that has primarily rewarded scale, concentration, and specialization while squeezing out mid-sized and diversified operations for decades.

Regenerative Agriculture Is Not a Luxury. It Is THE Resilience Strategy.

What the letter does not adequately address is that farms practicing regenerative agriculture, including diverse rotations, cover crops, integrated livestock, reduced tillage, perennial crops and active soil carbon building, are demonstrably more resilient to the very shocks now destabilizing agriculture.

Lower input costs reduce exposure to tariffs and supply chain disruptions. Healthier soils improve drought resilience and reduce crop insurance losses. Diversified revenue streams lessen dependence on volatile commodity markets. Regional food systems reduce exposure to geopolitical trade conflicts.

This is not theoretical. We see it across Wisconsin and the Upper Midwest. When commodity prices collapse, farms with diverse enterprises selling into local and regional markets, capturing value-added opportunities, and receiving payments for carbon sequestration and water quality improvements have more pathways to stay viable.

The letter’s signatories note that farmers do not want government handouts. They want markets. Regenerative agriculture creates markets. These include ecosystem service payments, emerging carbon markets, premium organic and regenerative products, and direct relationships with consumers and institutions seeking sustainably produced food.

The 700 Million Dollar Question

USDA’s roll out of the 700 million dollar Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program could be transformative, but only if implemented well. Key details remain undefined. These include eligibility criteria, payment levels, verification methods, and access to technical assistance.

Given that the expected bridge payments will overwhelmingly benefit large commodity operations, we are concerned the Regenerative Pilot could repeat the pattern. Inclusive in rhetoric, exclusionary in practice.

When programs are designed with monoculture commodity farms as the default model, administrative complexity alone can shut out farmers managing diversified systems. When payment structures reward acreage rather than outcomes, scale overwhelms stewardship.

True regenerative transition requires supporting farmers who are taking real economic risks. These include converting monocultures into diverse rotations, integrating livestock, reducing synthetic inputs, and rebuilding soil health as a foundation rather than an add on.

What Congress and USDA Should Actually Do

If policymakers are serious about preventing the collapse outlined in the letter, several steps are essential.

1. Align emergency relief with long term resilience. Bridge payments should prioritize diversification and soil health outcomes, not simply reinforce historic concentration.

2. Design regenerative programs for transition farms. Clear standards, accessible technical assistance, and payment structures that reflect transition economics are essential.

3. Invest in regional food infrastructure. Processing, aggregation, and distribution bottlenecks will not resolve themselves. Farmers need real alternatives to global commodity buyers.

4. Protect and redirect agricultural research. Research funding must extend beyond incremental efficiency gains in commodity systems and support integrated, climate-resilient production models, particularly as major initiatives such as the Climate Smart Commodities program are being scaled back or canceled.

5. Provide meaningful transition support. The three to seven year transition period is economically punishing. Risk management tools, transition payments, and patient capital are critical.

6. Compensate ecosystem services. Soil carbon, water quality, and biodiversity improvements provide measurable public benefits and should be directly rewarded.

Diversity Is the Foundation of Resilience

In our December statement on bridge payments, we wrote that diversity is the foundation of resilience economically, biologically, and culturally. This week’s warning letter from agricultural leaders confirms this reality. A food system built on monocultures, input dependency, and exposure to volatile global commodity markets is fundamentally unstable. For these reasons, we believe the letter gets the diagnosis right, but misses the cure.

We share the urgency expressed by the letter’s authors. But hope is not a strategy, and real solutions cannot mean restoring the conditions that produced this crisis.

American agriculture does not need to return to 2018. It needs to build resilient, diversified, soil-regenerating food systems capable of withstanding the 2030s and beyond.

The knowledge exists. The practices work. Farmers are ready.

The question is not whether we can afford to invest in regenerative agriculture. The question is whether we can afford not to.

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute is a non-profit organization that has been cultivating resiliency through research, education, and policy work since 1984. With a broad coalition of public and private partners, the Institute supports farmers, food systems and communities in the Upper Midwest and beyond through a range of programs and initiatives. Find more information at michaelfields.org. Follow along on Instagram and Facebook for the latest news and events.

MFAI Policy Fellow Dr. Success Okafor is an agricultural economist who received his PhD from North Carolina A&T State University. His work focuses on innovative and controlled-environment agriculture, using GIS, econometrics, and policy analysis to explore opportunities for strengthening soil health, improving market access, and supporting resilient and diversified agricultural systems. Reach him at sokafor@michaelfields.org.

MFAI Policy Fellow Dr. Success Okafor in Washington, DC, in February 2026 for meetings with Congressional members.