The usual suspects are all here, and the pressure's building.

Mother Nature's at the bar ordering up a round of something, leaving us all wondering if this is going to be a two-drink happy hour or three-day bender.

Geopolitics recently added steroids to its workout regime. It's all jacked up and picking fights, collateral damage and consequences be damned.

The market is thriving on the drama, working the room, taking bets and counting the dollars that slip into his pocket.

If this were a movie, I'd say settle in and get some popcorn. This is going to be good.

But it's not. Farming is your livelihood, and if I were to ask, you'd probably say it's an important part of your legacy, too. It's a lot harder to revel in the drama when you're entangled in it, when your success or failure is on the line.

"You have to give it your best effort and hope that things shake out better down the road," said South Dakota farmer Tregg Cronin. He thinks most farmers believe trade policies need to be reformed even if it comes with some hardship. "I think the universal thing is: Guys do not want a repeat of 2018-2019."

Soybeans bore the brunt of President Donald Trump's first trade war with China, which resulted in $27 billion of lost agricultural exports and left farms reliant on ad hoc Market Facilitation Program payments to pay the bills.

A study by the American Soybean Association and National Corn Growers Association states a new trade war could cost corn and soybean farmers $5 to $8 billion in lost production value each year. Higher corn and soybean prices in Brazil and Argentina will fuel further acreage expansion, and their trade ties with China strengthen.

The study can't "account for the permanent implications from the loss of the United States' reputation with trading partners, as evident in the fact that U.S. agriculture today is still rebuilding from the 2018 trade war. ... The impact on U.S. soybean and corn farmers isn't limited to a short-term price shock: This is a long-lasting ramification that changes the global supply structure."

This is happening alongside another long-term change with implications for U.S. ag: declining global population, especially in our most established markets, Terrain Senior Rural Economy Analyst Matt Clark argued.

"The idea of producing as much as possible and exporting the excess will likely not be a financially sound business plan in 20-plus years," he said, pointing to the corn market's success as a blueprint for other commodities. The development of ethanol not only created new value-added industry but also reshaped the export market. Bulk corn accounted for 80% of exports in 1990 but only 60% in 2024, as value-added products exports grew.

Clark said the U.S. "should continue to strategically develop new export markets to enable some long-term viability while recognizing the strong need to develop value-added products for both domestic and export markets."

A worthwhile goal, present challenges notwithstanding. The Trump tariffs could accelerate this process if it helps establish new trading relationships rather than hinder them. Policy support for the development and adoption of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel would move the needle. But, as with everything the administration does, we'll have to wait and see what actually happens, not just which way the wind is blowing.

Katie Dehlinger can be reached at katie.dehlinger@dtn.com

Follow her on social platform X at @KatieD_DTN

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.