Looking at Trump’s trade agenda

KANSAS CITY, MO. — The first six months of 2026 have brought a steady stream of tariff announcements, trade investigations and policy proposals under President Donald Trump, leaving agricultural markets searching for clarity.

Latest developments include proposed 10% to 12.5% tariffs on imports from 60 economies accused of failing to prohibit or effectively ban goods produced with forced labor, as well as a proposed US-China Board of Trade aimed at creating a framework for future negotiations and tariff reductions. At the same time, the administration continues to pursue investigations into foreign industrial overcapacity and other practices it argues disadvantage US producers.

Taken individually, each action represents another chapter in the administration’s trade agenda. Together, they suggest an effort to reshape global trade and domestic production.

The question is no longer whether additional trade actions are coming, or even what the next 12 to 24 months will look like. The question may be whether these policies become permanent features of trade.

Darci Vetter, principal at SGH Macro Advisors and former chief agricultural negotiator for the Office of the US Trade Representative, pointed to the endurance of Section 301 tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term.

“These tariffs are sticky,” she said. “When Biden took office, he didn’t take them off. Once a 301 tariff happens, people who are protected get used to the protection and then it becomes hard to carve it back.”

A key distinction between the administration’s current approach and the trade actions of Trump’s first term is the emphasis on legal authority and durability.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) recent forced labor investigations offer one example. The investigations examined economies representing more than 99% of US imports and concluded that each had either failed to establish or effectively enforce prohibitions on goods produced with forced labor. The resulting report stretched nearly 100 pages and included economic analysis, public comments, consultation efforts and legal findings intended to support potential action under Section 301 of the Trade Act. The set of tariffs is just the latest in a series of attempts.

The USTR argues that countries that fail to prohibit goods produced with forced labor create unfair competitive advantages by lowering production costs and distorting global markets. The proposed tariffs are intended to offset those advantages.

Vetter noted that investigating forced labor claims can be extraordinarily complex. Supply chains can span multiple countries, while labor practices vary widely across industries and regions. Agricultural commodities present additional challenges involving seasonal labor, family labor and country-specific production practices.

“You could spend a year investigating coffee production in one country,” she said.

The forced labor investigation is only one piece of a comprehensive trade agenda, increasingly rooted in more robust legal frameworks designed to make tariffs and enforcement actions more durable and difficult to unwind.

The administration has framed its trade strategy around several objectives, including strengthening domestic manufacturing, reducing dependence on foreign suppliers, addressing industrial overcapacity and encouraging investment in domestic production. China sits at the center of many of those discussions.

The proposed US-China Board of Trade reflects that focus. While details remain limited, the proposal would create a formal mechanism for negotiations between the world’s two largest economies and provide a venue to review existing tariffs and identify areas where both sides may be willing to reduce trade barriers.

The proposed forced labor tariffs and the US-China Board of Trade both touch issues that are critical to agriculture, an industry that depends heavily on export demand and long-term investment decisions.

Recent trade disputes illustrate how quickly agricultural trade flows can shift. Retaliatory tariffs imposed during trade disputes with China redirected purchases toward competitors such as Brazil. A North Dakota State University analysis estimated that China’s retaliatory tariffs reduced US agricultural exports to China by $14.9 billion over the following year, with soybeans alone accounting for approximately $6.8 billion of the decline.

While soybeans have been top of mind in recent trade disputes, analysts said wheat and protein markets also may face significant risks if trade tensions escalate.

Recovering lost market share can be difficult once buyers establish alternative supply relationships.

For decades, foreign buyers viewed the United States as a preferred supplier because of dependable logistics, transparent markets, reliable contract enforcement and confidence that products would arrive as promised.

Vetter cited buyers in Southeast Asia who were once willing to pay a premium for US products because they trusted the system behind them.

“They weren’t just buying wheat or soybeans,” she said. “They were buying confidence that the product would arrive on time, on spec and that contracts would be honored.”

Vetter said the concern is not that buyers suddenly distrust US suppliers. Rather, uncertainty surrounding future trade rules may encourage importers to diversify sourcing.

“Countries don’t want to be dependent on a supplier that might become unavailable,” she said.

At the same time, competitors are investing in infrastructure, logistics and export capacity.

“It takes a really long time to build up trust and reputation,” Vetter said. “It can be eroded very quickly.”

The contrast is one of timing. Trade flows can shift in a matter of months, while many of the administration’s broader goals, including expanding domestic manufacturing, require investments that can take years to complete. Businesses therefore face the challenge of making long-term decisions while trade policy continues to evolve.

Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist at StoneX, expects additional trade actions as the administration continues pursuing its objectives.

“Whether it’s this authority or that authority, if one gets challenged, they’ll look for another path,” he said. “I don’t think this goes away.”

Vetter similarly expects additional investigations and legal challenges as the administration’s trade agenda develops.

For that reason, Vetter said businesses should pay close attention to the administrative process behind these actions and encouraged participation in the comment periods.

“The process matters,” she said. “Companies need to pay attention to these investigations because that’s where the details get worked out.”

Businesses interested in weighing in on the administration’s trade agenda still have opportunities to do so. Comments on the proposed forced labor tariffs are due July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7. Comments on the proposed US-China Board of Trade are due July 10, while rebuttal comments and stakeholder responses may be submitted through July 27.

For companies involved in agricultural supply chains, those proceedings may provide some of the earliest opportunities to influence policies that could shape long-term sourcing decisions, export markets and investment plans.

Find more articles related to pet food export opportunities and trade.