Six months into my first job as a rookie reporter back in another century, I pleaded with my editor to transfer me from the green fields of north-central Iowa to the bustling newsbeat of Washington, D.C., to cover what was then the emerging 1980s farm crisis. 

My pitch was simple and sincere: as the downturn was beginning to erode profits and hope across rural America, the federal government would be forced to step in with new programs-loan guarantees, rural bank bailouts, expanded farm payments, and community aid for small towns on the brink. My editor, a cautious and steady hand, considered it for a week and then said no. 

His reasoning was plain and unforgettable: Congress and U.S. farmers, he argued, had no interest in expanding the federal role in agriculture. So, he concluded, that "big" story wasn't worth chasibecause it would turn out to be a big nothing. That wasn't his finest decision. A quick tally shows that, since that pivotal year of 1981, U.S. farm program payments have totaled somewhere between $585 billion and $600 billion-not adjusted for inflation. 

Add in the layers of indirect support-federal subsidies for crop insurance firms, lostanding tariffs on ethanol and sugar, and over 150 USDA-run programs-and the total jumps by hundreds of billions more. That generational growth is on full display again this year. According to USDA's own forecast, direct federal farm support is expected to reach $42.4 billion in 2025-a staggering 354% increase from $9.3 billion in 2024. Only the $45.6 billion paid out in 2020, when U.S. agriculture faced retaliatory tariffs under the Trump administration, ranks higher. 

What's more surprising? Total projected 2025 net farm income will hit $180 billion-just $2 billion short of the all-time record of $182 billion set in 2022. And in that record year, federal payments were $27 billion less than what's projected for 2025. It's not just farmers and ranchers watching Congress funnel taxpayer dollars into agriculture. Big ag corporations have just as much interest-if not more-in keeping those numbers high. Consider this: Deere & Co. stock jumped from $418 on January 2 to $514 by June 23-a 21% leap-while overall markets and ag commodity prices held mostly steady during the same time. 

Government policy, of course, has many ways to influence ag markets. Just two weeks ago, farmers and agribusinesses were anxiously awaiting the Trump administration's ruling on biofuel mandates for 2026-especially given its historically cool stance on renewables. Then came the curveball. "In a decision that stunned biofuel analysts and sent soybean prices up 25 cents per bushel," the Michigan Farm Bureau reported, "EPA announced its highest-ever volume requirements for domestically grown biofuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard." Just like that, American farmers gained another big, shiny, government-backed incentive to churn out billions of bushels of corn and soybeans for biofuels-fuels that are, at best, debatably "green," and at worst, arguably unnecessary. It's time we call these increasingly massive transfer payment schemes by their real name: rural industrial policy. Or if you prefer, ag policy-with a little lipstick.