Trump's remarks follow comments from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who told the Financial Times last week that the administration was considering a bailout package funded by tariff receipts. The move echoes strategies from Trump's first term, when farmers received nearly $28 billion in aid via the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to offset losses from trade disputes.

Rollins, speaking at the Agri-Pulse Ag Outlook Forum in Kansas City, Missouri, reiterated that the administration is "exploring every option available" to shore up the ag sector. With the 2025 Farm Bill still in limbo, potential alternative funding streams are under scrutiny.

House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.) floated the idea of incorporating tariff-funded farm payments into a "skinny farm bill." However, he later walked back the statement, citing the legal complexity of diverting tariff revenues to direct payments.

Currently, the CCC's $30 billion borrowing cap remains unreplenished by Congress. With pending obligations to Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programs, USDA sources say there's little fiscal room for new large-scale bailouts.

"They think there's not enough room in the $30 billion cap to put together a good-enough size program to support farmers," a former USDA official said, speaking anonymously.

One alternative under consideration is Section 32, a USDA food support program funded by 30% of tariff receipts. It has historically been used to purchase surplus commodities and support domestic consumption and farm exports. But legal experts caution that direct payments to restore farmers' purchasing power are capped at $350 million annually.

"Only a limited portion of Section 32 can be used in this way," noted Bart Fischer, co-director of the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University.

Moreover, most of Section 32 funds are allocated to child nutrition programs overseen by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, placing further constraints on its use for direct farm aid.

As legal experts weigh the administration's authority, Harrison Pittman, director of the National Agricultural Law Center, described the legal path as an "open question."

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on whether Trump overstepped executive powers by imposing tariffs under emergency authority. Lower courts, including the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, have already ruled against the legality of some tariffs. A reversal could force the administration to issue refunds, further complicating plans to reallocate those funds.

Despite these barriers, some experts warn not to underestimate the administration's resolve. "I wouldn't rule that out," Fischer said. "USDA attorneys have historically found creative legal pathways to implement presidential directives."

Still, many observers agree that a Congressional fix, especially via Section 32 or CCC reform, would be the most sustainable route.

"Taking the handcuffs off and tying this back to tariff revenue through Section 32 would be the cleanest, most appropriate way to do it," the former USDA official added.

As the 2025 harvest season approaches, producers await clarity on whether Washington can deliver meaningful financial relief-or just political soundbites.