After citing comments from local farmers to bolster his arguments in favor of the Trump administration’s tariffs, a Colorado congressman would not provide any further information about the farmers he was referring to.
The Colorado Times Recorder requested the names of the farmers referenced by the congressman, Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO), after Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) said in Broomfield last month that he would “love” to meet the farmers whom Evans said were expressing concern about unfair trade practices.
Hickenlooper said the farmers he’s met are worried about losing markets because of the tariffs — not about unfair trade.
Economic and agricultural experts continue to argue that Trump’s tariffs are broadly detrimental to farmers, and that any benefits farmers may experience as a result of a change in trade practices are unlikely to materialize due to the president’s inconsistent approach to trade policy.
During an April constituent phone conversation, Evans said that Colorado farmers had spoken with him about what they called unfair trade practices that they say hurt businesses in potato farming and beef production in particular.
Evans’ office did not respond to multiple requests to connect the Colorado Times Recorder to local farmers, who he said expressed concerns about trade practices that put American farmers at a disadvantage.
The top agricultural export in Colorado is beef and veal, followed by other plant products, dairy products, and wheat. Rural areas in Colorado bring in billions from exports, according to Office of the U.S. Trade Representative records.
Evans did not mention whether they expressed concerns about the tariffs at all, and his office did not answer Colorado Times Recorder’s questions on whether they raised the issue. His media spokesperson only responded that the office previously worked with the Colorado Times-Recorder on a similar story.
“I’m a big believer in free trade, but free trade has to be fair trade as well,” he said at the time.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (R-CO) has also met with Coloradans to talk about the impact of trade policies ont their businesses. He spoke with small business owners at a May event held at a brewing company in Denver, where they discussed the economic uncertainty from tariffs that they fear would harm their businesses.
After being told about Evans’ remarks that local farmers he met with were concerned about “unfair trade practices,” Hickenlooper said, “If [Evans] can introduce me to the farmer or agricultural producer who is concerned about these trade practices, I would love to see it. I haven’t heard that from the farmers and ranchers I’ve talked to. They’re worried they’re going to lose markets because of the tariffs.”
U.S. beef exports to China rose from a value of $64 million in 2018 to $1.5 billion in 2024, according to Southern Ag Today, a publication that is a collaboration between 13 universities and produces peer-reviewed articles. The April article estimated that U.S. beef exports could decline by 77% in the short run from the fallout of high tariffs as U.S. beef becomes less competitive with other suppliers.
Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, said that the Trump administration’s tariff approach has been difficult to follow because of its inconsistent metrics and lack of specific goals. He said this makes it harder for other countries to understand the process and for businesses and consumers to prepare.
“One day we’re talking about unfair trade practices and the next day the administration is talking about using tariff revenue to offset the loss from tax cuts,” Ajilore said. “There’s no consistent theme or consistent goal, so it’s hard to say what the tariffs are going to do and how the tariffs are going to help – if the tariffs are going to help.”
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, told the Colorado Times Recorder that agriculture could potentially benefit from the “transactional nature” Trump brings to deals, but that there hasn’t been any evidence to show Trump’s approach is working.
“Meanwhile, the prices farmers are paying for inputs and machinery are going up, costs on items like fertilizer, farm equipment, and other critical supplies that are being hit by tariffs will squeeze farmers on the other side,” he said in an email statement to CTR.
Although more of the U.S. market could be opened up to domestic production, higher production costs would weigh heavily on many farmers, and the benefit of tariffs depends on how much those farmers are exporting versus importing, said Dr. Chad Hart, a professor at Iowa State University who focuses on agricultural economics.
“In the case of something like, say, cotton or soybeans, we tend to export a tremendous amount more than we import, so the way tariffs can affect those markets is it tends to hurt them,” he said.
Economists have also told CTR that the impact on agriculture can’t be considered within a bubble. The greater harm to the U.S. economy from the trade war may affect farmers in myriad other ways.
