Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did Trump's trade war with China affect US agricultural exports in 2020?
Executive Summary
The trade confrontation sharply reduced U.S. agricultural exports to China in 2018–2020, with soybean exports falling substantially and overall agricultural shipments to China collapsing in value, though a Phase One deal in 2020 produced a rebound in pledged purchases. Analysts document a 2018 value decline of roughly 53% for U.S. agricultural exports to China and soybean volumes dropping well below five‑year averages in 2018–2019; the Phase One agreement reported large purchase figures but its long‑term structural effects remained contested [1] [2] [3].
1. Big Drop, Big Winners — How China’s Tariffs Reversed Markets and Reshuffled Trade
Chinese retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural products produced an immediate and measurable collapse in demand for key U.S. crops, with the value of U.S. agricultural exports to China falling about 53% from 2017 to 2018, shrinking China from a top destination to fourth place by mid‑2019 behind Canada, Mexico, and Japan. Analysts document that retaliatory duties, applied in 2018, coupled with Chinese policy shifts around feed standards and disruption from African swine fever, resulted in soybean export volumes falling 21% in 2018 and 14% in 2019 relative to the previous five‑year average, indicating both tariff and demand shocks that allowed other producers to expand market share [1] [2] [4].
2. Soybeans as the Canary — Structural Shifts and Price Pressure on U.S. Producers
Soybeans served as a leading indicator of the trade war’s agricultural effects: tariffs drove U.S. shipments down and opened space for competitors to expand exports to China, while U.S. producers faced prolonged price pressure and diminished competitiveness on world markets. Multiple analyses show that beyond immediate volume declines, the tariff episode risked long‑term reshuffling of global soybean production and trade patterns, with other countries expanding production and trade ties to China and reducing the ability of U.S. soybeans to regain lost market share even after tariffs were negotiated [2] [4].
3. The Phase One Claim — Large Purchase Numbers Versus Skepticism on Structural Access
U.S. government reporting around the October 2020 Phase One Economic and Trade Agreement highlighted China’s purchases totaling over $23 billion in agricultural products and listed implementation of many technical commitments as evidence of substantial gains for U.S. agriculture. That government narrative frames 2020 as a recovery year driven by the deal’s purchase pledges and implementation metrics, portraying the agreement as delivering “historic results” and structural openings in Chinese markets [3] [5]. However, contemporary analyses caution that purchase pledges and short‑term import spikes do not automatically restore pre‑tariff market dynamics or remove the competitive advantages other suppliers captured during 2018–2019 [2] [4].
4. Contrasting Narratives — Purchases vs. Persistent Market Losses
The data present two competing interpretations: government reports emphasize large, measurable purchases tied to the Phase One deal that purportedly compensate for earlier losses, while trade analysts highlight persistent declines in shipment levels during the tariff years and warn of durable market reshaping. Reported purchase totals are concrete but may reflect one‑off stock adjustments or diverted flows rather than sustained market share recovery; analyst findings from 2018–2019 show soybean exports and overall China demand contracted materially, suggesting full recovery depends on longer‑term structural changes that take years to manifest [3] [5] [2].
5. Bottom Line — Short‑Term Recovery, Long‑Term Uncertainty for U.S. Agriculture
In sum, the trade war produced an unequivocal short‑term collapse in U.S. agricultural exports to China in 2018–2019, especially soybeans, and the Phase One agreement produced notable purchase figures in 2020 that signaled partial recovery. The long‑term consequences remain unresolved: analysts underscore that tariff‑driven reshuffling allowed competitors to entrench market positions and that technical commitments and purchase pledges may not fully reverse lost competitiveness without sustained structural change and time [1] [2] [3] [5]. Policymakers and producers should treat 2020 numbers as an important but not definitive indicator of restored access.