



Ed Dubrick
small pasture poultry farmer
Cissna Park Illinois
One of President Donald Trump’s first-term achievements was a major tax cut, which he signed into law in 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act largely benefited the wealthiest families in the U.S.
But farm households also saw their tax rates decrease.
That means many farms will see their tax liability increase when the tax cuts expire at the end of the year, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture research.
Congress could extend the tax cuts through legislation, and Trump has said he wants more changes to the tax code.
If the tax cuts do expire, which is scheduled for midnight on Dec. 31, 2025, farm households of varying sizes would be affected in different ways.
For instance, fewer farm households would receive the Child Tax Credit. The 2017 law temporarily increased this credit and raised the income threshold for eligibility. Under the current law, about 36% of all farm households are eligible for the tax credit. When the law sunsets, about 27% of farm households will be, according to USDA research.
The tax credit amount will also decrease. Currently, farm households have an average credit of about $3,800. Unless Congress acts, it could be about $1,300.
Another 2017 tax cut that farmers were eligible for was the qualified business income deduction.
It is for businesses that are not organized as C-corporations, which allows owners and shareholders to separate their tax liability from that of the corporation (such as publicly traded corporations). The new deduction was intended to “provide parity with C-corporations” for farms and other businesses, according to the USDA.
Almost half of farm households receive the deduction. If the deduction is eliminated, the farms’ average tax bill would increase by 9%, or about $2,500.
Another part of the tax cut that could sunset is the provision related to the estate tax, which applies to the transfer of property after a relative dies. The tax only affects the wealthiest families in the U.S. and has become a persistent target of Republicans, who have labeled it the “death tax.”
Though implemented in 1916, the estate tax has “never directly affected a large percentage of farmers,” USDA researchers wrote.
USDA researchers estimate that, currently, just 0.3% of all farm households would be eligible to pay the estate tax. If this part of the 2017 tax cut expires, though, 1% of all farm households would be eligible.
This mostly affects the largest U.S. farms, which generate more than $1 million in annual gross income.
This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Presidential inaugurations have always been an opportunity for wealthy special interests to curry favor with the incoming administration with generous inaugural donations. But the nation has never seen influence peddling like we just witnessed at Trump’s second inauguration.
Shattering all records, the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee, Inc. raised and spent over $200 million in special interest money celebrating the 2024 election victory. (The all-time previous record was $107 million for Trump’s first inauguration in 2017. By contrast, Biden’s 2021 inauguration raised and spent nearly $62 million.)
Nearly all this financing comes from companies and wealthy business leaders who have business pending before the incoming administration. Rarely are small donations received from citizens simply excited about a new president.
The public won’t get a full picture of Trump’s inaugural donors until the spring, when the one-and-only disclosure report is filed 90 days after the inauguration. But the ones we know about so far are painting an ugly picture of corporations, government contractors, billionaires, and millionaires seeking to endear themselves to Trump and his administration.
All the self-reporting donors — including Big Tech firms like Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and OpenAI — pledged $1 million or more. The cryptocurrency firm Ripple pledged $5 million. In fact, the cryptocurrency industry even hosted its own inaugural ball.
And of course, Wall Street is cozying up with major donations from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and billionaire hedge fund manager Ken Griffin.
“EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MY FRIEND!!!” Trump marvels on his Truth Social account.
Some of these new friends previously expressed opposition toward Trump, who has a history of seeking revenge against his adversaries and even said he might seek retribution in his second administration. “When this election is over … I would have every right to go after them,” Trump said of his political opponents over the summer.
In addition to being former Trump critics, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and Sam Altman of OpenAI have their sights on major government contracts from the new administration. Each has now donated $1 million to Trump’s Inauguration. Zuckerberg and Bezos even partied with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and at the inauguration in DC.
What else does all this money buy? Access. Access itself does not necessarily mean success at buying official favors. But the sheer volume of today’s inaugural donations suggests that wealthy special interests believe it is worth the investment.
Presidential inaugurations have not always been such a soiree for the wealthy. Nixon in 1973 spent less than $4 million on his inauguration. Carter in 1977 spent $3.5 million. Thomas Jefferson in 1801 simply walked to the Capitol to be sworn in and then walked home.
The very ripeness for scandal this time around calls for reasonable restrictions on the sources and amounts of inaugural donations. Corporations, and certainly government contractors, should be banned from donating.
Contributions should be limited to avoid even the appearance of buying favors. The disclosure requirement should be vastly expanded to include disclosing expenditures as well as donations. And rules should be established on how surplus funds are dispensed.
Presidential inaugurations should be celebrations for the nation as a whole, not influence-peddling opportunities for the very wealthy.