Why a diesel export embargo won’t help struggling farmers

President Donald Trump endorsed the idea Sept. 22, telling a reporter that America should “not send out the diesel.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright pushed back the next day: “The blunt tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn’t work.” Republicans are divided, while Democrats anticipate the political rewards of rising fuel costs.This dispute reflects a principle James Madison described in Federalist No. 10: A large republic encompasses competing regional interests that can check one another. Today, partisan polarization often obscures those differences. Diesel has brought them into view. Support for an embargo is concentrated in agricultural states, where soaring fuel prices are especially painful. The war with Iran began shortly before spring planting, and American farmers spent $1.4 billion more on diesel than during the previous year’s planting season, a 63% increase. By late September, diesel averaged $6.52 per gallon nationally, up 76% in a year, according to AAA. For farms operating on thin margins, those increases can erase a season’s earnings.Iowa farmers faced a 72% diesel price increase during spring planting. Prices have climbed further as harvest gets underway. Unsurprisingly, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) urged an embargo, declaring Sept. 19: “High diesel prices ARE KILLING FARMERS INCOME.” Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), the Republican nominee for Iowa’s other Senate seat, and Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) and Zach Nunn (R-IA) also support the idea.Their constituents need relief. But politicians should remember that “doing something” does not guarantee doing good. Ronald Reagan’s warning remains apt: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Good intentions cannot substitute for sound economics.Trump has delivered some meaningful help. In July, the Federal Trade Commission reached a right-to-repair settlement with John Deere, giving farmers and independent repair shops access to diagnostic and reprogramming tools used by manufacturer technicians. Deere also pressed the administration to clarify federal emissions rules that had created legal concerns about providing repair tools more broadly.On Oct. 6, President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily allowing red-dyed diesel on highways and deferring the federal diesel excise tax through year’s end. That could benefit truckers and other highway diesel users. Farmers, however, already use tax-exempt dyed diesel for qualifying off-road work, so their direct benefit will be more limited. Broader savings will depend on how the changes affect fuel supplies and prices.The administration’s agricultural record is more complicated on trade. Trump’s tariffs disrupted established relationships and invited retaliation. China imposed tariffs on American agricultural products, making them less competitive in a major export market.China has since resumed substantial soybean purchases and committed to buying additional American agricultural goods. Yet uncertainty persists: U.S. officials were still pressing Beijing last month to fulfill earlier purchasing commitments.Meanwhile, Trump’s August announcement of additional foreign beef imports rattled cattle producers already struggling with drought and a national herd at its smallest level in 75 years. Ranchers trying to rebuild their herds hardly welcomed another shock from Washington.These pressures help explain why calls for a diesel embargo extend beyond Iowa. Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers supports keeping American diesel at home. Farmers in his state spent 73% more on diesel during spring planting than a year earlier. Traveling through Michigan in late September, I saw diesel selling for $7 a gallon.Opposition is strongest among oil-state Republicans. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) warned of “massive harm to the refining industry,” while Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called an embargo a “gimmick.” Their regional interests differ from those of farm-state lawmakers, but their objections deserve consideration on the merits.So who is right? In this case, Wright offers the more persuasive answer.Refineries produce diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel together. Blocking diesel exports could leave refiners with more diesel than domestic buyers and storage facilities can absorb. Once storage fills, refiners would have to cut production, reducing supplies of other fuels as well.As Wright explained, restricting diesel exports could force reductions in U.S. refining and put upward pressure on gasoline and jet fuel prices. His department is instead working with refiners to increase diesel supplies through voluntary cooperation.Farmers depend on more than the fuel in their tractors. They need trucks to deliver fertilizer and equipment and carry crops to market. A policy that disrupts refining and raises transportation costs could undermine whatever temporary diesel savings an embargo produces.STOP TELLING AMERICANS THE ECONOMY IS BOOMING — LIVING HERE HAS BECOME A LUXURYMadison understood that competing regional interests would shape national policy. But electoral pressure should not push lawmakers toward a restriction that could hurt the very constituents they hope to protect.Trump’s new diesel order offers a constructive starting point. He should build on it by reducing unnecessary costs and encouraging greater fuel supplies, while heeding Wright’s warning against an export embargo. Farmers need affordable diesel to plant and harvest. They deserve lasting relief, not a politically appealing restriction that could worsen their problems.Bob Beauprez is a former dairy farmer and member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was the Republican candidate for governor of Colorado in 2006 and 2014. Today, he operates a bison breeding ranch in Jackson County with his wife, son, and daughter-in-law.