Buckhannon West Virginia, December 10th, 2025.
A series of widely circulated claims concerning soybean prices, tariff policies, foreign assistance, and present day federal agricultural payments has brought forward the need for a careful, orderly, and thoroughly documented review of first hand materials issued between 2017 and the present year. These claims appear in many forms, yet they share a common structure: that soybean farmers in the United States would have remained profitable had tariffs not been imposed; that China responded to the tariff dispute by turning to Argentina for its soybean needs because the United States allegedly provided Argentina with forty billion dollars; and that the present day support extended to United States farmers represents money drawn from tariffs collected from citizens who now, in some way, bear the consequences of that earlier policy. Because these claims concern matters that are preserved in official agricultural records, trade statements, and international financial reports, we returned directly to those documents. Everything that follows is drawn strictly from the first hand record and is presented in a single continuous narrative, in the manner of early twentieth century reporting, without speculation or inference.
The record begins in 2017, which stands as the final full year before the tariff conflict between the United States and China commenced. According to the figures issued during that time by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, soybean exports to China formed the largest agricultural export relationship maintained by the United States. China purchased several billions of dollars in United States soybeans annually, and the crop served as a foundation of revenue across the Midwest and many other regions. Farm income reports reflected stability, and there were no barriers placed upon the agricultural trade between the two nations. The conditions present in 2017 therefore provide the baseline against which every subsequent shift must be measured, for the market was open, predictable, and carried no evidence of disruption.
The year 2018 introduced a significant change. The United States placed tariffs upon a range of Chinese imports, and China issued a retaliatory tariff upon United States agricultural commodities. According to the official statements released at that time by THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, China set a tariff of twenty five percent upon United States soybeans, and this retaliatory action altered the structure of the soybean market at once. Shipment and valuation tables issued in the same year by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE show that the value of soybean exports from the United States to China fell from numbers near twelve billion dollars in 2017 to numbers near three billion dollars in 2018. The decline did not constitute the collapse of soybean farming, nor did it eliminate export opportunities to other nations, yet it represented a significant contraction of a market that had previously depended upon uninterrupted access to China.
The decline in shipments had direct implications for farm income. According to the statements released by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE throughout 2018, farm income had weakened, and the sector experienced uncertainty brought about by the new tariff environment. In response, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE established what it termed the Market Facilitation Program, which was intended to assist agricultural producers who had been adversely affected by the retaliatory tariffs placed upon United States goods. The documentation released at that time states that the program issued payments totaling approximately twenty eight billion dollars across two years. These disbursements were made under the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation and did not draw directly from tariff revenues. The record preserves this distinction clearly, and no first hand document issued by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE or THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET describes the payments as a transfer of tariff funds.
The retaliatory tariff placed upon United States soybeans by China brought about an expected development in the international market. China increased its purchases of soybeans from South American producers, particularly Brazil and Argentina. This shift is confirmed in the agricultural trade reports issued by THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, which recorded an increase in Chinese import volumes from these countries during 2018 and 2019. The movement of Chinese purchasing preferences has been interpreted within many popular claims as being connected to a financial transfer from the United States to Argentina. The record, however, reveals something different.
During 2018, THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND approved a loan to Argentina, which totaled approximately fifty seven billion dollars in authorized commitments, of which numbers near forty billion dollars were actually disbursed. This loan did not come from the United States government, nor was it a payment from the United States to Argentina, nor was it connected to soybeans, nor was it designed to facilitate agricultural exports to China. The disbursement was part of a wide ranging effort to stabilize Argentina during a period of financial strain. Statements issued by THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND present the purpose of the loan in clear terms, and none of those statements reference soybeans, United States tariff policy, or China. The United States is a contributing member to THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, but membership does not convert a multilateral loan into a bilateral payment. The suggestion that the United States funded Argentine soybean shipments therefore finds no support within any first hand document issued by the relevant authorities.
The year 2019 brought forward an attempt at trade stabilization. The United States and China entered into negotiations that resulted in the Phase One Agreement. According to the official summary released by THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, China agreed to increase its purchases of agricultural goods from the United States, including soybeans, and to address certain matters concerning intellectual property and additional areas of economic interaction. Shipment data published by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE during the years that followed show an increase in soybean exports to China beginning in late 2019 and continuing into 2020 and 2021. The volumes did not consistently return to the numbers recorded during 2017, for competition from Brazil remained strong, yet the record clearly reflects that the soybean trade partially recovered.
Throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022, the first hand reports issued by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE continued to reflect a soybean market influenced by weather, global crop yields, currency movements, and the competitive position of South American producers. None of the first hand reports from these years mention a renewed tariff conflict that would recreate the conditions of 2018, nor do they record any governmental payment issued in order to correct the consequences of new tariffs placed upon soybeans. Likewise, the official reports issued during these years by THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND describe the ongoing status of the Argentine financial program but offer no evidence of any relationship between that program and agricultural shipments.
In 2023, 2024, and the present year of 2025, no first hand statement issued by THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, or THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND records any new tariff arrangement that mirrors the circumstances of the earlier period. The official agricultural forecasts published during these years by THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE describe global competition, weather influenced yields, and domestic planting decisions, yet they do not present the appearance of a renewed tariff related collapse, nor do they identify any governmental payment that is tied to a tariff imposed in the present period. Furthermore, none of these documents record any instance in which the United States provided Argentina with forty billion dollars for the purpose of influencing Chinese agricultural imports.
The record therefore reveals a clear and continuous chronology. In 2017, the soybean trade between the United States and China remained strong. In 2018, tariffs imposed by both nations disrupted that trade, and shipments from the United States to China declined, which brought about weaker prices and produced the need for assistance within the agricultural sector. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE responded with the Market Facilitation Program, which issued payments drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation. China increased its purchases of soybeans from South America, a development that arose from market necessity rather than foreign assistance issued by the United States. THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND provided a loan to Argentina for reasons unrelated to soybeans. The trade relationship partially recovered under the Phase One Agreement. No record between 2020 and 2025 indicates the appearance of new tariffs that replicate the earlier conditions, and no record identifies a connection between international financial support and soybean markets.
The claims presently circulating therefore cannot be reconciled with the first hand documents that preserve the facts of the period. The official statements issued by the institutions responsible for trade, agriculture, and financial stability reveal a sequence of cause and effect that differs from the popular narrative, and the documented events supply no evidence for the idea that the United States funded foreign soybean shipments, nor for the idea that present day farm payments constitute the redistribution of tariff revenues in response to contemporary policy.
The Appalachian Post is an independent West Virginia news outlet dedicated to clean, verified, first-hand reporting. We do not publish rumors. We do not run speculation. Every fact we present must be supported by original documentation, official statements, or direct evidence. When secondary sources are used, we clearly identify them and never treat them as first-hand confirmation. We avoid loaded language, emotional framing, or accusatory wording, and we do not attack individuals, organizations, or other news outlets. Our role is to report only what can be verified through first-hand sources and allow readers to form their own interpretations. If we cannot confirm a claim using original evidence, we state clearly that we reviewed first-hand sources and could not find documentation confirming it. Our commitment is simple: honest reporting, transparent sourcing, and zero speculation.
Primary First Hand Sources
• THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, export valuation tables, farm income reports, Market Facilitation Program documentation, annual agricultural forecasts, soybean shipment summaries, and official trade data releases from 2017 through 2025.
• THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, public statements and official notices concerning tariff actions, retaliatory measures, and the Phase One Agreement between 2018 and 2020.
• THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, Argentine financial program documents, disbursement releases, and loan summaries beginning in 2018.
• THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, fiscal participation reports detailing United States involvement in multilateral financial institutions.
• THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Commodity Credit Corporation obligation records and federal expenditure summaries related to agricultural support payments during 2018 through 2020.
• THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, global agricultural trade data, soybean export tables, and China import volume records spanning 2017 through 2025.
Secondary Attribution Based Sources
The following secondary sources were reviewed only to verify consistency with the already established first hand record. These outlets did not establish facts for this report, and no claim in the article is based upon their information.
• The Wall Street Journal, historical reporting on United States and China agricultural trade from 2018 through 2020.
• Reuters, coverage of soybean pricing, South American production cycles, global export shifts, and tariff related market movement.
• Bloomberg, financial reporting on global commodity pressures, China’s agricultural import changes, and South American supply competition.
• The Associated Press, general summaries of the tariff dispute and agricultural sector reactions.
• Politico, reporting on the Market Facilitation Program and Congressional discussion of agricultural relief mechanisms.
• CNBC, financial analysis of soybean price volatility, currency movement effects, and world market conditions.
• BBC News, international reporting on Argentina’s financial instability and reference coverage of THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND loan program.
• The New York Times, contextual agriculture and trade reporting during the tariff conflict period.
• Financial Times, global trade coverage focusing on China’s soybean sourcing from Brazil and Argentina.
• The Guardian, international economic summaries referencing South American export environments.
• AgWeb, agricultural sector reporting on farm sentiment regarding the Market Facilitation Program.
• Successful Farming, coverage of soybean market adjustments and public reactions from the farming community.
• Farm Journal, reports on farm income pressure and soybean sector responses during the tariff dispute.
• MarketWatch, commodity tracking and historical soybean pricing summaries used for public comparison.
• Kiplinger and similar economic advisory publications providing general summaries of tariff effects without supplying first hand data.
Appalachian Post 
Leave a comment