Senate questions USDA trade nominee Ibach on Food for Peace funding

By Grace Kim

$17 billion of a $30 billion China agreement is earmarked for agriculture, according to Gregory Ibach, the nominee for USDA’s Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agriculture Affairs. At a Nov. 10 Senate hearing, Ibach cited that commitment but gave no yes-or-no answer on whether the White House should keep Food for Peace funded.

What does Ibach’s answer mean for Food for Peace?

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) asked Ibach for a yes-or-no answer on funding the program, one the White House has proposed eliminating. Ibach said, “It would be my obligation to follow the law.” Warnock answered, “So that’s a yes,” and Ibach repeated, “I will follow the law.”

Warnock then said the administration was making “an immoral choice.” Ibach had earlier called the program “obviously new to USDA.” His response committed him to legal compliance without committing the department to preserving the program.

No cost, recipient, commodity or delivery figures accompanied the exchange. For growers, the unresolved issue is how Food for Peace and trade policy will interact, with no input-cost, basis or margin estimates offered. Ibach promised legal compliance, not a funding commitment.

What do China and tariffs mean for farm margins?

Ibach said the United States should “press on China to try to relist” beef plants that China had delisted. That priority, and the $17 billion agricultural share of the $30 billion agreement, put export access at the center of his trade message.

The hearing produced no acreage, yield, input-cost, basis or margin estimates to test those priorities against farm finances. It also omitted the agreement’s implementation timetable and commodity breakdown.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the ranking member, called the administration’s tariffs “very, very bad for farmers.” She asked Ibach to “restore some sanity and stability” to trade policy. Ibach answered on China and beef access, not on the cost or margin effects of tariffs.

Klobuchar’s warning and Ibach’s market-access proposal leave two questions for growers: what uncertainty tariffs add to input costs and basis, and whether restored beef access would improve margins. The hearing answered neither with a number.

Can the four nominations advance this year?

The Nov. 10 hearing, titled “Hearings to Examine Pending Nominations,” placed Ibach alongside three nominees to the Farm Credit Administration board: Carl Bednarski, John Grunewald II and James Russell Middleton. All four remain before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.

Committee chairman Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) said bipartisan five-year farm bill talks continue. He also committed to advancing the bill before year-end.

His confirmation still depends on the Senate. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE), who introduced him, said the committee supported him unanimously in 2017.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture urged the Senate to “move quickly to confirm Greg Ibach.” The National Pork Producers Council said it joined other groups urging the committee to advance the nomination.

Boozman congratulated Klobuchar on her election as Minnesota’s governor and hoped to pass the farm bill before she assumes office. The farm bill remained under negotiation rather than enacted. The Nov. 10 hearing ended with all four nominations still pending.

What must the Senate resolve?

Boozman said, “Food security truly is national security.” He also asked Ibach to work on rice imports, which Boozman said exceed 30% of U.S. consumption. The hearing gave no import tonnage, crop year or country breakdown for that share, leaving its effect on domestic rice prices unmeasured.

If confirmed, Ibach would carry two market-access assignments: seeking China’s relisting of delisted beef plants and addressing rice imports above Boozman’s 30% threshold. Neither assignment came with a cost estimate for growers.

The funding question remains sharper. Warnock wanted a commitment to Food for Peace; Ibach gave a legal answer but no direct commitment.

Until the Senate votes, the record on Ibach remains his promise to follow the law and his support for farm-related elements of the China agreement. The year-end farm bill push and Ibach’s confirmation now sit on the same legislative calendar, though neither has a final outcome. The Senate still must vote, and Ibach’s Food for Peace position remains unresolved.