In the early days of 2026, the Trump administration’s aggressive foreign policy agenda has reignited debates about U.S. interventionism. With regime change already underway in Venezuela and threats looming over Cuba, Colombia, Iran, and even ambitions for Greenland, policymakers seem eager to reshape the global map. But history screams caution. Past U.S.-led regime changes have often spiraled into economic quagmires, breeding instability that ripples back to American shores. For farmers already battered by a failing domestic economy, these adventures could deliver yet another blow through volatile commodity prices, disrupted trade, and diverted resources. Instead of chasing illusions abroad, Washington should turn its gaze inward to tackle the real threats eroding U.S. agriculture from within.
A Legacy of Failure: Lessons from Decades of Intervention
The United States has a long track record of regime change operations, and the scorecard is grim. From the Cold War era to the post-9/11 interventions, these efforts have frequently backfired, imposing staggering economic costs without delivering promised stability or prosperity. Scholars estimate that over 60 percent of covert regime change attempts fail to achieve their goals, often igniting civil wars or fostering anti-American extremism. Take Iraq: The 2003 invasion toppled Saddam Hussein but plunged the country into chaos, leading to massive unemployment, poverty, and over four million refugees. Economically, sanctions and conflict cost Iraq more than $120 billion in lost oil revenues, while global oil price spikes hammered U.S. consumers and industries, including agriculture reliant on affordable fuel and fertilizers.
Libya offers another stark warning. The 2011 U.S.-backed overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi fragmented the nation, turning it into a haven for militias and terrorists rather than a stable democracy. Oil production plummeted, contributing to global supply disruptions that drove up energy costs worldwide. Afghanistan’s two-decade saga, ending in a humiliating withdrawal, drained trillions from U.S. coffers with little to show beyond a resurgent Taliban and persistent instability. These interventions did not just fail abroad; they burdened the U.S. economy with inflated military spending, higher debt, and opportunity costs that could have funded domestic priorities like farm aid.
Even when “successful,” regime changes breed unintended consequences. In Syria, U.S. support for rebels against Bashar al-Assad prolonged a civil war that displaced millions and disrupted global food supplies, exacerbating price volatility for commodities like wheat. Now, a former al-Qaeda leader is in charge of the country. Globally, one-third of forced regime changes lead to civil wars within a decade, sowing seeds of long-term economic disruption. These historical blunders highlight a pattern: Interventions promise quick wins but deliver prolonged pain, with economic fallout that hits vulnerable sectors like agriculture hardest.
Ripples to the Farm: How Geopolitical Gambles Threaten U.S. Agriculture
Today’s regime change push risks amplifying these historical pitfalls for American farmers. Venezuela’s intervention could temporarily boost oil supplies, but short-term disruptions from military action might spike fuel and fertilizer prices, as seen in past Middle East conflicts where oil jumped 15-20 percent. Iran’s threats could choke the Strait of Hormuz, pushing nitrogen fertilizer costs up by 7-10 percent and squeezing margins on crops like corn and soy. Threats to Colombia and Cuba might invite retaliatory tariffs, echoing the 2018 trade wars that cost U.S. agriculture $27 billion in export losses. Even the quixotic Greenland bid could strain ties with Denmark and the EU, jeopardizing markets for U.S. nuts and fruits.
Geopolitical tensions already add layers of uncertainty. Trade disruptions from conflicts delay deliveries and inflate freight costs, making U.S. exports less competitive. Labor flows could swing wildly too; instability might spur short-term migration from Latin America, but stabilization or deportation policies could worsen shortages, where immigrants make up 73 percent of farm workers. Overall, these moves foster global fragmentation, with tariffs and sanctions reshaping supply chains in ways that benefit competitors like Brazil while U.S. farmers bear the brunt. History shows that such volatility from interventions erodes farm profitability, as policy uncertainty and rising expenses compound existing pressures.
The Real Battlefield: America’s Failing Ag Economy Demands Attention
While Washington fixates on foreign regimes, U.S. agriculture teeters on the edge of collapse. Major crops are projected to lose over $34 billion in 2025 alone, atop $55 billion from prior years, with farm income potentially plummeting to $139 billion in 2026. A staggering 91 percent of ag economists declare the sector in recession, citing bleak outlooks amid low commodity prices and soaring inputs. Labor costs have surged 47 percent since 2020, driven by H-2A program burdens, while weather disasters wreak havoc through droughts, floods, and soil degradation. Water scarcity threatens irrigation-dependent regions, and global competition intensifies as demand strengthens, but U.S. growers face hard choices on planting.
These homegrown crises dwarf any illusory gains from regime change. Farmers in states like Arkansas anticipate per-acre losses from $85 on soybeans to $352 on cotton. Economic paradoxes abound: Wage earners grapple with inflation and job insecurity, stifling consumer spending that supports ag demand. Yet, instead of bolstering subsidies, infrastructure, or debt relief, resources flow to foreign entanglements that history proves futile.
Time to Focus Homeward: Prioritizing American Farms Over Foreign Fiascos
The regime change agenda is a distraction America cannot afford. Historical failures in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and beyond demonstrate that such interventions breed chaos, inflate costs, and yield no lasting benefits. For farmers, the stakes are existential: More volatility could tip the scales toward widespread bankruptcies in an already stressed sector. The government must pivot to domestic renewal, investing in sustainable practices, fair trade deals that protect U.S. interests, and programs to stabilize prices and labor. By focusing on the problems here at home, Washington can cultivate a resilient ag economy rather than sowing seeds of global discord. American farmers deserve better than to pay the price for yet another failed crusade.