In the rural heartlands that once buoyed Donald Trump’s ascent to the presidency, economic storms are brewing—storms that his administration has largely summoned. The outcome of Wisconsin’s pivotal Supreme Court race this Tuesday stands to illuminate just how severe the fallout has become for the president and the GOP.
In this contest, conservative candidate Brad Schimel desperately needs to rekindle the same fervent support from rural constituents that Trump enjoyed in 2024. However, the very policies that once galvanized these voters, such as retaliatory tariffs on agricultural exports and the freeze on funding from the Agriculture Department, are now jeopardizing their financial stability.
The GOP is pulling out all the stops in Wisconsin’s rural communities, employing a robust ground game aided by tech mogul Elon Musk’s financial backing. “If [Schimel] doesn’t garner the kind of support that President Trump had in rural Wisconsin, it’s game over,” cautioned Brian Reisinger, a former GOP strategist with expertise in rural policy. “The rural vote’s strength—and whether it will back the conservative candidate in this Supreme Court race as it did in 2024—will be the most critical factor.”
Reisinger further noted that this election serves as a significant indicator for the upcoming midterms.
Recognizing the stakes, the White House is closely monitoring this crucial swing state election, which could tilt the balance of the court. Trump made a personal appearance at a tele-town hall last Thursday to rally support for Schimel, and Musk is set to headline a rally for him this Sunday.
“What we’re witnessing resembles the last election cycle with Trump at the forefront,” remarked Republican strategist Craig Peterson. “Trump is effectively on the ballot here, alongside Elon Musk.”
The agricultural sector in Wisconsin—an essential pillar of the rural economy—is bearing the brunt of the turmoil emanating from Washington. Farmers find themselves ensnared in a web of retaliatory tariffs from Canada, which targets $5.8 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products such as wine, fruit, dairy, meat, and rice. This is compounded by Canada’s role as a primary source of fertilizer imports for the U.S.
“The most prevalent sentiment I hear is one of genuine uncertainty,” expressed Darin Von Rude, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, which endorsed Schimel over his Democratic opponent, Susan Crawford. “The unpredictability of what tomorrow holds, or what directives may come from the White House or the USDA, is daunting.”
According to a recent Marquette Law School poll conducted in late February, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin’s rural regions believe tariffs are detrimental to the economy.
While Trump’s favorability rating remains a net positive by 9 percentage points in these areas, Musk’s appeal is decidedly lackluster; in certain northern and western districts of Wisconsin, his favorability plummets to 17 percentage points below water, as noted by poll director Charles Franklin.
The implications of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race extend far beyond abstract legal principles for farmers. The election could significantly affect their access to clean water, as one case pending before the state Supreme Court may restrict the Department of Natural Resources’ power to enforce its spills law—an outcome that some farmers fear could lead to increased water contamination.
Moreover, the ramifications of Trump’s administration stretch beyond Wisconsin, with Republicans nationwide grappling with mounting discontent from farmers concerned about price surges linked to tariffs and funding freezes that have left many waiting for substantial reimbursements.
Some Republican leaders acknowledge the political peril in their current strategy. West Virginia Senator Jim Justice expressed confidence that “our farmers are rock solid” with Trump but admitted that there is “certainly political risk” associated with the president’s policies.
“If they’re investing everything they have and we turn our backs on them, that strategy is doomed to fail,” Justice warned. Yet, many lawmakers continue to rally around Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, even at the expense of their constituents’ well-being. Some Republicans view Musk as a source of enthusiasm among voters who admire his innovations, believing that his government downsizing efforts, while painful, are a necessary step.
During a recent town hall, Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from a predominantly rural Maryland district, responded to a farmer’s concerns about a frozen grant—more than $36,000 owed for solar power installations—by rebuking “liberal politicians and pundits” for perpetuating “false narratives.” He reiterated his support for the Department of Government Efficiency’s initiatives in a follow-up email to her.
Meanwhile, the farmer, Laura Beth Resnick, has joined a recent lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the withholding of funds is illegal. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has recently indicated that three rural energy programs from the Inflation Reduction Act will be unfrozen, but with a caveat: recipients must revise their project plans to align with the Trump administration’s elimination of DEI and climate mandates.
When Resnick followed up with Harris for updates on her funding, he reiterated his backing for the Department of Government Efficiency’s agenda, emphasizing that “DOGE will need assistance from Congress to slash our deficit, achieve energy independence, secure our borders, and restore our path to prosperity.”
In Pennsylvania, another farmer troubled by the funding freeze reached out to Senator Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), who, under the condition of anonymity, assured the farmer that DOGE’s initiatives are a “crucial first step towards reducing unnecessary government spending,” as revealed in an email obtained by POLITICO.
A spokesperson for McCormick asserted that the senator is a “huge advocate for Pennsylvania’s agriculture community, given that ag is the state’s number one industry.”
Despite the challenges, Republicans in Wisconsin remain optimistic about the Supreme Court race. Peter Church, the GOP chair in Adams County, a rural region in northern Wisconsin, claimed, “The Schimel campaign is in a solid position.”
“I’m not hearing discussions about abortion at all, nor am I sensing concern over tariff issues,” Church stated in an interview. “These individuals predominantly identify as red voters. Although the Supreme Court race is nonpartisan, they perceive Brad Schimel as aligning with their values.”
Shia Kapos contributed to this report.
